Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
48 user(s) are online (36 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 47

K-Lo2, more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 4 »


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

papadage wrote:
It was issued months after the passage of the Historic District. All the bold fonts in the world won't change that fact, nor the fact that he did not use the appeals process in any way, but instead decided to be a crank and just complain and state conspiracy theories.

It's all in the decision for the case to proceed. The judge tossed the due process claims for being inadequate.


You can believe what you like, but your statement is belied by the documents that show otherwise.

My home is within the *District*.

When my contractor applied for the proper Building Permit to do my Roof in Autumn of 2016 & was directed to the 14th floor Planning Dept., I simply challenged the HD/HPO process BWO of a one page Letter from my attorney.
JC Officials/Directors immediately backed off, issued the permit & work proceeded without further interruption.

Don't know where you reside or what your experience[s] is in this Historic District 4 Jersey City's Westside, but MY Personal Experience clearly demonstrates, that while there may be a lot of huffing & puffing surrounding the issue [from both sides], that there is NO Enforceable Historic District Overlay in place at this time & there was none at that time.

Posted on: 8/6 13:30
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/12/30 11:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 498
Offline
It was issued months after the passage of the Historic District. All the bold fonts in the world won't change that fact, nor the fact that he did not use the appeals process in any way, but instead decided to be a crank and just complain and state conspiracy theories.

It's all in the decision for the case to proceed. The judge tossed the due process claims for being inadequate.

Posted on: 8/4 20:50
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

papadage wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.



This 100% wrong. See the Zoning Code at 345-71. l. 9. There is no explicit prohibition on vinyl siding in the Historic design standards.

Here's the link, scroll down to L. 9. for the applicable section.

https://library.municode.com/nj/jersey ... _ARTVZODEST_S345-71HIDEST



He would still need a certificate of appropriateness to install vinyl siding.


Not AFTER a Permit was Paid for & ISSUED!

Posted on: 8/4 18:05
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 172
Offline
Quote:

papadage wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.



This 100% wrong. See the Zoning Code at 345-71. l. 9. There is no explicit prohibition on vinyl siding in the Historic design standards.

Here's the link, scroll down to L. 9. for the applicable section.

https://library.municode.com/nj/jersey ... _ARTVZODEST_S345-71HIDEST



He would still need a certificate of appropriateness to install vinyl siding.


Correct, there is no absolute, blanket, explicit prohibition of vinyl siding. It is highly noteworthy that the Code does NOT explicitly prohibit vinyl in all situations, and leaves open its use in some applications. You can apply for a Certificate of No Effect or for a Certificate of Appropriateness, depending on the particular circumstances. The only limited prohibition on vinyl is for covering a masonry surface of a building in a historic district.

Here's why it is so noteworthy the code doesn't contain wording that explicitly prohibits vinyl. When a law, regulation or code, DOES NOT state some simple prohibition explicitly and clearly, you know that it was left out deliberately. If vinyl was not permitted under any circumstance, the code would clearly and simply state: “Vinyl siding will not be approved for any use.” This code does not contain an absolute, blanket prohibition on vinyl siding, and it is NOT there because it CANNOT be there. A blanket prohibition of vinyl siding in the code would be inconsistent with the enabling provisions of the MLUL, which only permit regulation of “preservation.”

For Fernandez it is not clear if he even needs a Certificate of Appropriateness, or indeed any permission at all from the HPO or HPC, since he maintains his application was made before the HD came into effect. In that case, all he needs is a permit from the Building Department, which he says he received.

There is a very pertinent example of a permit obtained before the the HD was effective that allowed something that would be almost impossible with the HD in effect – the demolition of an entire historic structure, right in that district. It was a remarkable stroke of good luck. The owners couldn't have timed their application for demolition better if they had known in advance what was about the happen. If you're interested in the details, it was reported in the Jersey Journal. If memory serves me it was a Jewish Community Center...? Today, with the historic designation in effect, if the owners applied to demolish that building the City could stop the demolition and the owners would be obliged to “preserve” it. However, back at the time, the City said the application was made before the historic district designation went into effect, and consequently they had no lawful authority to stop the demolition. Lucky for them, hey?

If Fernandez' applied AFTER the HD was in effect, then yes, he needs some Certificate from the HPO or HPC to use vinyl. It depends on several factors including what siding was already present on his house. If a house already had vinyl siding when the HD came into effect, then it is outside the authority of the City to compel the owner use something else. No doubt the City would try to insist on the use of expensive new, fake historic looking wood siding by denying the application for a Certificate of No Effect or Appropriateness. However, it is outside their limited authority to regulate anything but “historic preservation.” If there is nothing historic to preserve, attempts to force owners to undertake preservation activities such as “restoration” or “reconstruction” are beyond their lawful authority.

Posted on: 8/4 9:32
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/12/30 11:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 498
Offline
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.



This 100% wrong. See the Zoning Code at 345-71. l. 9. There is no explicit prohibition on vinyl siding in the Historic design standards.

Here's the link, scroll down to L. 9. for the applicable section.

https://library.municode.com/nj/jersey ... _ARTVZODEST_S345-71HIDEST



He would still need a certificate of appropriateness to install vinyl siding.

Posted on: 8/3 23:23
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
There are some very important things that a lot of people are overlooking here...

1. The city is NOT driving up and down the streets looking for people doing work on their homes. They aren't checking for permits.

2. This individual was turned in by his neighbors. I don't know which neighbors, but I know that several neighbors called the city to complain about the type of work this person was doing.

3. The individual explicitly stated that the entire purpose for the vinyl siding was so that he could rent the house out and move to Portugal.

4. The individual's permits did not state what the material of the new siding was which is why the permit passed.

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.

Lastly, having listened to Fernandes speak about this, my take-away was that he's a guy that had no interest in restoration. He purchased a home and was looking for a cheap fix. He's also very dishonest in his explanation on the series of events and he's simply looking for a pay day from the city.

He could have complied with the city's rules and regulations for the area rather quickly and for a lot less money than the lawsuit along with the wear and tear on the building along with the wasted money on the vinyl siding he purchased. Instead of that, he played "victim" and got lawsuit happy.

I have zero pity for the man.


People are Overlooking these things BECAUSE Your statements are WRONG, UNTRUE &/or simply stated : UR Ill-Informed POV!!

Posted on: 8/3 21:06
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 172
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.



This 100% wrong. See the Zoning Code at 345-71. l. 9. There is no explicit prohibition on vinyl siding in the Historic design standards.

Here's the link, scroll down to L. 9. for the applicable section.

https://library.municode.com/nj/jersey ... _ARTVZODEST_S345-71HIDEST


Posted on: 8/3 17:33
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1884
Offline
There are some very important things that a lot of people are overlooking here...

1. The city is NOT driving up and down the streets looking for people doing work on their homes. They aren't checking for permits.

2. This individual was turned in by his neighbors. I don't know which neighbors, but I know that several neighbors called the city to complain about the type of work this person was doing.

3. The individual explicitly stated that the entire purpose for the vinyl siding was so that he could rent the house out and move to Portugal.

4. The individual's permits did not state what the material of the new siding was which is why the permit passed.

5. The city's website EXPLICITLY states that vinyl siding is NOT permitted. It is possible that another material that isn't wood could be but vinyl is definitely a no-no.

Lastly, having listened to Fernandes speak about this, my take-away was that he's a guy that had no interest in restoration. He purchased a home and was looking for a cheap fix. He's also very dishonest in his explanation on the series of events and he's simply looking for a pay day from the city.

He could have complied with the city's rules and regulations for the area rather quickly and for a lot less money than the lawsuit along with the wear and tear on the building along with the wasted money on the vinyl siding he purchased. Instead of that, he played "victim" and got lawsuit happy.

I have zero pity for the man.

Posted on: 8/3 15:18
Dos A Cero
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
All this talk of lawsuits made me think of the harassment suit Dan Wrieden, the City Historic Preservation Officer (HPO), bought against the City. He claimed somethings about his boss harassing him. I wonder what the City's defense was/is? Maybe it's all settled by this point?

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ey_city_cruz_lawsuit.html
http://hudsoncountyview.com/wp-conten ... /anthony-cruz-lawsuit.pdf

In my experience, observing things over the years, Dan has abused the historic preservation code for a long, long time. If I were his boss, I would have said some choice words to him out of frustration at what he, and the HPC, have done....

Anyone know anything about the status of that suit? I haven't seen anything reported since that initial filing.

The ABUSES at the hand of HPO Wrieden & now HPO Blazak are NeverEnding.
I have personally witnessed Wrieden Dumpster Diving on Jewett Ave. & caught Blazak *informing* constituents about their HPS [Historic Preservation Specialist] hire, when he had Advertised for & RETAINED a Part Time minimum wage Intern short term, who was brought to tears when presenting long awaited HD GuideLines last September !
[BTW> Wreiden was the HPO that I was referring to in my previous communication]

Regarding your inquiry about Wrieden's suit, I was told by a close Cruz family friend awhile ago that claims against Cruz [individually]were dropped, but no mention about claims against JC.

Posted on: 8/3 13:47

Edited by light12v on 2017/8/3 14:09:03
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 172
Offline
All this talk of lawsuits made me think of the harassment suit Dan Wrieden, the City Historic Preservation Officer (HPO), bought against the City. He claimed somethings about his boss harassing him. I wonder what the City's defense was/is? Maybe it's all settled by this point?

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ey_city_cruz_lawsuit.html
http://hudsoncountyview.com/wp-conten ... /anthony-cruz-lawsuit.pdf

In my experience, observing things over the years, Dan has abused the historic preservation code for a long, long time. If I were his boss, I would have said some choice words to him out of frustration at what he, and the HPC, have done....

Anyone know anything about the status of that suit? I haven't seen anything reported since that initial filing.

Posted on: 8/3 8:43
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4198
Offline
Here is an interview with Carlos Fernandes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crM6zQ7Q-lY&feature=youtu.be

Posted on: 8/2 13:49
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:

What I do have an opinion about is the abusive use of the Historic Preservation rules. The HPO and HPC routinely exceed their lawful authority in the application of these restrictive Zoning rules. The ultra vires actions of the HPO and HPC have prevented many people from repairing and maintaining their houses because of the cost of the work demanded. It has caused a huge amount of damage to many people and particularly to individuals and families of limited means, and of color, for many years. The current City Administration has done nothing to stop this abuse.

The powers granted to the City under the MLUL to enable regulation of historic preservation are limited to just that: “historic preservation.” An example of the application of these limits is seen in the provisions in the MLUL regarding “demolition by neglect.” The lawful power of a municipality is limited only to requiring an owner undertake “stabilization” of the deteriorating historic structure, to preserve it from slow destruction. That is all the law permits. It does not authorize a municipality to compel or order any other kind of work on the historic structure.

Those same limits apply to all Historic structures, whether they are in danger of “demolition by neglect” or not. The City does not have the lawful authority to require anything more of an owner than “preservation.” And you can't preserve something that doesn't exist. Attempts by the City to make owners re-create “fake historic” features such as wood windows, cedar siding, iron fences, anything that does not still exist in some form, are not “historic preservation” and are therefore outside the City's lawful authority.

AGREE ++++++++

It is REALLY Scary when one speaks to a HPO in JC Planning Dept. & they do not know what NPS or National Parks Service is, or how it applies to their job function.

Posted on: 8/2 13:17
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Thank you for expounding on the matter & the research link.
So, JC Corporation Counsel is pretty much just covering all bases in the *Immunity* dept. here in their affirmative defenses.

It appears that Judge McNultey clearly addressed "Qualified Immunity" in his 06/27/17 Opinion & allowed the matter to proceed against MF & AL individually, that gives rise to a conflict[s] between an individual's interests & a public entity's interests
[and whether both can/should be represented by the same legal counsel],
however,
I did not catch anything about Absolute Statutory Immunity.

AAHHH... the Nuances of our Legal System !!! LOL


Posted on: 8/2 13:07
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 172
Offline
Quote:

light12v wrote:
....perhaps you can enlighten us about Farrell's affirmative defenses contained in the document link below, particularly the one that states " City Defendants are entitled to ABSOLUTE STATUTORY IMMUNITY" & advise if you perceive Fulop's Individual Interests as in Concord or in Conflict with Jersey City's interests.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3903312-Show-Multidocs.html


This might give you a sense: http://www.federalpracticemanual.org/chapter8/section2

“Absolute immunity bars any action against officials in the conduct of their office even for actions taken maliciously or in bad faith. Absolute immunity focuses on the governmental function being performed and the nature of the responsibilities of the official, not on the specific action taken.3 In deciding whether officials performing a particular function are entitled to absolute immunity, courts generally look for a historical or common-law basis for the immunity in question.4 With one exception, absolute immunity is restricted to those persons performing judicial or legislative functions.”

Without getting into the weeds, and oversimplifying to the point of some inaccuracy, the City asserts its officials and employees are protected, “immune”, from claims arising out of the discharge of their responsibilities as government employees and representatives. Here, the idea of “Qualified” and “Statutory” immunity is to protect government employees from certain lawsuits that might arise from their official duties. Of course, there are some limits to the protection afforded by “immunity.” Government officials can't just do or say whatever they want no matter how damaging or destructive and expect to be protected. However, broad latitude is generally given in matters related to their jobs.


I don't have an opinion on your other question about the Mayor, as I simply don't know enough about the matter.


What I do have an opinion about is the abusive use of the Historic Preservation rules. The HPO and HPC routinely exceed their lawful authority in the application of these restrictive Zoning rules. The ultra vires actions of the HPO and HPC have prevented many people from repairing and maintaining their houses because of the cost of the work demanded. It has caused a huge amount of damage to many people and particularly to individuals and families of limited means, and of color, for many years. The current City Administration has done nothing to stop this abuse.

The powers granted to the City under the MLUL to enable regulation of historic preservation are limited to just that: “historic preservation.” An example of the application of these limits is seen in the provisions in the MLUL regarding “demolition by neglect.” The lawful power of a municipality is limited only to requiring an owner undertake “stabilization” of the deteriorating historic structure, to preserve it from slow destruction. That is all the law permits. It does not authorize a municipality to compel or order any other kind of work on the historic structure.

Those same limits apply to all Historic structures, whether they are in danger of “demolition by neglect” or not. The City does not have the lawful authority to require anything more of an owner than “preservation.” And you can't preserve something that doesn't exist. Attempts by the City to make owners re-create “fake historic” features such as wood windows, cedar siding, iron fences, anything that does not still exist in some form, are not “historic preservation” and are therefore outside the City's lawful authority.

Posted on: 8/2 11:18
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
I live down he block & have watched this property steadily deteriorate over the last 2 years.
It is SAD that what started out as an private propertyowner's attempt to lend new purpose to an aging structure in the area, ... have resulted in this property falling into additional disrepair.


Well put, light12v, I agree completely. HPC and HPO over-reach with the historic preservation rules makes it very difficult (or impossible) for owners to repair and rehabilitate these wonderful old houses where many have lived for decades. A reasonable, balanced and lawful application of the historic preservation rules would mostly be beneficial, helping people maintain their homes and preserve the character, diversity and soul of these special neighborhoods. The current heavy handed, over-zealous approach by the HPO and HPC, with it's ensuing disparate impact effects, runs counter to overall public good.

Regarding the West Side, many residents, including families who have owned their homes for several generations, expressed well-founded concern when the Historic District designation was rammed through by the City. During the Ordinance second reading City Council members promised to update and clarify the historic preservation rules. Well, no surprise, that never happened. At that same time, it was appalling to see Joyce Watterman vote in favor of the new district. Doesn't she know how these types of restrictive zoning rules have been abused over and again, for decades, to the detriment of minority families, and families with limited resources? She should be ashamed of that vote.

Since you live in that district, and with November's election coming up you might reach out to Councilman Chris Gadsen about all this – I don't live in that Ward. You'll recall he won handily last time, against Fulop's hand-picked, historic preservationist, City attorney candidate. In a community debate before that vote, Fulop's guy showed he was totally clueless, telling homeowners we need more Historic Preservation Officers to “help”! No one was fooled, and of course he lost. I've also heard the City is trying to introduce another historic district around Astor Place. Folks over there should be very concerned and get involved in the lead up to the elections. Ward E homeowners are also affected and should ask their candidates what they will do to stop the abuse of the historic rules.

Unless the City clarifies that the Historic Ordinance is limited to “Preservation” and can't be used to compel owners to undertake “restoration” or “reconstruction”, it will take a law suit to stop the abusive, aggressive, over-reach by the HPO and HPC. A thoughtful judge reading a well researched and argued brief, including all the applicable sections of State law (MLUL), City Zoning code, legislative and regulatory history, and the context in which it was all developed and is applied, will inevitably conclude there are limits, and HPO and HPC actions often overstep those limits. A suit bringing a disparate impact claim would rely on a relevant 2015 Supreme Court ruling and federal laws.

It will need a dedicated attorney, someone (or group) who has been aggrieved or suffered disparate impact, with the time, money and interest to bring a case. In my opinion, the outcome is clear. I've looked at several historic preservation matters and it is not a forgone conclusion that municipalities and HPC's prevail. I believe the court will find many actions of the JC HPO and HPC outside their limited authority to regulate “preservation” and would clarify the limits of their authority. In a disparate impact case in Federal Court, you'd have to wonder if the City isn't liable for damages given they've been so derelict in their oversight of the HPC's misuse of the Ordinance, and the resulting harms so serious.

I concur with much of what you have stated.

I attended the events noted & went on the record at the 2nd reading literally challenging Cotter-City Planning, Farrell-Corporation Counsel & all other city reps regarding their shady in-house methods of altering governing documents/backroom dealings and introduced copies of their handiwork [documents] into the official record that severely 'flustered' them.

As you have probably concluded, I am an opponent of Municipal Historic District Overlay & find the Fulop Administration's performance to date FAILED on Every Level.

You seem well versed in the Legal Arena so perhaps you can enlighten us about Farrell's affirmative defenses contained in the document link below, particularly the one that states " City Defendants are entitled to ABSOLUTE STATUTORY IMMUNITY" & advise if you perceive Fulop's Individual Interests as in Concord or in Conflict with Jersey City's interests.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3903312-Show-Multidocs.html

Posted on: 8/1 15:58
Print Top


Re: NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 4 Fulop... So Who PAYS 4 his Legal Defense ?
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
(Webbie - Should be combined with current thread on topic)

This Might Help those of us Playing at Home - Begin at Page 30


Thank You for properly locating my post & providing a link to the Federal Judge's document that I was referencing.


Thanks light12v and jerseymom. This is all getting rather interesting, don't you think? Stay tuned, the next episode could be even more exciting.

"Interesting" would not be my word of choice...

Posted on: 8/1 10:44
Print Top


Re: NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 4 Fulop... So Who PAYS 4 his Legal Defense ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 172
Offline
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
(Webbie - Should be combined with current thread on topic)

This Might Help those of us Playing at Home - Begin at Page 30


Thank You for properly locating my post & providing a link to the Federal Judge's document that I was referencing.


Thanks light12v and jerseymom. This is all getting rather interesting, don't you think? Stay tuned, the next episode could be even more exciting.

Posted on: 8/1 9:56
Print Top


Re: NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 4 Fulop... So Who PAYS 4 his Legal Defense ?
#99
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
(Webbie - Should be combined with current thread on topic)

This Might Help those of us Playing at Home - Begin at Page 30


Thank You for properly locating my post & providing a link to the Federal Judge's document that I was referencing.

Posted on: 8/1 9:35
Print Top


Re: NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 4 Fulop... So Who PAYS 4 his Legal Defense ?
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/9 15:50
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1803
Offline
(Webbie - Should be combined with current thread on topic)

This Might Help those of us Playing at Home - Begin at Page 30


Posted on: 7/31 23:37
Print Top


NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 4 Fulop... So Who PAYS 4 his Legal Defense ?
#97
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Can anyone shed some light on this latest circumstance for us ???
-JC Taxpayer Plebeians-

Posted on: 7/31 23:24
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#96
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 172
Offline
Quote:

light12v wrote:
I live down he block & have watched this property steadily deteriorate over the last 2 years.
It is SAD that what started out as an private propertyowner's attempt to lend new purpose to an aging structure in the area, ... have resulted in this property falling into additional disrepair.


Well put, light12v, I agree completely. HPC and HPO over-reach with the historic preservation rules makes it very difficult (or impossible) for owners to repair and rehabilitate these wonderful old houses where many have lived for decades. A reasonable, balanced and lawful application of the historic preservation rules would mostly be beneficial, helping people maintain their homes and preserve the character, diversity and soul of these special neighborhoods. The current heavy handed, over-zealous approach by the HPO and HPC, with it's ensuing disparate impact effects, runs counter to overall public good.

Regarding the West Side, many residents, including families who have owned their homes for several generations, expressed well-founded concern when the Historic District designation was rammed through by the City. During the Ordinance second reading City Council members promised to update and clarify the historic preservation rules. Well, no surprise, that never happened. At that same time, it was appalling to see Joyce Watterman vote in favor of the new district. Doesn't she know how these types of restrictive zoning rules have been abused over and again, for decades, to the detriment of minority families, and families with limited resources? She should be ashamed of that vote.

Since you live in that district, and with November's election coming up you might reach out to Councilman Chris Gadsen about all this – I don't live in that Ward. You'll recall he won handily last time, against Fulop's hand-picked, historic preservationist, City attorney candidate. In a community debate before that vote, Fulop's guy showed he was totally clueless, telling homeowners we need more Historic Preservation Officers to “help”! No one was fooled, and of course he lost. I've also heard the City is trying to introduce another historic district around Astor Place. Folks over there should be very concerned and get involved in the lead up to the elections. Ward E homeowners are also affected and should ask their candidates what they will do to stop the abuse of the historic rules.

Unless the City clarifies that the Historic Ordinance is limited to “Preservation” and can't be used to compel owners to undertake “restoration” or “reconstruction”, it will take a law suit to stop the abusive, aggressive, over-reach by the HPO and HPC. A thoughtful judge reading a well researched and argued brief, including all the applicable sections of State law (MLUL), City Zoning code, legislative and regulatory history, and the context in which it was all developed and is applied, will inevitably conclude there are limits, and HPO and HPC actions often overstep those limits. A suit bringing a disparate impact claim would rely on a relevant 2015 Supreme Court ruling and federal laws.

It will need a dedicated attorney, someone (or group) who has been aggrieved or suffered disparate impact, with the time, money and interest to bring a case. In my opinion, the outcome is clear. I've looked at several historic preservation matters and it is not a forgone conclusion that municipalities and HPC's prevail. I believe the court will find many actions of the JC HPO and HPC outside their limited authority to regulate “preservation” and would clarify the limits of their authority. In a disparate impact case in Federal Court, you'd have to wonder if the City isn't liable for damages given they've been so derelict in their oversight of the HPC's misuse of the Ordinance, and the resulting harms so serious.

Posted on: 7/29 13:15
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#95
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
The discussion in another string about fences and historic preservation requirements made me think of that guy from the recently created historic district on the West Side and the City's effort to dismiss his law suit. Turns out there's an initial ruling, although the case still has a long way to go: http://cases.justia.com/federal/distr ... 97/10/0.pdf?ts=1498739790

In short, the City was NOT successful in getting the case dismissed, so the Judge hearing the matter must think it possible that Fernandez's complaints have some merit. Certain complaints were dismissed but it seems the Judge invited Fernandez to re-file with more information. If Fernandez plans to re-file, his attorney might take a good look at the Supreme Court's recent ruling that disparate impact can apply in certain housing cases.

Fernandez might go to the State Courts, although that's difficult for procedural reasons. First, he'd apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness permit, and likely be denied by the HPC. Next, he appeals to the Zoning Board, and likely be denied again. Then, if he has followed all the required rules and met all the deadlines, he can appeal to the Superior Court. There he'd argue the denial by the City is ultra vires – provided that house did NOT have original historic wood siding torn off by the contractor. If the siding was original, it's a different story.

The HPO and HPC often use section 345-71 G. 3. of the JC Code to deny requested work, saying the proposed materials are inappropriate. They'd probably cite that sub-section in their denial of his application. However, that would be a misreading of the section, taking it out of context completely. I'm shocked they get away with it, since they are supposed to be competent to undertake their duties as HPC commissioners. And that means correctly applying the code.

Like any code (or law, or regulation...), 345-71 G. must be read fully and in context, to be properly applied. Looking at 345-71 G. 1-5. as a whole, it is clear that G. 3., about materials, only applies when “reconstruction” is proposed. Moreover, 345-71 G. 1-5., is explicit that reconstruction is only permitted under limited, strictly defined conditions. But you have to read all of 345-71 G., and the associated definitions to know. The HPO and HPC either don't know their own code, or they deliberately ignore it, and all to frequently apply that clause (G. 3.) incorrectly. Taking a sub-section of code and incorrectly applying it to a different set of circumstances than those defined in the code makes the HPC's denial an error and is beyond their authority. The HPC doesn't write the rules – they must follow the code – just like everybody else.

As he's in a historic district, Fernandez needs to use siding that is aesthetically sympathetic with the neighboring houses. However, although he can't just use any type of cheap siding he might want, he also can't be compelled to “reconstruct” replica wood siding, if the original historic wood siding was removed before the HD designation came into effect. If original historic siding was removed only after the HD designation went into effect, then he's out of luck and the situation is more complicated.

I haven't seen that house in a while, and don't know what it looks like at the present. I might go by sometime this weekend. Has anyone else here been by there recently...?.

Your points are well stated & appear well researched. I live down he block & have watched this property steadily deteriorate over the last 2 years.
It is SAD that what started out as an private propertyowner's attempt to lend new purpose to an aging structure in the area, instead of tearing down & replacing w/ Bayonne Box Beauties similar to the one constructed next to the church on Bergen Ave, have resulted in this property falling into additional disrepair.
Not to mention, adding substancial litigation costs to JC budget to be bourne by property taxes & other JC municipal moneymakers ,,,,all at taxpayer expense!

Posted on: 7/25 15:25
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#94
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4198
Offline
Last week I received a summons from the city of JC/Mayor Fulop. He wants my unedited tapes that I took of the ward meetings. There were 5 ward meetings. I comply with this request but it took 13 hours of work. I included a bill for my services but the city refused to pay. So the next time the city asks for your work that takes your time, wear and tear on your computer, your electricity that runs your computer and your blue ray discs (because the the files are too large for dvd) delete your videos. I pay taxes to the city, there is no reason why I should work for free.

Posted on: 7/24 17:41
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#93
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/5/10 14:38
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 114
Offline
I'm pretty sure he was intending to throw up some vinyl siding, which in IMHO would be a travesty. Hardi or the like would would have been a reasonable aesthetic alternative to new cedar shake.

Posted on: 6/30 19:22
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1884
Offline
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
The discussion in another string about fences and historic preservation requirements made me think of that guy from the recently created historic district on the West Side and the City's effort to dismiss his law suit. Turns out there's an initial ruling, although the case still has a long way to go: http://cases.justia.com/federal/distr ... 97/10/0.pdf?ts=1498739790

In short, the City was NOT successful in getting the case dismissed, so the Judge hearing the matter must think it possible that Fernandez's complaints have some merit. Certain complaints were dismissed but it seems the Judge invited Fernandez to re-file with more information. If Fernandez plans to re-file, his attorney might take a good look at the Supreme Court's recent ruling that disparate impact can apply in certain housing cases.

Fernandez might go to the State Courts, although that's difficult for procedural reasons. First, he'd apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness permit, and likely be denied by the HPC. Next, he appeals to the Zoning Board, and likely be denied again. Then, if he has followed all the required rules and met all the deadlines, he can appeal to the Superior Court. There he'd argue the denial by the City is ultra vires – provided that house did NOT have original historic wood siding torn off by the contractor. If the siding was original, it's a different story.

The HPO and HPC often use section 345-71 G. 3. of the JC Code to deny requested work, saying the proposed materials are inappropriate. They'd probably cite that sub-section in their denial of his application. However, that would be a misreading of the section, taking it out of context completely. I'm shocked they get away with it, since they are supposed to be competent to undertake their duties as HPC commissioners. And that means correctly applying the code.

Like any code (or law, or regulation...), 345-71 G. must be read fully and in context, to be properly applied. Looking at 345-71 G. 1-5. as a whole, it is clear that G. 3., about materials, only applies when “reconstruction” is proposed. Moreover, 345-71 G. 1-5., is explicit that reconstruction is only permitted under limited, strictly defined conditions. But you have to read all of 345-71 G., and the associated definitions to know. The HPO and HPC either don't know their own code, or they deliberately ignore it, and all to frequently apply that clause (G. 3.) incorrectly. Taking a sub-section of code and incorrectly applying it to a different set of circumstances than those defined in the code makes the HPC's denial an error and is beyond their authority. The HPC doesn't write the rules – they must follow the code – just like everybody else.

As he's in a historic district, Fernandez needs to use siding that is aesthetically sympathetic with the neighboring houses. However, although he can't just use any type of cheap siding he might want, he also can't be compelled to “reconstruct” replica wood siding, if the original historic wood siding was removed before the HD designation came into effect. If original historic siding was removed only after the HD designation went into effect, then he's out of luck and the situation is more complicated.

I haven't seen that house in a while, and don't know what it looks like at the present. I might go by sometime this weekend. Has anyone else here been by there recently...?.


I passed it not too long ago. Seems as though some more siding was put up on the side of the building but not the front. It's still covered in tarps and looks like crap.

Considering the amount of money and the contention coming from Fernandez about how he used "the most expensive siding", I don't see how he'd fall in the "disparate impact" would apply.

The reality is, the guy claims he wanted to move back to Portugal and rent the house out. As such, his reason behind the siding is about using cheap materials because he's not going to live there.

Posted on: 6/30 14:41
Dos A Cero
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 172
Offline
The discussion in another string about fences and historic preservation requirements made me think of that guy from the recently created historic district on the West Side and the City's effort to dismiss his law suit. Turns out there's an initial ruling, although the case still has a long way to go: http://cases.justia.com/federal/distr ... 97/10/0.pdf?ts=1498739790

In short, the City was NOT successful in getting the case dismissed, so the Judge hearing the matter must think it possible that Fernandez's complaints have some merit. Certain complaints were dismissed but it seems the Judge invited Fernandez to re-file with more information. If Fernandez plans to re-file, his attorney might take a good look at the Supreme Court's recent ruling that disparate impact can apply in certain housing cases.

Fernandez might go to the State Courts, although that's difficult for procedural reasons. First, he'd apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness permit, and likely be denied by the HPC. Next, he appeals to the Zoning Board, and likely be denied again. Then, if he has followed all the required rules and met all the deadlines, he can appeal to the Superior Court. There he'd argue the denial by the City is ultra vires – provided that house did NOT have original historic wood siding torn off by the contractor. If the siding was original, it's a different story.

The HPO and HPC often use section 345-71 G. 3. of the JC Code to deny requested work, saying the proposed materials are inappropriate. They'd probably cite that sub-section in their denial of his application. However, that would be a misreading of the section, taking it out of context completely. I'm shocked they get away with it, since they are supposed to be competent to undertake their duties as HPC commissioners. And that means correctly applying the code.

Like any code (or law, or regulation...), 345-71 G. must be read fully and in context, to be properly applied. Looking at 345-71 G. 1-5. as a whole, it is clear that G. 3., about materials, only applies when “reconstruction” is proposed. Moreover, 345-71 G. 1-5., is explicit that reconstruction is only permitted under limited, strictly defined conditions. But you have to read all of 345-71 G., and the associated definitions to know. The HPO and HPC either don't know their own code, or they deliberately ignore it, and all to frequently apply that clause (G. 3.) incorrectly. Taking a sub-section of code and incorrectly applying it to a different set of circumstances than those defined in the code makes the HPC's denial an error and is beyond their authority. The HPC doesn't write the rules – they must follow the code – just like everybody else.

As he's in a historic district, Fernandez needs to use siding that is aesthetically sympathetic with the neighboring houses. However, although he can't just use any type of cheap siding he might want, he also can't be compelled to “reconstruct” replica wood siding, if the original historic wood siding was removed before the HD designation came into effect. If original historic siding was removed only after the HD designation went into effect, then he's out of luck and the situation is more complicated.

I haven't seen that house in a while, and don't know what it looks like at the present. I might go by sometime this weekend. Has anyone else here been by there recently...?.

Posted on: 6/30 14:31
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#90
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1884
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

When liberals do not get their way, liberals call the opponent "racist." Where is the adult conversation here?


That's rich. I recall you and your parking cartel cried racism to get your way on parking regulations the council proposed in Downtown.


Really? I think you confuse my words with someone else. I have never said that. So now if "racists" cannot be used, you accuse me of using it. Very liberal of you.

JCMan8 is a racist. He didn't write a racist comment in that post. He doesn't have to. His racist drivel is all over this message board in other threads.

As for you, well, I've spoken to you and heard how utterly ignorant you are. You're lack of history knowledge is amazing for someone continuing to claim expertise.

I have pointed this out before: The reason this guy had the work stopped was because his neighbors called the city and complained. If the City didn't have any ground to stand on, they would have let him finish. Instead, the people that live next door to him find him so repulsive that they took action on him. Think about that for a minute and you'll know who is standing in the right and all pity fades...

Posted on: 2016/10/10 21:15
Dos A Cero
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#89
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/14 19:28
From Earth
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 98
Offline
https://www.amazon.com/Berenice-Abbott ... ng-New-York/dp/1565845560

This wonderful book of photographs documents the times when NYC was comprised of neighborhoods much like those of Jersey City's today.

Then the concrete canyons replaced most of them. NYPL also has her digital collection available for those who are not bookish.

Posted on: 2016/10/9 9:30
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#88
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4198
Offline
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

When liberals do not get their way, liberals call the opponent "racist." Where is the adult conversation here?


That's rich. I recall you and your parking cartel cried racism to get your way on parking regulations the council proposed in Downtown.


Really? I think you confuse my words with someone else. I have never said that. So now if "racists" cannot be used, you accuse me of using it. Very liberal of you.

Posted on: 2016/10/8 18:52
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/11/21 17:12
From DTJC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 218
Offline
Quote:

When liberals do not get their way, liberals call the opponent "racist." Where is the adult conversation here?


That's rich. I recall you and your parking cartel cried racism to get your way on parking regulations the council proposed in Downtown.

Posted on: 2016/10/7 10:04
Print Top




(1) 2 3 4 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017