I don't believe that they Hysterical Commission--er, I mean Historical Commission can fine your friend for violations of the previous owner.

I don't know if this will help, but I've been told two things: 1. That they can fine you until you do the work according to their guidelines, and 2. You will never hear from them again if you mention a lawyer.

Both options have happened to two of my neighbors.

I know that these are difficult and complex issues for everyone, but no matter what side you're on, these examples are reasons why people are frustrated with inconsistent handling by the Historic Preservation Commission.

Aout three weeks back, I submitted a posting here about the Historical Preservation folks and I asked something that really never got a suitab;e reply, so I ask again here:

What exactly is their ability to levy sanctions?

I have a friend who bought a house in Van Vorst, and it had a file of violations as thick as can be (violations incurred by the previous owner). So, it's like the put you on "double secret probation" and that's it.

Do they actually have the authority to levy fines or other punitive sanctions?

Quote:

What makes you think that these were approved and are not violations? Call and check.

Yo Dan how do you justify:

front doors on 38 Erie
front doors and parking at 27 Erie
vinyl windows installed on a Sunday at 230 1/2 4th

and then bust someone's chops about wanting double pane or thermapane glass in their front door?

For one I denounced the earlier poster's gay bashing.

My point is I don't think this matter has been given a genuine sense of consideration. Residents have been officially and unofficially complaining about this issue for several years, and the adminstration has gone deep into denial about it.

The purpose of my reference to the architect was to prop up the accuracy and validation of the claims and concerns and not let them sit in some evaluation period as your earlier posting suggests.

What concerns me your suggest people had some ill advised suggestions to dismember the Historic Preservation Ordinance. No one was moving for that nor the termination of their positions.

Residents have a right to voice their concerns, even if they seem emotional. The economic consequences are significant to these folks and their feeling a great deal of pressure.

So what's your point?

I would suggest that you re-read carefully what was written -- it's hardly a gross mis-characterization, but a careful validation and dispassionate distillation of the many things that were said last night; some ideas and issues with great merit and others... well ....some not so well thought out -- as the gay bashing posts on this thread, which remains a purely vicious, vindictive and unnecessary personal attack.

A careful read demonstrates a clear acknowledgement there is a need to look more closely at how the law has been implemented and the alleged actions of the Historic Preservation Officer. Warren's correspondence makes this abundantly clear. Somehow, you missed my references, twice stated in paragraphs 3 and 8 relating to the need to address how the Historic Preservation ordinance can be "implemented more efficiently, more consistently, more fairly and more economically."

As to the words "arbitrary and capricious;" those were not my words; they were the words of another resident. Further, note my use of the word "some" as opposed to "all" -- there is a distinction and there is a difference.

With reference to the contribution of the "architect" you must have been at some other meeting because not only did he make a great point regarding "preservation" vs. "restoration," it was acknowledged as a great observation by me. Further, he was only person present to suggest amendments and changes to the legislation that was NOT commensurate with ill-advised dismembering of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

The HPNA will craft a responsible and civil letter that will get to the core of the matter on the issues clearly identified last night and we will press for responsible change. You might not like what we say or how we say what it, but rest assured we are neither timid nor reluctant to deal with tough issues -- and there will be tangible change; but we will not become hyperbolic about the issue either.

A final note. Is there no one else here willing to come out from behind the veil of anonomity?

Your comments ignore the basic fact that the vast majority of the peole who spoke up last evening were simple home owners. One woman a condo owner, who is the throws of a frustrating experience now. One woman stood up and mentioned that during each of her meeting with Dan, he gave her authority to paint her cornice and trim a different color.

It's your motivations that should be subject to scrutiny.

Your comments seem to ignore the consistent claim by several of the attendees at last evening's meeting that the enforecement of the Historic Preservation "guidlines" as you referred to them last night has been arbitrary and capricious. Requirements for color choices, mortar types, window styles have all varied dramatically depending on the day of the week.

What's more interesting is that you now say you are not willing to validate the accuracy of the claims made by many of the residents in town, but you at least appeared to be willing to model a letter from the context of the vast pile of letters presented.

More compelling is how a walk down Pavonia Ave. demosntrates how one homeowner has strictly complied with the regulations while others have deviated dramatically. Such an observation does not take much examination.

It seems the expressed interest of the residents of Jersey City gets manipulated by a few people who have sat on civic boards for too long and have developed a distorted sense of authority.

Your comment that " [u]nfortunately, the remedies suggested by some of those frustrated with the process do not appear aimed at improvement or ensuring that the Historic Preservation Ordinance functions more effectively or fairly -- or even correcting perceived excesses. Instead, the real apparent focus is aimed at simply eliminating the position of the Historic Preservation Officer (not even replacing him) . . ." is another gross misrepresentation of the residents' comments. Most people don't want anyone fired. Still they want a better set of guidlines, that are more practicale and constitutional in enforcement.

Interestingly, a licensed architect spoke last evening, with a great deal of trained authority on the subject of historic restoration. Yet you ignore his contributions, as have city officials.

The City has ignored phone calls from distraught and frustrated JC residents. It is disengenuous of you to now say," it would be instructional to hear the City's response to each of the individual circumstances cited there." It is readily apparent the City has ignored the voice of the people. Bob Cottor's announcement of extending the historic district to the warehouse district only exacerbates the wounds felt by the tax payers.

I was a loud speaker last evening and am not a real estate developer. One very important fact to note is that during last month's HPNA meeting, those in attendance voted AGAINST extending historic designation to the warehouse district. Interestingly enough someone went to Bob Cottor and told him an out and out lie that we voted for it.

This is facist. GET RID OF GUCCIARDI

some of the loudest complainers last night were hard core real estate developer/speculators... including one who appears to be very upset with the city council decision to extend historic designation to property owned in the new historic warehouse district. Millions of dollars at stake... makes you wonder about personal motivations beyond alleged issues with Dan Wrieden.

To be factually accurate - and speaking individually on my own behalf as one who was present at last night's meeting - the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association passed out nothing related to Mr. Wrieden.

1. Mr. Warren Curtin distributed copies of various correspondence from himself and other residents of the Hamilton Park community.

2. The HPNA is not in a position to validate the accuracy of the claims and allegations contained in Mr. Curtin's correspondence, nor is it our reponsibility to do so -- and, as with all issues, there is always more than one side to the story. That being said, much of the content, assuming it is reasonably accurate, does raise issues which appear worthy of further review and discussion.

3. It is, however, inappropriate and unacceptable to overshadow otherwise valid comments and feedback on how to have our Historic Preservation Ordinance implemented more effectively, more consistently, more fairly and more economically with an unncessary and uncalled for exercise in gay bashing and witch hunting. (That's what this thread sounds like to me.)

4. Independent of Mr. Curtin's correspondence, other residents have raised similar concerns, which need to be heard at the top level of HEDC (Mr. Cotter) and with the members of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).

5. Further, some comments were made about the various HPC commissioners and its operations, but when asked publicly during the meeting, none of the individuals present making these comments indicated that they have ever attended or appeared before the HPC itself.

6. From last night's comments, there appears to be much room for needed feedback and improvement in how the Historic Preservation Ordinance is applied and implemented. The City does need to hear this. Unfortunately, the remedies suggested by some of those frustrated with the process do not appear aimed at improvement or ensuring that the Historic Preservation Ordinance functions more effectively or fairly -- or even correcting perceived excesses. Instead, the real apparent focus is aimed at simply eliminating the position of the Historic Preservation Officer (not even replacing him), eliminating the HPC and gutting the oversight process. I don't believe this to be a constructive approach.

7. If there are valid issues raised in Mr. Curtin's correspondence as to how the Historic Preservation Officer might be implementing the law, these should be addressed and discussed publicly, fully and transparently in a venue where a complete picture can be assessed. As for the specific individual cases raised in Mr. Curtin's correspondence, it would be instructional to hear the City's response to each of the individual circumstances cited there.

8. A rational discussion resulting in recommendations for an improved all-around process, and an Historic Preservation Ordinance which can be implemented more efficiently, more consistently, more fairly and more economically would be a constructive approach to problem solving -- anonymous witchhunts and gay bashing is not.

I agree, comments on someone's sexuality is not appropriate in this forum.

Working with Mr. Wrieden on our house was extremely difficult. He actually is INCONSISTENT in what he approves. My husband and I were perfectly willing to put in historically accurate Marvin 2 over 2 windows. That was not the problem. Our problem was that we wanted double-paned windows, since they were more energy efficient.

Please understand that when you're paying for $900 per window (and are being required to do the entire facade at once), you're going to want it to be more energy efficient than the old windows you just took out. At the same time, Mr. Wrieden approved at least three other houses in my neighborhood with double paned windows, but was giving us a hard time on ours. This was our frustration. When finally called on it, he backed down and approved the double paned windows.

I agree that we need historic preservation in downtown JC. It's extremely important. However, when we bought our house in the mid-90s, there were no riders on the contract that stated we were going to abide by certain rules made up by a historic preservation commission. However, my husband and I have gone by the rules, and I have been desperate to have good advice on how to appropriately restore my house. And, from my understanding from other 20+ year residents of my neighborhood, that's what the historic commission was originally supposed to do--advise homeowners.

I'd like the historic commission to stay. I'd also like someone who will inspire people to properly restore their houses, and NOT someone who frustrates people so they end up installing white vinyl windows into their homes at 2:00 am. I'd like someone who is not condescending to their constituents, and who will properly educate homeowners on how to approach historic preservation and their houses. And, speaking of education, I would like someone who is properly educated for this advisory position.

Quote:

I posted the above, but I wanted to add, we could all do without the homophobic comments. For one it destroys your credibility. Furthermore it evidences your hate towards others. Finally, it won't be tolerated.

A significant number of the well spoken folks at last evening's meeting were gay.

Unfortunately, the enforcement of the Historic regulations have been applied abritrarily, inconsistenty and capriciously. Once that happens the rules are pretty much unenforceable, rending the entire ordinance null and void.
The people at last evening's meeting are willing to adopt the rules, but that have to be reasonable and consistent. Guciardi and Bob Cottor should be the ones to go, not Wreiden.

He's not going by the book. That's the point.

good point.

Thank you, previous poster. If Dan is going by the book and not making exceptions and giving exemptions then he is to be commended not scolded. Are people complaining because he is conscientious? Are these the same people who are complaining because other city workers are not conscientious?

#1 the homophobic comments are completely unnecessary. And #2, Dan is to be commended for enforcing the well-established rules of the historic districts. Don't buy in a historic district if you're looking to destroy the historic exterior of your building. End of story.

Cant he be booted out?

Uhhhhh....I've heard the guy is a royal pain in the ass, but are the gay comments 100% necessary?

You'd think this guy went to school for a long time but he just graduated in 2001. http://www.njcu.edu/dept/acp/coop_student_awards.html#dwrieden

If he doesn't ease up with all the rules I say we put up a collection to have him 'snatched up'. #OOPS# him and his Marvin Windows!

So, whats the deal with Daniel Wrieden aka 'Queer Eye For The Historic House Guy'? It seems this guy has a lot of enemies due to how he deals with the people who own historic homes in the area.

Last night he was the topic of discussion at the Hamiliton Park Neighhood Association Meeting. Seems like the 'flamer' has a lot of homeowners heated. They passed out a 20 page document of complaints on him.