JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Quote:

Now we're to believe that a $22 Million organization, which can't break even, can build a $230 Million++ SciTech Scity. The redeveloper is UNKNOWN...

LSC is in charge, and have appointed trustees. They are raising money already for the project. It's a bit early for too much more than a master plan.

Oddly enough, Fulop hated the 2008 loan, and is backing this plan. Go figure.

I also have to say, I vastly prefer to the previous plan, which was a 10 story hotel and conference center. Don't you?

Why not also include a hotel and conference center on a portion of the site if it makes the project and Sci-Tech City more economically feasible.

10 story hotel and huge conference center is not a good fit for the site in general.

That said, it sounds like the site will have a small conference center, and 50 units of temporary housing for visitors.

It's also a little difficult to have a big hotel and conference center occupying the same space as a project that combines commercial, residential and a school.

I don't disagree with any of your points, Dolomiti. I'll clarify my point: I don't believe Sci-Tech City, as originally planned, is economically feasible and thus will never be built or significantly scaled back from the fancy renderings we're seeing now. This reliance on philanthropic dollars is fantasy and the rushing through of this without an appraisal of the land reeks of something.

Don't get me wrong, the land could be worth $100 million. I still think it's a great project. I just lack confidence that the appropriate funding is in place without tapping into that land value by selling a portion for traditional development with proven track record of producing income (i.e. offices, residential).

The entire site is 16 acres. Three or four or those acres will need to be sold to traditional developments to maximize the highest and best use of the land in order to fund the other improvements, in my opinion. I hope my opinion is wrong, but I just don't see Liberty Science Center's board pulling this off.

Please, someone, prove me wrong and demonstrate that Liberty Science Center has the financial capacity to carry out SciTech City as planned.

JCGuys wrote:
You guys are nuts. If this land was sold at market value, we wouldn't get any of the community benefits coming from SciTech, such as the K12 school, the science and technology incubator, or the unique architecture. This will also have economic spin offs bringing much needed jobs!

This $20 million subsidy from the city is needed to make this happen, or we would just get the run of the mill apartments and condos here.

I think the city already does a good job at marketing and selling vacant and underutilized city land for redevelopment and having it produce revenue in the form of PILOT payments or property taxes. I would just put that process on steroids sell to whatever developer is willing to pay the most money up front plus whatever would generate the most in taxes. I think that's already happening in Journal Square with all the big mega towers going up.

hero69 wrote: Quote:

Stringer wrote:

Fulop critics urge Jersey City Council to rethink $20M Liberty Science Center land deal

HUDSON COUNTY VIEW -By  John Heinis  February 24, 201

Two consistent critics of Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop’s administration urged the city council to rethink a $20 million, 16-acre land deal with the local redevelopment agency to move the Liberty Science Center’s “SciTech Scity” project forward.

“So you plan to giveaway 16 acres [of land] worth $20 million? Wow. But first you want to transfer it to the JCRA (Jersey City Redevelopment Agency). What is [sic] JC residents getting for giving away $20 million in real estate?,” Josephine Douglas-Paige asked the council at Wednesday’s meeting.

http://hudsoncountyview.com/fulop-cri ... science-center-land-deal/

this is why its time for fulop to go! does this guy have any ethics! the building looks nice but i didn't realize he was gifting $20 million to the developers?

annieruiz wrote:
"Funding for the project is expected to come largely from venture partners and philanthropists"

Sounds great! I just hope they already know who is paying for this so we dont get stuck with the bill in a few years. Looking forward to it though.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Which council members voted YES? Let's get their names out there.

Stringer wrote:

Jersey City no-knock law to debut

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on March 27, 2017 at 2:39 PM, updated March 27, 2017 at 4:04 PM

JERSEY CITY -- Jersey City's new "no knock" registry that targets aggressive real estate investors is set to debut tomorrow.

Residents throughout Jersey City have complained about aggressive real estate investors who pester them about selling their homes. The ordinance, adopted unanimously earlier this month by the City Council, is similar to laws passed in South Jersey and upstate New York.

Residents who sign up for the registry will receive a decal to display on their property that tells solicitors to buzz off. The first decal is free if picked up in person at City Hall. Replacement decals are $5. If you want the decal mailed, the charge is $1.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ey_city_no-knock_law.html

JPhurst wrote:
The requestor is not asking for project documents, but asking for any email or other communications between Donnelly Fulop, Corp. Counsel, and Paul Hoffman regarding the land transfer. It is cast as widely as possible and also encompasses potentially attorney client privileged documents involving Farrell.

Under NJ's extremely liberal OPRA laws, this is likely a valid request. But it also is taxing on city resources, especially given the gratuitous decision to include Farell in the search.

This person and a handful of other "activists' have been filing OPRA requests for years and have essentially turned the city's staff into their personal gofers so they can try to find emails that they can selectively quote from. Remarkably, given the number of requests over the past few years, one would think that they could have found more. Asking her to compensate the city for the employee's time is more than reasonable in this instance.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
"In other words, the city is charging Esther for what is normally a request granted for free, in what appears to be an attempt to dissuade and discourage her from getting these documents. "

She means "free" as in free to her - not free to the taxpayers who are paying the city clerk to perform 5 hours of their ordinary work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Monroe wrote:
Somehow I don't think Fulop would be so brave to do this if he was still running for Governor. But it does pander to his base in JC for his mayoral run.

JCGuys wrote:
Goal is met. congratulations

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Yvonne, can you be more specific about what type of public school? Magnets and charters are public schools.

The city told me it would be a traditional public school.

Council President Lavarro said the JCRA would possible vote to amend the redeveloper agreement with SciTeh Scity tonight (6 pm, 30 Montgomery) to make that specific in the agreement.

Monroe wrote:
@dolomiti, the Jersey Avenue is a done deal, has been-besides, do you think it won't happen if the LSC land grab goes through, lol?

Yes, it's not there but if anyone thinks that a real estate group spent $35 million dollars for the property in question that it wouldn't have access to both downtown AND the nearby Turnpike entrance/exit?

And enough with the 'it's not a loan'. From the murky details we can see, the LSC will hustle for donations, give the money to itself, then pay itself back with 'profits', ahead of paying the city back for the land.

Here's Fulop on this

The city would share in revenue only after profits hit $78 million. That is the amount in donations from LSC's donor base that LSC expects to divert to SciTech Scity to get the project moving, according to Fulop.

Now why wouldn't the donors just give the 'donation' to the LSC new project? Why does it need to be paid back?

Paid back, as in 'I owe someone something'.

Or, 'I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today'. Which, of course, never happens in Popeye, and won't happen here either.

Monroe wrote:
The city is on its heels, changing shit up hours before the vote!

Is this the way to present a development that will end up costing a third of a billion dollars?

http://hudsoncountyview.com/ahead-of- ... ases-details-of-the-plan/

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
My general policy:
Fluorescent tube and spiral lighting in the kitchens I take care of. The bulbs last for years and they are a bitch to replace. The other is one apartment where the ceiling light in the bathroom is 11 ft up. I take care of that one as well.
Everything else is the tenant's responsibility.

Me too they are tricky to get out. If a tenant never did it before they can crack the fixture end sockets or crack the plastic lens. I just do the kitchen and porch all other bulbs the tenant replaces. I also get those 10 year smoke detector carbon monoxide combos so I don?t have to worry about battery replacement. I replace the furnace filters and check the bottom of the chimney every few months to make sure it has no obstructions like chips of the old flue lining, etc. I found the carcass of a big black bird in one of the flues once. (rip)

I think I posted this before I have very long term tenants and I don?t charge big rents. I found the lower more reasonable rent is the less maintenance calls you get. The tenants tend to fix everything themselves. Had a neighbor who charged extremely high rents he was getting call after call from the tenants to fix things and complain about this and that. He also had high tenant turnover they didn't last long.

I would rather be poor with no stress. Just charge enough to cover expenses like taxes and water and put a little away in case a major repair is needed.

.

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

Hmm... interesting case.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

JPhurst wrote:
If it's political in nature, then I suspect it has more to do with placing himself in opposition to Sweeney-Christie, who are reconciling on this matter, than campaign contributions.

I don't see anyone on the "no" side that could match the developers and unions contributing in support of this.

Yvonne wrote:
Another give away by this administration. Developers are coming into JC and buying up properties all over this city. There is no need for this.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
The homeowner's issue is not cut and dry. The city issued him a permit to go ahead with the siding, then reneged on it.

EXACTLY

ANYONE can See that Carlos' project [46 Bentley Ave.] was ISSUED a Permit for Vinyl Siding in AUGUST 2015 & that His project is/remains STALLED since then in UR[Under Review] Status, at the Check Construction Permits Portal on the City's Website.

What ANYONE Cannot See on this Portal is the Sequence of Subsequent Events that happened to Him & His Wife starting 3 DAYS into the project that has Literally Driven Him to the Brink & forced him into attendance at Public Meetings.

Are copies of permits available on-line?

According to the Rule, he could have gotten a CNE (permit) for replacing existing vinyl or aluminum with new vinyl siding; however, he would not have been able to get a CNE to replace wood siding with vinyl. The NYC Landmarks Commission counsel has always taken the position that if a permit is issued in error, approving work that is contrary to the Rules, the permit is invalid. Thus his permit, if issued incorrectly, would not stand. It's the property owners as well as the contractors responsibility to know the law, and not try to take advantage of something approved erroneously; seeing the permit would clear this up.

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Giovanna wrote:

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

Thanks for that post, it's interesting language in that Ordinance.... If the City felt it was on strong grounds to prohibit the use of vinyl or aluminum, then it would have said so clearly. The fact that the Ordinance language does not contain a clear prohibition in all circumstances is telling in itself. The imprecise wording used makes me think those drafting it had concerns about going any further. It's not surprising I suppose, since the enabling legislation giving municipalities the power to regulate historic districts speaks of ?conservation? and ?preservation?. Those are the words used in the relevant sections of the act. The words ?restoration? or ?re-creation? don't appear, so it's a stretch to argue the enabling legislation could be read in a way that it permits the City to compel ?restoration? work. But since the City wields the power by denying permits, they often get their way.

If this house already had vinyl or aluminum siding that he just wants to replace, then he might consider applying for a certificate of no effect to replace it with the same. However, the City and Historic Preservation folks are zealots bent on ?recreating? the late 1800's / early 1900's. Since it's not their money being spent, they'll abuse their power in an attempt to ?force? people into using what the City wants ? expensive wood siding in this example. And they'll try, even if it's beyond the limits of what they are permitted to do under the MLUL provisions.

So, if he has the time and money, when the City rejects his initial application, his next step is the Zoning Board with an appeal. Then, as would seem likely, when the Zoning Board rejects him, he's off to the Superior Court, Law Division. At least there he'll get a fair hearing. And if he doesn't like their decision, he could appeal, and so on, all the way perhaps to the State Supreme Court (maybe they'd agree to hear the case...?), since the fundamental issue is what is an individual permitted to do with her or her property, and what limits on that are appropriate. Rather important questions actually in a free, democratic society....

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
The homeowner's issue is not cut and dry. The city issued him a permit to go ahead with the siding, then reneged on it.

Unless you have seen the specific permit, you don't know what was actually requested for.

Having filed requests with the city, you do not need to be specific about the project that you are undertaking. For all we know, the request merely stated the person was re-doing the siding. It was one of Carlos' neighbors that called the city to complain about the type of work being done.

Exactly. Not so cut and dry...

OneSkirt wrote:
The homeowner's issue is not cut and dry. The city issued him a permit to go ahead with the siding, then reneged on it.

brewster wrote:
Incredibly disingenuous of Fulop on the reval. How can he stand there with a straight face and tell the citizens that the current situation of some owners paying 1% and some 3% or even 4% is right and proper to continue indefinitely. That's simply disgusting.

And his domino theory is bunk. If the price drops to reflect the overall cost of ownership rising, the net cost of ownership relative to other wards remains stable. If the other wards drop in net cost to reflect lower taxes, their prices should rise not fall. And 1% tax drop on a $500k house is $5000, not "a couple of hundred".

Do Boggiano & Yun not understand their constituents are getting hosed?

Pebble wrote:
Your posts are exceptionally hard to follow due to your inability to use the quote function properly or to type without using the Caps Lock button.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
INDEED, HE/SHE COULD, IF THE CITY HAD PROVIDED ANY OF THOSE !

If he (and we see in the video that Carlos is indeed a man) did not receive a Written Basis for issuing a StopWork Order why did you claim that he did? You?re the one that brought it up!

Quote:

light12v wrote:
I AM SURE THE INDIVIDUAL PREFERS TO SPEND HIS TIME & MONEY ELSEWHERE INSTEAD OF BEING FORCED DOWN THIS PATH

The only ?path? the city is forcing him to go down is complying with the historical designation guidelines. If you look on the website for the city which clearly lays out those guidelines, you will see that it specifically states that vinyl siding is not an option. In the video, the person repeats vinyl siding over and over again.

I cannot comprehend why anyone in their right mind would waste money on lawyers in order to install ugly vinyl siding on a house. However, that seems to be the direction he chooses to go.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
CONVERSATIONS, YOU SAY ? THE CITY SHOULD HAVE SENT OUT A SIMPLE SURVEY ACCOMPANYING THE AREA RESIDENT'S TAX BILL TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH YOUR "large number of residents", & ONLY PROCEEDED IF PROPONENTS COMPRISED A MAJORITY.

Why does it need to be a majority? That isn?t how our laws operate.

Why should the city send out a survey? The city didn?t come up with the idea. Your neighbors came up with the idea.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
WOW, YOU ARE 'THE LAST BASTION OF ALTRUISM'... MY HOME'S MAIL SLOT ACCOMMODATES EVERY OTHER TYPE OF SOLICITATION, FUNNY THAT IT WAS UNABLE TO ACCEPT ALL OF YOUR'S !

I don?t live in your area. I am certain that I didn?t solicit in your area. I?m talking about the experiences I had going door-to-door and pointing out how very possible, even probable, that people rang your doorbell at a time you weren?t home. It is most likely that they weren?t dropping off fliers. I don?t know why this is not something you can fathom.

I can unequivocally state that they discussed historical designation at their neighborhood meetings going back months. If you did not attend those meetings to stay informed of what your neighbors were doing, then that would be on you.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
THAT BEING SAID, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE OR DO SHOULD CERTAINLY PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO

If you choose to ignore what I write, that?s fine. You have a different opinion, obviously.


Quote:

light12v wrote:
"DON'T WISH TOO HARD..."

Why? I can see the clear benefits that this would bring.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
WHAT A CROCK OF PURE SPECULATION

No speculation needed. Historically designating a home increases that home?s value. If someone lives outside of that area and argues in favor of the designation, they are arguing in favor of purchase prices rising therefore making it more expensive for that person to buy.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
DON'T KNOW [DON'T REALLY CARE] WHAT YOUR PEEVES ARE W/ YVONNE, BUT UNLESS YOU LIVE WITHIN HER OR HER SPOUSE YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT SHE SUFFERED OR BENEFITED FROM IN HER LIFE.

Well, I can certainly state that I do not live ?within? her. What I can state is that she is a liar. My problem is with the idea that she should have a say in what happens in my area. She showed up to a local block meeting, told lies to my neighbors in order to create fear. She sounded like Donald Trump on a stump speech. Now, I need to re-engage with many of my neighbors to tell them all the ways in which she lied.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
YOUR RELENTLESS BASHING OF HER COMBINED WITH YOUR OVERT LACK OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN NAVIGATING PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WITHIN A JC HISTORIC DISTRICT CERTAINLY QUALIFIES YOU AS A 'BARKING DOG'.
[NO OFFENSE TO OUR 4 LEGGED FRIENDS INTENDED]
[/b]

I?m a home owner. This isn?t my first home, either. I know what it does and does not cost to maintain a home. I also know what will and will not increase my home?s value.

As for my ?personal experience?, you might as well say that I can never comment on a baseball game or soccer game because I never played either professionally. It really is a stupid argument you?re making.

Ultimately, it is really obvious to see what happened here. Carlos has a contractor that applied for the permit. This contractor was vague on the description. The city approved the permit. The contractor went out and purchased materials, most likely not knowing that Carlos was in a historically designated area. These materials were vinyl siding. Carlos? neighbors saw ugly vinyl siding going up on the side of his house and called the city to complain. They showed up and shut the job down. Instead of sitting down with the city to hammer out the details of what he is allowed to do, he?s hired a lawyer.

sullyx wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

sullyx wrote:
1. CAPS LOCK is to the left of your left pinky, learn to use it.

2. Yvonne is unhinged and makes up stories to fit her complaint, ie the pedestrian plaza causing traffic backup's going the west over a mile past the plaza

1] WHO R U 'TO BE OBEYED' ?

2] THANK YOU 4 SHARING YOUR UNINFORMED OPINION.

1. Not asking to be obeyed, only pointing out that your cap lock is on and you appear to be shouting for no good reason. You do realize that's generally what people infer from writers that do so, right?

2. You're missing the difference between fact and opinion. It is a fact that the pedestrian plaza is not causing traffic backups up Newark by the court house but it is Yvonne's uninformed opinion that it is Mr. Balcer. If you think otherwise, I've got another pot hole for you to sit in.