Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
47 user(s) are online (35 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 46

JCMan8, more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 4 »


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
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 90
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: Yesterday 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: 4049
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: 85
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: 1873
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: 156
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: 1873
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: 4049
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: 170
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


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#86
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4049
Offline
Quote:

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?


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

Posted on: 2016/10/7 8:11
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#85
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1873
Offline
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?

Posted on: 2016/10/7 7:10
Dos A Cero
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#84
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/12/2 19:50
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 62
Offline
Here we have someone who cares deeply about their neighborhood. They have not only the means, but the motivation to make it the best they can. However, they are hamstrung by a narrow definition of "historic."

Part of the beauty of downtown JC is a mix of historic flavors. This isn't a gaslight village where we live in a particular era. Homeowners are encouraged by property values to make the choices that fit best and drive return (high end vinyl notwithstanding...). The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which gives these groups power, is overreaching and unnecessary in my opinion.

To those in the Heights under the new regime, I hope you preserve, restore and IMPROVE your buildings to the best of your ability.


Quote:

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 !!!

Posted on: 2016/10/7 0:02
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 15:38
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2900
Online
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.

Posted on: 2016/10/6 20:07
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#82
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 90
Offline
Quote:

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.


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 !!!

Posted on: 2016/10/6 17:10

Edited by light12v on 2016/10/6 17:36:44
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#81
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 90
Offline
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.
HERE IS THE PERMIT which CLEARLY STATES 'VINYL'
https://www.sdlportal.com/towns/nj/hud ... y/building/permits/116745

Posted on: 2016/10/6 16:33
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1873
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2016/10/6 7:11
Dos A Cero
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4049
Offline
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?"

Posted on: 2016/10/5 23:36
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#78
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: 85
Offline
"High end" vinyl siding? Illegal shut down perhaps but maybe the ends justify the means?

Posted on: 2016/10/5 23:33
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#77
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/12/2 19:50
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 62
Offline
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
{Long, articulate diatriabe}


Amen! These commissions serve to hold on to a past that never existed in the first place. In the past 200 years, a series of wood framed "historic buildings" were removed to put in the brownstones. I'm sure some were amazing buildings that fell into disrepair.


Posted on: 2016/10/5 22:46
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 156
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2016/10/5 21:51
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 15:38
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2900
Online
Quote:

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.


Seems like this fact is being provided to show that enforcement of the regulations is politically motivated and not actually important.

Posted on: 2016/10/5 20:16
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4049
Offline
The city has an obligation to inform homeowners when they apply for a permit and it should have mail information to all homeowners in the new historic district. None of this was done. This administration should have work with the homeowners instead of having this lawsuit. No one know how a judge will rule. Look how the judge ruled in the revaluation case.

Posted on: 2016/10/5 18:43
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/13 21:38
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3314
Offline
is historic preservation a state agency, and if so, shouldn't the plaintiffs sue the state, instead of jersey city?

Posted on: 2016/10/5 18:42
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#72
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/2/10 17:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 143
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2016/10/5 17:24
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#71
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/7/3 13:00
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 31
Offline
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



According to the report, the family had a valid work order and permits from the city, so those must have been filed before the Historic District vote was passed. Why does the city not honor their own permit? If JC does not go back and force residents to undo previous "non-historical" renovations, why does it stop this previously approved renovation, if the couple eked in prior to the deadline?

Another blemish to Fulop's administration in my eyes. These things should be cut and dry... only allow work that is already permitted, but anything that has not been issued as of the date of the law cannot be done. So if they for example, received permits already for siding, but not for windows, then they cannot buy Home Depot plain windows and need proper historic colored windows.

Posted on: 2016/10/5 16:12
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/13 21:38
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3314
Offline
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

interesting, but i wonder if this lawsuit has much merit. has the court ruled that cities have wide discretion when it comes to zoning and develoment within their municipalities to the point where cities are allowed to seize private property (with "fair" compensation) and give it to private developers?

i wonder why can't i open a brothel/strip club or pot house in jersey city and claim that my free of speech rights are being violated

Posted on: 2016/10/5 16:12
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/10/7 11:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2401
Offline
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


Posted on: 2016/10/5 15:37
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#68
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/10/31 15:04
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 39
Offline
What is really sad is seeing historic building facades falling into disrepair and decay because the people who live in/ own them can not afford to maintain them, or because of their love of "freedom" don't care enough to do required maintenance.

Then there are the eyesore "renovations" that cover everything in plastic siding, or simply remove the historic detail because of the "freedom" to have the lowest maintenance costs while taking every dollar of the rent generated by the place, but doing no maintenance.

Then there are the opportunist "Freedom Investors" that tear down the original house and build an out of place pink monster that gobbles up all the potential green space around it to maximize the square footage that can be rented. leaving the area looking like a cement wasteland.

This kind of "Freedom" I can do without.

Posted on: 2015/9/9 16:59
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/12/21 9:43
From Harsimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 378
Offline
Quote:

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.


Curious - where did you buy that affords you the same amenities as living in a DTJC historic district but w/o restrictions?

Posted on: 2015/8/4 14:43
Print Top


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 156
Offline
Thanks JadedJC, your experiences with the Historic Preservation requirements exactly match mine, and my neighbors as well. In short, it's an expensive nightmare.

In a classic example of regulatory overreach, the City uses the preservation requirements to browbeat homeowners into undertaking very expensive “restoration” efforts. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves. Replacing windows is just one example. Historic appearing, parlor-level, long, wood windows for a brownstone run to several thousand dollars each (yes, thousands) to buy and install. The short wood windows are over a thousand each.

And it's all paid for twice by Jersey City homeowners. Once to have the costly work done, and then again through increased taxes when the City reassesses the restored property. And just as there are NO tax credits, grant funds, etc., for an individual homeowner, there aren't any tax abatements either. The canard of financial support to individual homeowners was exactly that, introduced to try and divert attention from the reality.

Here's a link to a description of the relationship between Federal, State and Municipal level “historic designation”: http://www.nj.gov/dep/hpo/hpo_article.pdf

Posted on: 2015/8/4 9:57
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