Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Dinger wrote:
"High end" vinyl siding? Illegal shut down perhaps but maybe the ends justify the means?

Carlos Fernandes' house is damage by the elements, how can that "...justify the means?"

Carlos Fernandez is a fraud. The case is a fraud.

He received his permits AFTER the district was designated. The permits don't specify what type of siding is going to be used.

The guy's house is damaged because he chooses to not fix it within the guidelines of the law. That is HIS choice
.

Like anyone would trust a thing you say, lol.

It's good to know the local racist troll still follows me like a puppy. Would you like a treat?

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Dinger wrote:
"High end" vinyl siding? Illegal shut down perhaps but maybe the ends justify the means?

Carlos Fernandes' house is damage by the elements, how can that "...justify the means?"

Carlos Fernandez is a fraud. The case is a fraud.

He received his permits AFTER the district was designated. The permits don't specify what type of siding is going to be used.

The guy's house is damaged because he chooses to not fix it within the guidelines of the law. That is HIS choice
.

Like anyone would trust a thing you say, lol.

light12v wrote:


I live down the block from 46 Bentley in a Historic Home commissioned in 1879 by Dr. Wm. Perry Watson who created Pediatrics & founded Medical Examiners nationwide. [aka 1st Doctor's house on Doctor's Row].

I am the woman that Yvonne Balcer spoke of, who fled the encumbrances of historic district in VVP after 17years of HPO nonsense where they would not allow anything other than 1938 retail storefront restoration to the ground floor of my mixed use building on Montgomery St., which DID NOT allow me to function my life & business.

While seeking a property w/ offstreet parking I inquired of the Seller's Realtor if Bentley Ave. was in a Historic District 10 years ago, & his response was NO. If I could have seen this coming I would have walked away from purchasing my current home, despite the fact that I LOVE this Place !!! [& all of it's gorgeous details from yesteryear.]

Reality of the situation at hand currently :::

Historic District REGULATIONS for WBELP area are STILL NOT Defined 16+ months after voted into 'LAW' by City Council Ordinance.
HOMEOWNERS/PROPERTY OWNERS have Nothing to Abide & City has Nothing to Enforce !!!

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Dinger wrote:
"High end" vinyl siding? Illegal shut down perhaps but maybe the ends justify the means?

Carlos Fernandes' house is damage by the elements, how can that "...justify the means?"

Carlos Fernandez is a fraud. The case is a fraud.

He received his permits AFTER the district was designated. The permits don't specify what type of siding is going to be used.

The guy's house is damaged because he chooses to not fix it within the guidelines of the law. That is HIS choice.

Bamb00zle wrote:
itgirl's post made me wonder who is doing what without permits over on Bentley. I trust the City's inspectors go and check things out.

Hmm... interesting case.

The City already permitted the complete demolition of an historic building in the new district. That demolition, occurring after the ordinance passed, was apparently OK. By coincidence, in a stroke of remarkably good timing, the application for the demolition was submitted just before before passage of the new ordinance. See user1111's post #63 below in this thread, and also: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ue_tears_down_buildi.html

So, what surprised me is that the suit has no argument related to the City's powers in respect of historic preservation. The NJ enabling legislation (?MLUL?) is clear in that it permits Cities to regulate ?historic preservation and conservation?. Those are the words from the legislation, thus, it is those activities the City can regulate, at least in respect of a matter like this. Implicit in the meaning of the words ?historic preservation? is the idea that something from the past still exists today to be preserved. Put another way, if it's not there now, then there's nothing to ?preserve.?

So, if the siding this guy removed from his house wasn't the original historic siding then it's over-reach by the City to demand he ?re-create? the historic wood siding for the house. They would be acting beyond their legal authority - ?ultra vires? - because there isn't anything historic to preserve. However, if the siding he removed was the original historic wood siding, then he's out of luck and will need to go to the huge expense of replacing it with ?new? historic wood siding. Seems like a contradiction in terms, ?new? historic siding.... Oh well.

Of course even when legislation limits the City's authority it doesn't always work like that in practice. In Jersey City here's how it actually goes down: The Historic Preservation Officer / Commission withhold permit approvals until a property owner gives them what they want, even when there's nothing historic left to preserve. There's nothing the HPC likes more than to spend other people's money, lots of it, on expensive ?re-creations? of late 19th and early 20th century buildings.

In theory, homeowners could appeal, but that gets expensive and time-consuming. Oftentimes the path of least resistance is to comply with whatever the HPC demands. If a homeowner is broke and can't do what the HPC wants, then they can (must) sell and move ? try living in a house you can't heat because of defective windows or siding you're not permitted to fix.... Now that makes me wonder if there isn't a ?disparate impact? suit hiding in here someplace.... See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_8m58.pdf *

I'd never buy in a historic district for reasons related to the above. The power the City has ? not based in law, but practically speaking by denying permit applications ? makes it very uncertain as to what work an owner will be permitted to undertake on a property and also drives up the costs considerably. Those long, historic wood widows are as much a $3,500 a piece!!


* In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the Court held that disparate impact claims are available under the Fair Housing Act. This allows plaintiffs to challenge housing laws and practices that have a discriminatory effect, even if there is no intent to discriminate.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Dinger wrote:
"High end" vinyl siding? Illegal shut down perhaps but maybe the ends justify the means?

Carlos Fernandes' house is damage by the elements, how can that "...justify the means?"

Carlos Fernandez is a fraud. The case is a fraud.

He received his permits AFTER the district was designated. The permits don't specify what type of siding is going to be used.

The guy's house is damaged because he chooses to not fix it within the guidelines of the law. That is HIS choice.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Dinger wrote:
"High end" vinyl siding? Illegal shut down perhaps but maybe the ends justify the means?

Carlos Fernandes' house is damage by the elements, how can that "...justify the means?"

Dinger wrote:
"High end" vinyl siding? Illegal shut down perhaps but maybe the ends justify the means?

Bamb00zle wrote:
{Long, articulate diatriabe}

itgirl wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Couple seeks $18M from Jersey City in lawsuit over historic district guidelines

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on October 05, 2016 at 12:28 PM, updated October 05, 2016 at 12:46 PM

JERSEY CITY ? A Bentley Avenue couple is seeking as much as $18 million from Jersey City, alleging in a six-count lawsuit that the city violated their constitutional rights when it ordered them to stop construction on their home in a newly designated historic district.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... t.html#incart_2box_hudson

What's with bitchy background fact #38 from the filed suit? If your case has merit, based on your authorization from the City, why drop dime on your neighbors?

38. Also, the Plaintiffs are well aware of property owners on their street who have
done extensive construction and alterations to their properties, alterations that are not only
disfavored according to Jersey City guidelines, such as using vinyl siding, but also alterations
which are strictly prohibited, such as using metal frame windows. One couple who conducted
alterations to their property without HPC approval were married by Mayor Fulop and, upon
information and belief, were significant supporters of Mayor Fulop's campaign.

neverleft wrote:
Couple seeks $18M from Jersey City in lawsuit over historic district guidelines

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on October 05, 2016 at 12:28 PM, updated October 05, 2016 at 12:46 PM

JERSEY CITY ? A Bentley Avenue couple is seeking as much as $18 million from Jersey City, alleging in a six-count lawsuit that the city violated their constitutional rights when it ordered them to stop construction on their home in a newly designated historic district.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... t.html#incart_2box_hudson

neverleft wrote:
Couple seeks $18M from Jersey City in lawsuit over historic district guidelines

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on October 05, 2016 at 12:28 PM, updated October 05, 2016 at 12:46 PM

JERSEY CITY ? A Bentley Avenue couple is seeking as much as $18 million from Jersey City, alleging in a six-count lawsuit that the city violated their constitutional rights when it ordered them to stop construction on their home in a newly designated historic district.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... t.html#incart_2box_hudson

neverleft wrote:
Couple seeks $18M from Jersey City in lawsuit over historic district guidelines

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on October 05, 2016 at 12:28 PM, updated October 05, 2016 at 12:46 PM

JERSEY CITY ? A Bentley Avenue couple is seeking as much as $18 million from Jersey City, alleging in a six-count lawsuit that the city violated their constitutional rights when it ordered them to stop construction on their home in a newly designated historic district.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... t.html#incart_2box_hudson

penumbra wrote:
Sad times. This sort of maneuver seeks solely to turn a beige world more beige.

Freedom, under our great nation, is the ability to choose one's own life so long as it doesn't affect another. The color of your door, curvature of the window or type of railing doesn't affect anyone else.

Long live true freedom - where you can maintain your property without the neighborhood busybody weighing in on the color of your door. Where you can drive your Louis Vuitton (sp?) plastered car and while your neighbors may find it hideous, they can respect you for doing your own thing, to your own property and not affecting them in any material way.

Freedom. Eroding every day.

Pebble wrote:

Here is a link for tax incentives for historic preservation.
Here is a link for tools for historic preservation which includes applying to funds from the state.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
There is nothing more pathetic than having an argument built on lies and falsehoods and the repeating it when wrong. The repair costs for these people will not go up. In fact they'll be able to apply for grants and get free money towards repairs.

True. But you are doing the same thing to push your side of the argument as well. As someone who has actually owned historic, I can tell you for a fact that repair and replacement costs will indeed go up. Significantly. For window replacement alone, the difference was nearly $600 per window. Grants and free money towards repairs? From where? I have NEVER heard of any such assistance program for owners of historic homes. If so, please enlighten us. Where do they apply? You don't even get a break on your property taxes. The fact is there are an abundance of "historic" properties throughout this country that merit saving but are crumbling due to the lack of funds, public or private. Case in point: the old Greystone Park asylum. Saving old buildings ain't cheap. And quite frankly, it's money I'd rather spend on health care or education.

Pebble wrote:
There is nothing more pathetic than having an argument built on lies and falsehoods and the repeating it when wrong. The repair costs for these people will not go up. In fact they'll be able to apply for grants and get free money towards repairs.

Pebble wrote:
There is nothing more pathetic than having an argument built on lies and falsehoods and the repeating it when wrong. The repair costs for these people will not go up. In fact they'll be able to apply for grants and get free money towards repairs.

Yvonne wrote:
82 residents in the district signed a petition against the district. That never came up during the public hearing. Dan, I just disagree with you about the numbers. I had to edit my video and I saw more outside district speak for the district than inside the district.