Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Laziness on both sides
Posted on: 2015/9/17 14:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
|
Certainly they could have done the work, since they were amending it anyway - it probably wouldn't be more than a few hours of work with a car - but it certainly doesn't merit the overreaction "THEY'RE TAKING EVERYONE'S PROPERTIES AND GIVING IT AWAY TO DEVELOPERS!!!". It's quite an assumption to make the jump between laziness/ineptitude (a normal government trait) to maliciousness.
Posted on: 2015/9/17 14:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What was hilarious to me was the ineptitude of the City in revising the list. It was supposed to be the results of months of hard work to update.... All someone needed to do was drive around and look which properties were renovated and remove them from the list. Heck, they didn't even need to drive! A short tour via Google Street View, from the comfort of their desks at 30 Montgomery St., would have worked. It sure makes me laugh.
Posted on: 2015/9/17 11:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
This thread was actually a pretty hilarious read. Everyone has their biases and is on the attack - Yvonne with her anti-mayor bias automatically assuming the worst and declaring the city is about to take away everyone's property and gift it over to developers, and everyone else attacking Yvonne.
Sully definitely made the best point - all this hoopla has just proven that apparently putting properties on this list has worked somewhat, as at least some of the properties from the 1999 list are now occupied.
Posted on: 2015/9/17 2:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
 |
Quote:
Honestly, you write so much shit and have absolutely no idea what you are actually saying or talking about. Here?s a direct quote: This Redevelopment Plan originally adopted in August of 1999 is a result from the designation of the Vacant Buildings Study Area as a area in need of redevelopment. All properties in this plan are listed to be acquired. The objective of this plan is reduce the amount of vacant buildings citywide. Not a single one of them was transferred over. Not. A. Single. One. Your claims are lies. Quote:
Which developer has received properties without a bid? Name them or admit to lying. PS: I?m really interested to see what you had to say about 126 Summit Ave?s Abatement request. My thoughts are you fought against it like the complete moron you are. Quote:
Thank you. I have no idea why Yvonne was so evasive about the source of her misinformation.
Posted on: 2015/9/16 15:46
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You were not at the council meeting when the city officials said they would take private property and allow developers to buy these properties. Would you want your property handed over to a private developer? The city officials said these 350 properties have been neglected. The council meeting in now on Channel 1, why don't you watch it? Also, why are true vacant properties given to certain developers and not turn over to the public who might want to develop them? The city in the past allowed the public to bid on properties and not do a sweetheart to certain friends.
Posted on: 2015/9/16 12:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Now that the hysteria has died down, the one takeaway I see is that the original plan appears to have worked as intended.
Yvonne herself said that the buildings on the 1999 vacant list that she checked out are now among the nicest looking properties on their respective blocks.
Posted on: 2015/9/16 4:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That list attached to the Ordinance is the NEW list: From the Ordinance (15.114, apologies for my typo - 15.144)" "On May 13, 2015, the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City passed a resolution authorizing the planning board to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine if a second round of vacant buildings called the New Vacant Buildings Study Area qualifies as an area in need of redevelopment. The study is complete and recommended to the council for designation by resolution. That designation then requires this ordinance to place the new..." Added emphasis. What are they doing with our tax dollars....?
Posted on: 2015/9/16 2:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
Yes, Pebble, I think the point is that the JC Redevelopment Agency's list is 'old as dirst' and 'bad information'... Yvonne was clearly right to run with the story - though she does seem to have inflated the impact of the ordinance on any owners as the properties have been on the list for a decade... But on the other hand JC redevelopment agency has had 8 years available to amend the list and remove these properties since it was last reviewed in 2007 - what have they been up to? The ordinance itself seems to be a complete shambles as well - that no-one else has picked up on it makes me question my own reading comprehension, but look at the first page of the ordinance - page 26 of this pdf: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityofjerseycity.com%2FuploadedFiles%2FPublic_Notices%2FAgenda%2FCity_Council_Agenda%2F2015%2F2015_Ordinance_2nd_Reading%2FAgenda%20Document(16).pdf. To download pdf go here: http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/citycouncilagenda/ and look for date "Sep 8" and click the link "2nd reading (pubic hearing)" to the right thereof. "WHEREAS, a copy of the amendments to the Vacant Buildings Redevelopment Plan is attached hereto and made a part hereof [...] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Municipal Council off the City of Jersey City that the attached Garfield Avenue Redevelopment Plan be, and hereby is, adopted as recommended by the Jersey City Planning Board". In other words, when passing Ordinance 15.114 it seems as if the council has approved the "Garfield Avenue Redevelopment Plan", not the amended "Vacant Buildings Redevelopment Plan". Does anyone read the ordinances before voting - or is my reading comprehension so off?
Posted on: 2015/9/16 2:01
Edited by JC_User on 2015/9/16 2:24:41
Reason: Fixed Link |
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I wouldn't bother calling The City about this, or anything for that matter. You're not going to get the truth. That list was attached to City legislation (Ordinance 15.144), introduced at the August 19th Council meeting and was referred to as the ?New Vacant Buildings Study Area Properties.? Obviously the City didn't think it so worthless or out of date. http://www.jerseycitynj.gov/uploadedF ... Reading/Agenda%20Document(16).pdf
Posted on: 2015/9/16 1:39
Edited by Bamb00zle on 2015/9/16 1:58:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes, they did. This is one of the properties they added. That picture was taken this afternoon. 
Posted on: 2015/9/16 0:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
And they did not add in vacant properties. You are at the meeting, didn't you hear Jeff Wenger? He stated everyone of those properties are vacant. I suggest you go throughout the city and find those buildings with the red marks on the buildings and see if those buildings on this list. You will find they are not. This measure allow the Redevelopment agency to appoint developers to buy these properties. Why should someone buy your home when you already own your home?
Posted on: 2015/9/16 0:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The measure the council approved amended a redevelopment zone. It did not transfer any properties to the JCRA.
Posted on: 2015/9/16 0:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
If they were already in the Redevelopment Agency, they why was it necessary to transfer them again to the JCRA? I don't believe what the city is saying because I saw many empty buildings that were a wreck and not on the list of vacant buildings. It was only buildings that were in good shape. Today and yesterday I took pictures of buildings with the red mark from the fire department denoting empty buildings and those buildings were not on the list. I don't believe the city because no one received a letter from the city. Everyone that I spoke to said they are paying their taxes and water bills. Some said they took out permits. Is the city too lazy to check things?
Posted on: 2015/9/16 0:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
But I'm saying those properties were already in a redevelopment zone. It was passed in 1999. What's different today than two weeks ago? Being in a redevelopment zone doesn't give someone else the right to your property.
Posted on: 2015/9/16 0:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Of course they are in a bind, this ordinance was passed by the city council. Before the passage those properties could have been pulled out. If any of those property owners decided to get a loan, the loan officer will do a search on the property and discover their property is in the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency and no bank will give a loan if someone else has rights to your property. If you remember, a while back, JC tried to pass an ordinance saying you need a zoning certificate saying among other things your taxes must be paid in full before you sell your property. This ordinance did not pass but it will come back. The city is going after small property owners. Jeff Wenger, the city planner who said these are empty properties, lives downtown, if I know these properties were not vacant, then he should know these properties are not vacant. I remember during the ordinance hearing, Esther Wintner googled some of the properties and said these properties are in good shape. I asked these owners if they received a letter from the city stating their property would be transferred to the Redevelopment Agency. They all said no.
Posted on: 2015/9/16 0:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Are they in a bind? All the non-vacant properties on that list have been on the list for more than a decade. I think all of them are in the redevelopment plan that's been on the city website: http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... 03%20-%20021407%20RDP.pdf
Posted on: 2015/9/15 22:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I guess Pebble would rather attack the messenger than listen to the city's planner explain at the council meetings these are all empty properties. I am glad the story is out, people thanked me and called up city hall to complain. Since the ordinance passed they are somewhat in a bind until this is fixed.
Posted on: 2015/9/15 21:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
What constructive criticism? How many times was she asked where the list came from to only be met with dodging? She's full of it. She created a controversy based on bad information. Had she called the city and asked them about the properties or maybe obtained a proper list or maybe found out that the list she had was old as dirt, she'd have a leg to stand on. Instead, she received a piece of paper and thought she had some ability to attack the mayor for stealing land for developers. She's impossible to take seriously.
Posted on: 2015/9/15 20:48
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
yes, she could / should have done a better job explaining the situation, but she was right. and the city has some house cleaning to do (bring it current.)
I do not always agree with Yvonne, but constructive criticism should not be met with shoot the messenger, regardless of administrations. Quote:
Posted on: 2015/9/15 20:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21 Last Login : 2019/12/26 15:30 From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
5356
|
Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
The homes of a school board member and the Jersey City public-safety director last week showed up on a list of vacant properties the city wants to redevelop, raising the eyebrows of administration critics. But the matter is largely a misunderstanding, according to city spokesman Ryan Jacobs, and the city is removing the non-vacant buildings from the list "for everyone's peace of mind," Jacobs said today. The issue arose first at last week's City Council meeting, where the council voted 7-1 to adopt an amendment to the city's Vacant Buildings Redevelopment Plan, drawn up first in 1999 as a way to reduce the number of vacant buildings blighting city neighborhoods. Including with the measure was a list of roughly 360 properties in the citywide redevelopment area, and some are very much lived in, including the Seventh Street home of Sangeeta Ranade, a school board member, and the Erie Street home rented by Public Safety Director James Shea. A Grove Street building owned by developers Eric and Paul Silverman is also on the list. Critics revolted, accusing council members supportive of the measure of attempting to hand over private property to developers. Council members argued they were not seizing any private property and that the intent of the measure was to identify long-vacant buildings and use the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency's power to get the owners to fix them up or sell them to someone who would. Ranade said someone forwarded her the measure after the council meeting, including the list of properties included in the zone. More
Posted on: 2015/9/15 20:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
That same question was asked in this thread multiple times. The Bullshit Artist known as Yvonne has refused to answer. I also like how there are notes to the plan being in place for quite a long time and yet, suddenly, it's a big deal because Fulop is mayor...
Posted on: 2015/9/15 20:30
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2015/9/15 20:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
This document is on the city's Planning Studies page:
http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... 2004%20-%202015%20RDP.pdf (last link on the page:) http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/data.aspx?id=15623 Perhaps these are properties that were vacant years ago - in 2007, when the plan was last amended?
Posted on: 2015/9/15 20:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
People who have properties on this list have asked me for this ordinance. So I have just separated the whole list of second reading ordinances and have isolated this particular ordinance. It is on my website. www.speaknj.com/ The video is there and next to the video is the word, ordinance. You will find it there. But more than anything, please watch the city's video of the council meetings. Our public officials are stating these are vacant buildings that needs to be rehabbed, the reason for transferring these properties to the Redevelopment Agency. These homes are still privately owned.
Posted on: 2015/9/15 19:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
Yvonne, where is the list of properties (the source) that you used to make the video that was posted?
Its not here - http://cityofjerseycity.com/vacantbuildings/, nor in the "blight study" included with ordinance 15-114. Thanks Quote:
Posted on: 2015/9/15 19:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I gave a copy of the ordinance to a woman who was holding her baby, later she told me she called city hall about her property being on the list. She was quite concerned. I did not create this ordinance, the city planner Jeff Wenger said these are vacant buildings. I actually him saw Channel 1 this morning and heard him speak, the city is broadcasting last week's meeting. Also, Councilpeople Lavarro, Osborne, and Yun said these were vacant buildings. Perhaps they believe that. Then city corporation council Jeremy Farrell said these are vacant buildings. I don't think I should be held accountable for the mess. I recognized many of these properties as not being vacant and decided to investigate. I suggest people should watch the council meeting before questioning my motives.
Posted on: 2015/9/15 19:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2010/5/26 20:32 Last Login : 2023/9/14 15:34 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
214
|
What are you trying to accomplish by actually making this BS up?
You are honestly a cancer and this entire thread should be deleted it is nothing but propaganda and lies.
Posted on: 2015/9/15 19:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Additional info. about properties on the vacant properties list:
http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... StudyReport_6-18-2015.pdf
Posted on: 2015/9/15 18:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vacant Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2014/8/19 16:35 Last Login : 2019/1/12 22:36 From the village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
232
|
This is actually laughable.
For example, at 2:21 the video makes the bold claim, "342 Fifth St. Person exits 'Vacant Building'" https://youtu.be/-DSBv-S9pak?t=2m21s 342 Fifth St. is not on the city's list, while 340 Fifth St., seen to it's right in the video, is. It can also be seen on google street view here: https://goo.gl/maps/cM1IL Looks pretty vacant to me.
Posted on: 2015/9/15 18:45
|
|||
|
||||