Pebble wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
The city officials have every option to step forward with their proofs & YET THEY DO NOT !!! They simply place his project on UR [Under Review] Status & duck him, leaving his Home Investment Funds Diverted to unnecessary expenditure in Legal Fees !!!
&&&&&
HIS PROPERTY LEFT EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS & UnINHABITABLE

Why are you typing in capital letters and using random ampersands?! because I want to

What "proofs" are you asking the city to provide? Written Basis for issuing a StopWork Order, Removal of project details on the Portal Site, Updated Governing Documents, etc...
What funds are diverted? I REPEAT: his Home Investment Funds
What legal fees is he undertaking? SERIOUSLY? Paying Lawyers & Experts in order to have these issues determined by the Courts

Quote:

light12v wrote:
BTW> If you reside within the newly designated Municipal Historic District , you should be aware of the Fact that in order to pave the way for this divisive measure, YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE WIPED OUT by PAID Jersey City STAFF with the STRIKE_OUT TOOL on an internal document.

Your property rights were not "wiped out" by this measure. Kindly share whatever you are referring to, as the documents that I am looking at CLEARLY show Property Owner Permissions deleted & replaced by Planning Board & City Council Vote. It was voted on by the city after a petition was put forward to it by residents in the community. Exactly how many residents are you referring to? a Majority or just a handful? There were enough voting members of the public in the area that desired this to get it pushed forward. What constitutes 'enough'? I am a property owner in the area, living in Dr. Wm. Perry Watson's 1881 home [from where he created Pediatrics], and I was never approached regarding any Municipal Historic District Overlay since my purchase in Sept. 2006

Quote:

light12v wrote:
How would you feel if this was Imposed upon you by our Elected/Appointed Municipal Officials & their hand picked Paid Staff ?

I would welcome historical designation. "would welcome' ? Do you reside in the newly designated Historic District ?
I find it an affront to me and many of my neighbors that Yvonne decided to interject herself into the discussion when she doesn't live in the area and is completely devoid of the actual facts regarding the city's requirements. (Seriously, why else would I have to post a link to the city's requirements after she specifically states that the city doesn't give them?) If you will recall, many individuals who do not have property interests or reside within the district spoke out [both FOR & AGAINST] regarding Municipal Historic District Overlay...Are you Equally affronted by all of those Supporters also?

As a point of fact, THIS is what Yvonne wants to see happen. Preserving history, architecture and important landmarks are not important to her. All she wants is parking lots so that she can lazily shuttle around the city claiming to be some arbiter of what is right. Buildings that were part of the Underground Railroad should remain....? No! Yvonne wants them torn down to make way for her laziness. Not worthy of my comment

light12v wrote:
The city officials have every option to step forward with their proofs & YET THEY DO NOT !!! They simply place his project on UR [Under Review] Status & duck him, leaving his Home Investment Funds Diverted to unnecessary expenditure in Legal Fees !!!
&&&&&
HIS PROPERTY LEFT EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS & UnINHABITABLE

light12v wrote:
BTW> If you reside within the newly designated Municipal Historic District , you should be aware of the Fact that in order to pave the way for this divisive measure, YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE WIPED OUT by PAID Jersey City STAFF with the STRIKE_OUT TOOL on an internal document.

light12v wrote:
How would you feel if this was Imposed upon you by our Elected/Appointed Municipal Officials & their hand picked Paid Staff ?

MDM wrote:

Is it possible to just get a "just the facts" summary of the dispute?

1. What exactly (in detail) is the reason for the work stoppage order? Is it because of the home owner's choice of siding does not meet historic district standards?

2. If it is an issue with the material choice, what materials are acceptable per the Building Department? If fiber cement board is acceptable, then the home owner should easily be able to switch to it instead of vinyl (more expensive but it really looks good... like wood but way more durable).

If the Building Department won't respond in writing or respond period, did the homeowner make a complaint to the DCA (trust me.. they DO respond)?

As much as I despise the JC Building Department, they don't operate in a vacuum... there has to be a reason for the work stoppage.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
1. This is about as exceptionally biased a "report" as exists.

2. The interviewed individual had a very tough issue dealing with historical preservation. Things certainly did go wrong for him and the city did make several mistakes.

3. There was no loss of property rights.

Keep up the selective story telling, Yvonne!

It is not you, Pebble, it is another person who is suffering. He cannot go forward with the project and he cannot rent. He is also spending a lot of money on heating costs. His building is exposed because the city shut him down 3 days after the work began. This is over 6 months ago and nothing has been resolved. I also know of other people who experience this but they are afraid of an interview, they are afraid it would hurt their negotiations with the city. The problem is - the city created this Historic District without the rules and regulations. Since the city gave the permit, it should allow the work. The city should also publish the rules and regulations for the district. It is not like downtown.

I certainly know that I'm not him.

The problem is that this issue is focusing on the wrong thing and the problem that this individual is having is being exploited by yourself for a very specific agenda.

The City gave him permits for the project that he listed. The City should have honored them. That is the *ONLY* issue here.

The fact that the area became historically designated is superfluous to the problem.

The rules and regulations are published. You can find them here.

Quote:

a. Vinyl and Aluminum Siding. The Commission discourages the use of vinyl or aluminum siding on historic buildings. These materials are not permitted on masonry buildings. On buildings which have existing vinyl or aluminum siding, individual units may be replaced with matching materials if necessary following the issuance of a Certificate of No Effect. On buildings with wood clapboard siding and/or shingles, the Commission encourages retention of the historic material or replacement with matching materials.

b. If an applicant chooses to apply for aluminum or vinyl siding, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required.

I feel for this man in that he has incurred unnecessary expenses. However, there is a lot to this story that isn't said. You have nobody from the city on record regarding this.

MDM wrote:

Is it possible to just get a "just the facts" summary of the dispute?

1. What exactly (in detail) is the reason for the work stoppage order? Is it because of the home owner's choice of siding does not meet historic district standards?

2. If it is an issue with the material choice, what materials are acceptable per the Building Department? If fiber cement board is acceptable, then the home owner should easily be able to switch to it instead of vinyl (more expensive but it really looks good... like wood but way more durable).

If the Building Department won't respond in writing or respond period, did the homeowner make a complaint to the DCA (trust me.. they DO respond)?

As much as I despise the JC Building Department, they don't operate in a vacuum... there has to be a reason for the work stoppage.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
I haven't listened to the whole video yet (is there a transcript that I speed read through?). So is it the owner's choice of siding that is holding things up? Is cement board (looks just like wood.. but doesn't rot) allowed to be used?

The problem with the issue is that it isn't completely clear what the owner is having trouble with. He chooses to go on side tangents about how he thought he was living in a free society or about Democrats being evil... It's all fine to get angry over something but he does not clearly state where he went wrong or what the city tells him. There is also no interview with a city official to state what, specifically, is wrong with the application and why his project was shut down.

I've listened to him speak on this before. I feel bad that he is in this situation. However, he clearly does not understand the rules and laws involved with historical designation. I've listened to him rant and claim that the designation means he can't layout his living room the way he wants and that he can't buy the couch he wants.

MDM wrote:
I haven't listened to the whole video yet (is there a transcript that I speed read through?). So is it the owner's choice of siding that is holding things up? Is cement board (looks just like wood.. but doesn't rot) allowed to be used?

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
1. This is about as exceptionally biased a "report" as exists.

2. The interviewed individual had a very tough issue dealing with historical preservation. Things certainly did go wrong for him and the city did make several mistakes.

3. There was no loss of property rights.

Keep up the selective story telling, Yvonne!

It is not you, Pebble, it is another person who is suffering. He cannot go forward with the project and he cannot rent. He is also spending a lot of money on heating costs. His building is exposed because the city shut him down 3 days after the work began. This is over 6 months ago and nothing has been resolved. I also know of other people who experience this but they are afraid of an interview, they are afraid it would hurt their negotiations with the city. The problem is - the city created this Historic District without the rules and regulations. Since the city gave the permit, it should allow the work. The city should also publish the rules and regulations for the district. It is not like downtown.

a. Vinyl and Aluminum Siding. The Commission discourages the use of vinyl or aluminum siding on historic buildings. These materials are not permitted on masonry buildings. On buildings which have existing vinyl or aluminum siding, individual units may be replaced with matching materials if necessary following the issuance of a Certificate of No Effect. On buildings with wood clapboard siding and/or shingles, the Commission encourages retention of the historic material or replacement with matching materials.

b. If an applicant chooses to apply for aluminum or vinyl siding, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required.

Pebble wrote:
1. This is about as exceptionally biased a "report" as exists.

2. The interviewed individual had a very tough issue dealing with historical preservation. Things certainly did go wrong for him and the city did make several mistakes.

3. There was no loss of property rights.

Keep up the selective story telling, Yvonne!

Yvonne wrote:
Two stories both is JC
https://youtu.be/crM6zQ7Q-lY