bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

What would you use if it was the alley sides seen by no one but the next door neighbors? Is vinyl just ugly or does it have a functional flaw too? Siding is on my to-do list.

I have been using this material called Viroc more and more. At first I used it to rebuild the frames around windows that rotted out due to exposure to horizontal rain (the building gets blasted during Nor'Easters).

I then started using it as siding. The manufacturer intended it to be used as commercial paneling that is mechanically fasted to the building. I found out (at least for me) it works pretty well bolted on to the building, but with a moisture barrier / weep path underneath.

I like the stuff because unlike vinyl, Viroc is damn near fireproof. This was kind of important after a tenant accidentally set one of my buildings on fire via a dropped cigarette (small fire.... fire department did more damage putting it out then the fire itself). I used a water based colored sealer, which last years. Unfortunately, the company that made the sealer went out of business.

http://virocny.com/

I have used Viroc 4 exterior & interior projects. It's great material & has similar characteristics to Hardiplank [which is no surprise since they are both cement based.]

I am a huge fan of Hardiplank. 15 years after building a house in Texas, and the Hardiplank still looks as good as new, even after the ubiquitous intense summer sun of South Texas, and the many variations in weather and precipitation. It has withstood several hail storms, as well as torrential rains, and other weather phenomena, and it hasn't need any work or repainting.

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.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

What would you use if it was the alley sides seen by no one but the next door neighbors? Is vinyl just ugly or does it have a functional flaw too? Siding is on my to-do list.

I have been using this material called Viroc more and more. At first I used it to rebuild the frames around windows that rotted out due to exposure to horizontal rain (the building gets blasted during Nor'Easters).

I then started using it as siding. The manufacturer intended it to be used as commercial paneling that is mechanically fasted to the building. I found out (at least for me) it works pretty well bolted on to the building, but with a moisture barrier / weep path underneath.

I like the stuff because unlike vinyl, Viroc is damn near fireproof. This was kind of important after a tenant accidentally set one of my buildings on fire via a dropped cigarette (small fire.... fire department did more damage putting it out then the fire itself). I used a water based colored sealer, which last years. Unfortunately, the company that made the sealer went out of business.

http://virocny.com/

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.

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

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

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...?.

JerseyCityNj wrote:
"Fulop's home was last reassessed in 1991. In New Jersey, properties generally retain their assessments until a property revaluation or after renovations, which are supposed to trigger reassessments."



Below his own wife admits in another article last year that the home was renovated by them.

"Asked about her new home on Ogden Avenue, Jackie, as she is called, said the place has been reduced to bare studs. It is being completely renovated because of its age and yes, she has a lot of say about the job. No doubt this means a big kitchen, hardwood floors, cool lighting and a choice of gun turret colors (kidding)? I kind of like her honesty -- is that the word?"

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2 ... op_and_his_local_sup.html

neverleft wrote:
Hudson County proposes $538 million budget with tax increases for 6 towns

BY CAITLIN MOTA
The Jersey Journal

JERSEY CITY - Hudson County has proposed a $538 million budget that would raise taxes in six of its 12 municipalities this year.

The Hudson County Board of Freeholders is expected to make a final vote on the budget, which is $2 million less than it was in 2016, at the body's June 8 meeting.

Under the proposed budget, Jersey City residents would see the largest county tax increase, up roughly 9 percent from last year. West New York, Weehawken, and Hoboken could see about a 6 percent hike. East Newark would see about a 3 percent jump, and North Bergen would see just over a 1 percent increase.

While Jersey City hasn't seen a municipal tax increase in three years, it is the second year in a row the county's largest city will be hit hard by county tax hikes. In 2016, Jersey City saw a 10 percent increase.

Hoboken, too, saw a 4 percent hike 2016.


http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... s.html#incart_river_index

Annod wrote:
VIDEO: Bob Hurley, former St. Anthony basketball coach, honored at ESPY Awards

By
Nicholas Parco
New York Daily News
Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 10:09 PM

He isn?t coaching hoops anymore, but the accolades keep on coming for Bob Hurley.

The former head of the storied boys basketball program at St. Anthony High School in Jersey City, which closed earlier this year, won the Best Coach Award at the ESPYs Wednesday night.

Hurley, one of two Basketball Hall of Famers who only coached at the high school level, went 1,162-119 and won 28 state titles to go along with four national championships in his 45 seasons running the show at St. Anthony?s.

?It?s really a great honor to be here tonight,? Hurley said during in his acceptance speech. ?Getting this award alongside all these iconic coaches, but even more specifically it?s a great honor to be representing all these great coaches.?

He then thanked his family, including his sons, URI head coach Dan Hurley and Arizona State?s Bobby Hurley, who were in attendance, for making what he has always referred to as ?the miracle? of St. Anthony?s possible.

?It?s a great honor to be representing all these coaches in the high school ranks,? Bob Hurley said. ?Because every athlete that has come up on this stage tonight, no matter what sport they play, each one of them had a coach in high school, junior college, or maybe even before who played a critical role in their development as an athlete and it?s the whole person part that I have always taken a lot of pride in.?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/bas ... d-espys-article-1.3322143

Bamb00zle wrote:
You do need to follow the ?rules?, which you can find in the JC code at 345-30 and 345-71. Since it's a part of ?Zoning? other general provisions apply as well, found throughout the Code and State Laws. Although you must follow the rules, rest assured Dan and the HPC won't do the same. They'll ignore the bounds of their authority, which are limited to ?historic preservation?. Instead they'll demand the sun, moon and stars and won't give you a permit till they get what they want. The devil in understanding all this is in the details, which are widely mis-understood and applied. Read on if you choose, and you might learn something about the way the HPC and HPO operate in Jersey City.

First, you need to understand a little about the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). The MLUL is the enabling legislation from which the City draws its limited authority to regulate ?historic preservation.? ?Preservation? is the key word used in the applicable sections of the MLUL . Why is the word ?preservation? so important? Well, in matters of historic preservation the enabling MLUL limits the regulatory powers it grants municipalities to preservation and ONLY preservation. ?Reconstruction?, ?restoration? and other such activities are NOT mentioned in the MLUL, and are, therefore, EXCLUDED as activities the City has any authority to compel.

So what about the word ?preservation? in particular? Here we turn to the ordinary, obvious meaning of the word. It is plainly apparent it is only possible to ?preserve? something that currently exists. The term ?historic preservation? itself makes reference to something that is from history ? that is, something that exists from the past. Conversely, if something does not exist, there is nothing to ?preserve?. Put another way, if a historic feature no longer exists, then it can't be preserved. A fake, historic-appearing, replication of some non-existant feature or aspect of a building might be made by ?reconstruction? or ?recreation?, but those activities are not ?preservation.?

With all that as background now to the matter of window replacement. First, take a careful look at the wording of the City code. It's found at 345-71 L. 1. b. I'll reproduce here for ease of reference, and have added the bold for emphasis of a key clause:

L. Additional Regulations for Alterations and Additions to Buildings and New Construction.
1. Windows.
b. Replacement.
i. If historic windows have deteriorated to a point precluding repair, rehabilitation or restoration, based on documentation submitted by the applicant, or a field inspection by the Historic Preservation Officer, replacement windows may be approved under a Certificate of No Effect if they match the historic windows in terms of configuration, operation, details, material and finish. Variations in details will be permitted if such variations do not significantly affect the visual characteristics of the historic window, including the shadow effect of muntins and sash on the glazing. In evaluating "significant" effect, other factors to be considered shall be the age of the building and its architectural quality, as well as the extent of reduction in the total glazed area of the proposed sash compared to the existing sash. For narrow wood windows (less than fifteen (15) inches wide), the reduction shall be limited to ten percent (10%); for wood windows, fifteen (15) inches or wider, the reduction shall be limited to six percent; for metal double-hung windows (of any size), the reduction shall be limited to ten percent (10%).
ii. In buildings less than thirty (30) years old, the replacement windows need not match the historic window in terms of materials. The finish, however, must match the finish of the original windows. On secondary facades, windows which are visible from a public thoroughfare need only match the historic windows in terms of configuration and finish.
iii. Proposals for replacement windows which do not meet these conditions will require a Certificate of Appropriateness

You'll notice the words used are about historic windows that STILL EXIST, although perhaps in such a state of disrepair that it is no longer possible to make them serviceable through means of repair, rehabilitation or reconstruction. Please note that the word reconstruction is used here to in reference to something that still exists, and needs to be preserved. It is not referring to the construction of something completely new where nothing presently exists. This latter use of ?reconstruction? has a technical definition found in the definitions section of the Code, and more clearly in the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Historic Preservation.

So, if your historic windows still exist, they must be preserved (by means of repair, rehabilitation or reconstruction). If your historic windows can't be preserved you're going to have to replace them with essentially identical, fake ?historic? copies. And those copies don't come cheap. $3,500 a piece for long, parlor-level windows last time I checked, and that was a couple of years ago.

Now to ?non-historic? windows in an old building. This situation is very frequent because many of the houses in the historic districts had the original wood windows removed and replaced, often by aluminum windows, at some past time. Obviously, the historic windows are no longer present, so they can't be preserved. It is notable that the Code is completely silent on the situation of replacement of a non-historic window in an old building. There isn't a word about it. But there is no mystery in that, it is exactly as you'd expect. City Codes can't include wording that is inconsistent with the City's limited power to regulate. The City does not have the legal authority to order or require the replacement of non-historic windows by historic windows in an old building, so words to that effect aren't in the Code. Recall the City can only regulate ?preservation.? Ordering someone to replace a non-historic window with a fake-historic looking window would not be ?preservation?, it would be ?restoration? or ?reconstruction? ? and is therefore outside the City's authority to require.

Nevertheless, if your existing windows are not historic, then this is where the ?demand the sun, moon and stars? hits you ? Dan and the HPC will try to have you believe they have the authority to demand that you replace those non-historic windows with ?fake historic? ones. And worse, if you are unlucky enough to have had your long parlor-level windows bricked up sometime in the past, well then they'll try to make you restore those long window openings as well. More expense.

These activities are not ?preservation? of an existing historic feature. They are ?restoration? of the building to its appearance from time time in the past. These kinds of demands by the HPC and HPO are beyond their legal authority to regulate ?preservation.? All the definitions are in the Code. Again, better definitions are found in the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Historic preservation. The latter definitions are much clearer than the City's, particularly the one for '?restoration? which is so badly written in the JC Code as to fail the ?understandable by a person of common intelligence? standard.

As I've noted previously, the HPC and HPO get away with this abuse of their authority because many homeowners simply give in to the demands. It's expensive, time consuming and a hassle to take the HPC and HPO on. And you can't count on ANY support from our esteemed council persons. They're too busy doing the bidding of the Mayor. You can fight, but you'd need to hire an attorney intimately familiar with all the detailed requirements of zoning law. That's expensive, often more that the cost of the work and so the City gets its way. For owners who can't afford the expensive, extensive work demanded, well they often just sell, driven out of their neighborhoods by the heavy handed and abusive use of these zoning codes. That's how it goes down in JC ? always has, probably always will.....

Toomas wrote:
... does anyone have any information regarding the group of 15/30 teens who were causing a commotion around Grove and Mercer last evening.

JerseyCityNj wrote:
The Sound Machine part literally had me laughing out loud.

iGreg wrote:
These are all nice Yeshiva boys, y'all got nothing to worry about.

ecoindie wrote:
Is anyone else wondering where are those 900 cops Fulop talked about?

buddyboy wrote:
What excuse is Fulop going to use for this act of violence?
He blamed the last murder on bail reform. Maybe his propaganda
minister Jen Morill will come up with something better.

HamiltonParker wrote:
I too live in a Circa Abraham Lincoln, flat roof house and received homeowner's insurance through Chubb, who holds all of our other policies. It's pricey, for sure, but when we've had claims with them in the past (frozen water pipes) and everything was handled with remarkable speed. They're known as the *white glove* choice but the premium paid for their services was quickly forgotten when bad things happened.

heights wrote:
I wish I had a friend in the insurance business then I would not have to give out my name, rank, and serial number just to get a quote. I bet those in the industry could get and give a ball park figure anytime.

justJC wrote:
Ready, set, discuss!

Why did these docs have to be OPRA'ed?

Did the Council members read them?

What's a science specialty hotel?

And there's this: Bleeding edge technology is a category of technologies so new that they could have a high risk of being unreliable and lead adopters to incur greater expense in order to make use of them. So has City leadership adequately protected JC with this land hand-off?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-wndxx3kEacX2t3NnUwN2xQR3M/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-wndxx3kEacLXUzd2tyZ0hGVXc/view

Mao wrote:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/#inbox/15b16bbeb4dfba06

Above is the link to the Memorandum of Understanding. Esther Winter went through the trouble (FOIA request) and expense (over $200) to get a copy of it. Guess what? She got it after the vote. So much for transparency.

Although personally, a fan of Charter Schools, why did the Council act coy, to say it as politely as possible, and say it was undetermined whether the school was to be a Charter or a regular public shool?

Also, the hotel is described in terms that suggest it will also assert non profit status (provide lodging for science visitors etc). Corp. Counsel Jeremy said that it would be for profit.

So this new entity will have one member and owner, namely the Science Center. An LLC with only one member is treated as an entity disregarded as separate from its owner for income tax purposes (but as a separate entity for purposes of employment tax and certain excise taxes), unless it files Form 8832 and affirmatively elects to be treated as a corporation.

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Several months ago, when the city council created the redevelopment plan I spoke against this. Councilman Boggiano said the city told him this land was worthless at that meeting. His comments were picked up by Al Sullivan for the Jersey City Reporter. I don't remember the issue but I am sure you can still find it.

CITY COUNCIL DID NOT CREATE LIBERTY HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
THEY MERELY AMENDED IT FROM IT'S 1973 CREATION TO PAVE THE WAY FOR FULOP'S VISION OF SCITECH CITY 2015,, AFTER DOING NOTHING FOR 2 YEARS ,, AND PUSHED IT THROUGH ON 01/25/17...WITHOUT DUE PROCESS SUPPORTED WITH ONLY SLOPPY PLANNING DIVISION WORK/MAPS & RENDERINGS.... IN A BUMS RUSH TO MEET FULOP'S ELECTION YEAR TIMELINE REQUIREMENTS.

As relevant as your comments are, I suggest that you TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK ON YOUR KEYBOARD! It's annoying.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Several months ago, when the city council created the redevelopment plan I spoke against this. Councilman Boggiano said the city told him this land was worthless at that meeting. His comments were picked up by Al Sullivan for the Jersey City Reporter. I don't remember the issue but I am sure you can still find it.

JUST FINISHED READING ORD#17-002 DOCS. AND YOU WERE THE ONLY SPEAKER AT THE 01/25/13 COUNCIL MEETING THAT I SEE ON THE DOCUMENTS

Yes, I was. Council-President Lavarro tried to cut me off by saying this not about transferring the land but I reminded him this is step one.

Yvonne wrote:
Several months ago, when the city council created the redevelopment plan I spoke against this. Councilman Boggiano said the city told him this land was worthless at that meeting. His comments were picked up by Al Sullivan for the Jersey City Reporter. I don't remember the issue but I am sure you can still find it.

Yvonne wrote:
Several months ago, when the city council created the redevelopment plan I spoke against this. Councilman Boggiano said the city told him this land was worthless at that meeting. His comments were picked up by Al Sullivan for the Jersey City Reporter. I don't remember the issue but I am sure you can still find it.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

stc4blues wrote:
I still don't understand what's going on with this $78M. De we have:

1. Doners' giving $78M to a non-profit entity, which then
2. loans it to a for-profit entity (against the value of the land?),
3. which must then repay the loan to the non-profit entity. Hence,
4. The City's 50/50 split of the net doesn't kick in until that loan is repaid.

Is that what's going on?

That's not my understanding.

1. LSC fundraises and gets $78m from donors
2. LSC will invite investors for another $55m worth
3. LSC takes out loans for the rest of the project
4. Nothing has to be repaid to the donors
5. The city starts getting paid for the land, after the project makes $78m in profits; they are paid 50% of subsequent profits.
6. Once the land is paid off, the city's share drops to 20%.