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

Members: 0
Guests: 52

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 »


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1903
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I am not lying if the rules are not written then how can something be illegal. Why don't you post the historic district guidelines and the day it was written. Public documents do one thing right, they always post the date when something was adopted. People at the meeting asked for the guidelines. So why wasn't they given the guidelines? Please do not bother with historic guidelines written for downtown when the majority of those homes are connected and are not made of wood.

You are a liar. Here is what I posted on: 1/18 16:17


Quote:

Pebble wrote:
The rules and regulations are published. You can find them here.

Quote:

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.



Yet again, if you simply don't understand the guidelines which are on the freaking website, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

You are also a liar by claiming there are no wood homes downtown.

The rules and guidelines specifically discuss wood structures, like this man's home. If he bothered to pay attention then he'd have known that vinyl siding isn't allowed and his neighbors wouldn't have called the town on him.

Lastly, these rules have been in existence since May 28, 2008.

Posted on: 2016/3/28 20:47
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 1:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5005
Offline
Quote:

psyop wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Carlos Fernandez went to the Ward A meeting and Fulop had him removed by force before the meeting started. Later, Carlos went to the Ward F meeting and Fulop allowed him to speak. But Fulop replied you are in court there is nothing I can do. If he proceeds, he will be fined $2,000 a day. You can see these videos at www.speaknj.com/

Essentially, Carlos continues to believe that the laws don't apply to him.


If that is the case then why did the city issue him a permit and stopped him after his contractor started the work? The city is at fault to giving him the permit and now his house is open to the elements rotting away.

The permit did not specify that he was replacing his siding with vinyl garbage. Prove me wrong.


The city did not issue guidelines when they voted on the Historic District. I remember Esther Wintner asking about that during the hearing. And I also have that on tape. So how can you find someone if you did not issue guidelines? This man's house is rotting away due to the city neglect.

Wow. You are intentionally dense.

I posted the link and specifically quoted the portion that stated "vinyl siding is not allowed." It isn't my fault that you can't read.

This guy doesn't want to follow the laws. Thus, his house is falling apart. Maybe if he (and you) weren't so dishonest, the house would have been worked on properly...


It's pretty much the same thing for every topic she gets proven wrong or lying and repeat over and over again.


I am not lying if the rules are not written then how can something be illegal. Why don't you post the historic district guidelines and the day it was written. Public documents do one thing right, they always post the date when something was adopted. People at the meeting asked for the guidelines. So why wasn't they given the guidelines? Please do not bother with historic guidelines written for downtown when the majority of those homes are connected and are not made of wood.

Posted on: 2016/3/25 21:25
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/25 0:34
Last Login :
1/19 20:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 360
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Carlos Fernandez went to the Ward A meeting and Fulop had him removed by force before the meeting started. Later, Carlos went to the Ward F meeting and Fulop allowed him to speak. But Fulop replied you are in court there is nothing I can do. If he proceeds, he will be fined $2,000 a day. You can see these videos at www.speaknj.com/

Essentially, Carlos continues to believe that the laws don't apply to him.


If that is the case then why did the city issue him a permit and stopped him after his contractor started the work? The city is at fault to giving him the permit and now his house is open to the elements rotting away.

The permit did not specify that he was replacing his siding with vinyl garbage. Prove me wrong.


The city did not issue guidelines when they voted on the Historic District. I remember Esther Wintner asking about that during the hearing. And I also have that on tape. So how can you find someone if you did not issue guidelines? This man's house is rotting away due to the city neglect.

Wow. You are intentionally dense.

I posted the link and specifically quoted the portion that stated "vinyl siding is not allowed." It isn't my fault that you can't read.

This guy doesn't want to follow the laws. Thus, his house is falling apart. Maybe if he (and you) weren't so dishonest, the house would have been worked on properly...


It's pretty much the same thing for every topic she gets proven wrong or lying and repeat over and over again.

Posted on: 2016/3/25 21:04
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1903
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Carlos Fernandez went to the Ward A meeting and Fulop had him removed by force before the meeting started. Later, Carlos went to the Ward F meeting and Fulop allowed him to speak. But Fulop replied you are in court there is nothing I can do. If he proceeds, he will be fined $2,000 a day. You can see these videos at www.speaknj.com/

Essentially, Carlos continues to believe that the laws don't apply to him.


If that is the case then why did the city issue him a permit and stopped him after his contractor started the work? The city is at fault to giving him the permit and now his house is open to the elements rotting away.

The permit did not specify that he was replacing his siding with vinyl garbage. Prove me wrong.


The city did not issue guidelines when they voted on the Historic District. I remember Esther Wintner asking about that during the hearing. And I also have that on tape. So how can you find someone if you did not issue guidelines? This man's house is rotting away due to the city neglect.

Wow. You are intentionally dense.

I posted the link and specifically quoted the portion that stated "vinyl siding is not allowed." It isn't my fault that you can't read.

This guy doesn't want to follow the laws. Thus, his house is falling apart. Maybe if he (and you) weren't so dishonest, the house would have been worked on properly...

Posted on: 2016/3/25 16:24
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 1:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5005
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Carlos Fernandez went to the Ward A meeting and Fulop had him removed by force before the meeting started. Later, Carlos went to the Ward F meeting and Fulop allowed him to speak. But Fulop replied you are in court there is nothing I can do. If he proceeds, he will be fined $2,000 a day. You can see these videos at www.speaknj.com/

Essentially, Carlos continues to believe that the laws don't apply to him.


If that is the case then why did the city issue him a permit and stopped him after his contractor started the work? The city is at fault to giving him the permit and now his house is open to the elements rotting away.

The permit did not specify that he was replacing his siding with vinyl garbage. Prove me wrong.


The city did not issue guidelines when they voted on the Historic District. I remember Esther Wintner asking about that during the hearing. And I also have that on tape. So how can you find someone if you did not issue guidelines? This man's house is rotting away due to the city neglect.

Posted on: 2016/3/25 14:29
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1903
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Carlos Fernandez went to the Ward A meeting and Fulop had him removed by force before the meeting started. Later, Carlos went to the Ward F meeting and Fulop allowed him to speak. But Fulop replied you are in court there is nothing I can do. If he proceeds, he will be fined $2,000 a day. You can see these videos at www.speaknj.com/

Essentially, Carlos continues to believe that the laws don't apply to him.


If that is the case then why did the city issue him a permit and stopped him after his contractor started the work? The city is at fault to giving him the permit and now his house is open to the elements rotting away.

The permit did not specify that he was replacing his siding with vinyl garbage. Prove me wrong.

Posted on: 2016/3/25 14:17
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/9/16 19:15
Last Login :
2019/2/27 14:41
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 450
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
What kind of moron thinks there aren't wood houses downtown?


The majority of the row houses are brick/brownstones. The few remaining frame homes were there before the brick/brownstones. Most of the frame homes were torn down.


There's no solid rule in determining a construction era downtown. A lot of the Federal and Italianate brick buildings were built between 1830-1860 while a large number of the remaining frame houses were built from 1880-1910. There are certainly exceptions, but that might be too much nuance for you.

Posted on: 2016/3/25 3:07
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 1:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5005
Offline
Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
What kind of moron thinks there aren't wood houses downtown?


The majority of the row houses are brick/brownstones. The few remaining frame homes were there before the brick/brownstones. Most of the frame homes were torn down.

Posted on: 2016/3/25 1:19
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/9/16 19:15
Last Login :
2019/2/27 14:41
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 450
Offline
What kind of moron thinks there aren't wood houses downtown?

Posted on: 2016/3/25 0:37
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 1:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5005
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Carlos Fernandez went to the Ward A meeting and Fulop had him removed by force before the meeting started. Later, Carlos went to the Ward F meeting and Fulop allowed him to speak. But Fulop replied you are in court there is nothing I can do. If he proceeds, he will be fined $2,000 a day. You can see these videos at www.speaknj.com/

Essentially, Carlos continues to believe that the laws don't apply to him.


If that is the case then why did the city issue him a permit and stopped him after his contractor started the work? The city is at fault to giving him the permit and now his house is open to the elements rotting away.

Posted on: 2016/3/24 21:40
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1903
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Carlos Fernandez went to the Ward A meeting and Fulop had him removed by force before the meeting started. Later, Carlos went to the Ward F meeting and Fulop allowed him to speak. But Fulop replied you are in court there is nothing I can do. If he proceeds, he will be fined $2,000 a day. You can see these videos at www.speaknj.com/

Essentially, Carlos continues to believe that the laws don't apply to him.

Posted on: 2016/3/24 20:59
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 1:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5005
Offline
Carlos Fernandez went to the Ward A meeting and Fulop had him removed by force before the meeting started. Later, Carlos went to the Ward F meeting and Fulop allowed him to speak. But Fulop replied you are in court there is nothing I can do. If he proceeds, he will be fined $2,000 a day. You can see these videos at www.speaknj.com/

Posted on: 2016/3/24 20:38
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#35
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/3/30 18:25
Last Login :
2017/5/31 2:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 183
Offline
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Does anyone know care if this was resolved?


Fixed it for ya.

Posted on: 2016/3/24 18:23
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1903
Offline
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Does anyone know if this was resolved?

When I last drove past the house, I saw tarps still hanging. I don't believe it is resolved.

Posted on: 2016/3/24 18:17
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/9/18 3:58
Last Login :
2020/8/21 13:49
From Between Thought and Expression
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 828
Offline
Does anyone know if this was resolved?

Posted on: 2016/3/24 17:39
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/15 17:32
Last Login :
2017/5/17 13:40
From Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 766
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:

Many people ask about the rules and regulations during the hearing and was told they would be written after the adoption of the ordinance. I attended many hearings and that was a common answer. Downtown do not have have wooden homes, their regulations do not apply.

The current Rules & Regulations do address imitation cladding (x.) http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... ervation%20Guidelines.pdf. I would assume these are applicable to the new historic district, since they are based on an earlier ordinance or standard.

I could not listen to the entire harrangue, but got to the point where Mr. Balcer raises an excellent point - the 'fairness' of applying Rules developed for rowhouses, with one street fa?ade, to free-standing houses, with much larger amounts of special materials and windows to maintain and replace. This is an issue everyone in the new district should stay on top of. In NYC, when the Douglaston and Fieldston Historic Districts were designated, neighborhoods with large 1920's free standing homes, new Rules were specifically created for those districts, to give the owners practical relief when replacing windows, installing HVAC, etc. That is absolutely the right thing to pursue here.

That said, as someone who has worked on both the public and private sector sides of the preservation issue, IMO you and Mr. Balcer have to drop this guy Carlos. He is a terrible example to hold up:
- he admitted to buying the house to rent or sell, thus he's an investor not a stakeholder like his neighbors
- he seems incapable of understanding the differences between State/Federal vs. local land use/preservation ordinances
- he has lots of (loudly voiced) opinions on property rights, but no perspective on how they are derived and enforced in the US




Posted on: 2016/2/8 21:54
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 1:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5005
Offline
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:

Is it possible to just get a "just the facts" summary of the dispute?

1. What exactly (in detail) is the reason for the work stoppage order? Is it because of the home owner's choice of siding does not meet historic district standards?

2. If it is an issue with the material choice, what materials are acceptable per the Building Department? If fiber cement board is acceptable, then the home owner should easily be able to switch to it instead of vinyl (more expensive but it really looks good... like wood but way more durable).

If the Building Department won't respond in writing or respond period, did the homeowner make a complaint to the DCA (trust me.. they DO respond)?

As much as I despise the JC Building Department, they don't operate in a vacuum... there has to be a reason for the work stoppage.


Here's as much information as I know. The video isn't clear as the individual isn't specific with dates. And much of this was based on the information I knew before watching that absurdity.

1. Individual received a permit from the city for work.
2. Contractor purchased vinyl siding and other materials not historic.
3. City stopped construction when it saw the materials.

Items left unclear:
1. When, specifically, was the permit applied for? Was it applied for before or after the designation?
2. Did the permit mention the specific siding to be used?

Pebble, I appreciate you trying to analyze this rationally - no easy task, since the SpeakNJ interview provided little pertinent information, and the anti-social enablers like light12v are muddying the waters with their ravings.

I tried, on the other post about the owner, to try to get to the bottom of this by asking if the permit(s) were available on-line. I find it very telling that no-one who is supporting Carlos has posted a copy of the permit. Preservation ordinances, and enforcement of regulations, doesn't vary that much from city to city. In NYC, where I work in historic preservation, permits are specific about the scope of work and materials to be used - it's easy to tell if there were clerical errors, or if the work is being done in non-compliance with the permit, which I suspect may be the case here since neither the owner nor his defenders can state what the approved work was specifically. Until I see a copy of it, my inclination is to side with the city.

For the record, I have to object to SpeakNJ's misrepresentation of the landmarking process - there are several other historic districts, which make clear the guidelines for altering historic properties (which in JC, generally adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for restoration and rehabilitation). These are not hard to find, understanding them should be an owners and a professional contractor's due diligence.


Many people ask about the rules and regulations during the hearing and was told they would be written after the adoption of the ordinance. I attended many hearings and that was a common answer. Downtown do not have have wooden homes, their regulations do not apply.

Posted on: 2016/2/8 20:25
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/15 17:32
Last Login :
2017/5/17 13:40
From Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 766
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:

Is it possible to just get a "just the facts" summary of the dispute?

1. What exactly (in detail) is the reason for the work stoppage order? Is it because of the home owner's choice of siding does not meet historic district standards?

2. If it is an issue with the material choice, what materials are acceptable per the Building Department? If fiber cement board is acceptable, then the home owner should easily be able to switch to it instead of vinyl (more expensive but it really looks good... like wood but way more durable).

If the Building Department won't respond in writing or respond period, did the homeowner make a complaint to the DCA (trust me.. they DO respond)?

As much as I despise the JC Building Department, they don't operate in a vacuum... there has to be a reason for the work stoppage.


Here's as much information as I know. The video isn't clear as the individual isn't specific with dates. And much of this was based on the information I knew before watching that absurdity.

1. Individual received a permit from the city for work.
2. Contractor purchased vinyl siding and other materials not historic.
3. City stopped construction when it saw the materials.

Items left unclear:
1. When, specifically, was the permit applied for? Was it applied for before or after the designation?
2. Did the permit mention the specific siding to be used?

Pebble, I appreciate you trying to analyze this rationally - no easy task, since the SpeakNJ interview provided little pertinent information, and the anti-social enablers like light12v are muddying the waters with their ravings.

I tried, on the other post about the owner, to try to get to the bottom of this by asking if the permit(s) were available on-line. I find it very telling that no-one who is supporting Carlos has posted a copy of the permit. Preservation ordinances, and enforcement of regulations, doesn't vary that much from city to city. In NYC, where I work in historic preservation, permits are specific about the scope of work and materials to be used - it's easy to tell if there were clerical errors, or if the work is being done in non-compliance with the permit, which I suspect may be the case here since neither the owner nor his defenders can state what the approved work was specifically. Until I see a copy of it, my inclination is to side with the city.

For the record, I have to object to SpeakNJ's misrepresentation of the landmarking process - there are several other historic districts, which make clear the guidelines for altering historic properties (which in JC, generally adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for restoration and rehabilitation). These are not hard to find, understanding them should be an owners and a professional contractor's due diligence.

Posted on: 2016/2/8 19:20
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/17 3:19
Last Login :
3/5 15:03
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 189
Offline
Quote:

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.


You just continue Over-Simplifying w/ your Whining Opining, not unlike a Bad Energizer Bunny, Pebble.
Why don't you get on w/ F***ing Your Prom Queen [or yourself] already !

Posted on: 2016/1/22 0:10
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/17 3:19
Last Login :
3/5 15:03
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 189
Offline
Quote:

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.


1] Your statement reeked of Command dripping w/ Sarcasm, hence my response.

I understand internet protocol all too well.

FYI#1: I don't consider myself a writer & never learned to be a typist, so it is either 'e.e. cummings' or 'SHOUTING' ... [WHICH I OPTED 4 TO DISTINGUISH THE PARTIES WITHIN THE ONGOING DIALOGUE [if one could call it that] w/ Pebble.


2] I am not "missing the difference between fact and opinion."

Kindly note the heading of this thread, which was on point for the 1st 3 postings & then became derailed by the 4th posting by Pebble.

I see no correlation between property rights & traffic backups or pedestrian plazas !
What I do see here is: Individuals presenting UN-supported statements as "Facts", while opining away & bashing someone for taking their time + resources to provide an interview w/ one of my neighbors who has been irreparably harmed by the current administration's inability to do their respective jobs adequately.

FYI #2: I have personally read/reviewed Mr. Fernandes' documentation & witnessed the Historic JC Staff at work in city hall, dumpster diving AND have had them prevent me from functioning my life while residing in my VVP mixed use property for nine years, which motivated a move to my current home on Bentley Ave, after making sure that it was not within any Municipal Historic District Overlay.

FYI#3: I AM NOT MR. BALCER, NOR AM I a MR., so spare me the CALL-OUT & your Crack about Potholes !

Be Reminded: WHAT YOU KNOW MIGHT NOT BE SO !


Posted on: 2016/1/21 23:56
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/3/19 18:28
Last Login :
2020/3/10 14:50
From hamilton park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 274
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2016/1/21 19:04
utterly deplorable
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1903
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2016/1/21 18:53
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/17 3:19
Last Login :
3/5 15:03
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 189
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2016/1/21 18:38
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1903
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Thank God, Pebble, you are not a psychologist, you take people's words and twist them. Carlos, who is stuck in limbo and cannot go forward, have similar stories as some people downtown except they did not have the funds to hire lawyers. You believe houses come before people, I don't. This law is there to throw out people who cannot afford to do the renovations.

The irony... ?You believe houses come before people?
Can you find where I wrote this?

1. The law does not exist to throw people out of their homes. That is an absurdly idiot statement to make.

2. Not one single person is thrown out of their home after historical designation comes into effect. You are lying when you say that they are.

The FACT is that very specific home renovations, those which involve street facing structure, has to be approved. If someone wants to put up wood paneling and drop ceiling inside of their home, they can do so regardless of where they live. If someone wants to install pink tile all over their bathroom, they can do so, regardless of where they live. If someone wants to install vinyl windows and siding on the back of their house, they can do so as long as the back of the home isn?t facing a street.

Not one single mortgage will go up when a home is historically designated. Taxes for a home do not go up due to historical designation.

Let?s assume that the cost of repairs to street facing, external structures will go up. If someone cannot afford to make the necessary repairs to their building, the home owner has choices. They can choose to borrow against the home?s value using the home?s equity. They can take out a personal loan from somewhere else for the difference in value. They can choose to sell their home.

Given the fact that historical designation increases the actual value of an individual?s home, every single one of those options becomes more viable. The increased property value means there exists more equity in the home for them to borrow from to make the repairs. The increased property value means that selling the home to buyer means they will get more money for a home that is in need of repair than they would for the home with a non-historically accurate repair performed.

Posted on: 2016/1/21 18:23
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/3/19 18:28
Last Login :
2020/3/10 14:50
From hamilton park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 274
Offline
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

Posted on: 2016/1/21 18:19
utterly deplorable
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/17 3:19
Last Login :
3/5 15:03
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 189
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Written Basis for issuing a StopWork Order, Removal of project details on the Portal Site, Updated Governing Documents, etc...

If the person has a Written Basis for issuing a StopWork Order then they can follow the reason that the order was issued and address the problem. INDEED, HE/SHE COULD, IF THE CITY HAD PROVIDED ANY OF THOSE !

Quote:

light12v wrote:
What funds are diverted? I REPEAT: his Home Investment Funds
What legal fees is he undertaking? SERIOUSLY? Paying Lawyers & Experts in order to have these issues determined by the Courts

Maybe instead of spending money on lawyers, court fees and the time it will take to litigate the matter, the individual can comply with the city?s requirements... I AM SURE THE INDIVIDUAL PREFERS TO SPEND HIS TIME & MONEY ELSEWHERE INSTEAD OF BEING FORCED DOWN THIS PATH

Quote:

light12v wrote:
Exactly how many residents are you referring to? a Majority or just a handful?

I don?t know the exact numbers. What I know from conversations was that they were able to petition and get a large number of residents to agree with the benefits that that historical preservation brings. 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.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
What constitutes 'enough'? I am a property owner in the area, living in Dr. Wm. Perry Watson's 1881 home [from where he created Pediatrics], and I was never approached regarding any Municipal Historic District Overlay since my purchase in Sept. 2006

As someone that has gone door-to-door with a petition, followed-up with fliers, sent out emails, and asked neighbors to invite others to make sure everyone is informed, yet still heard comments that I didn?t inform peopled... just because you don?t think you were approached doesn?t mean that someone didn?t make an attempt. I also know that there existed multiple community meetings on this very topic dating back years. If you didn?t attend those meetings, I don?t know why you believe it is on the petitioners to beg for you to join. 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 !

Quote:

light12v wrote:
"would welcome' ? Do you reside in the newly designated Historic District ?

I don?t reside in a newly or pre-existing historic district. THAT BEING SAID, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE OR DO SHOULD CERTAINLY PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO YOUR 'EXPERIENCED OPINING' ON THIS FORUM. I would like that to change without physically moving. "DON'T WISH TOO HARD..."

Quote:

light12v wrote:
If you will recall, many individuals who do not have property interests or reside within the district spoke out [both FOR & AGAINST] regarding Municipal Historic District Overlay...Are you Equally affronted by all of those Supporters also?

As Brewster noted, Yvonne benefited greatly from having her home designated historically. Those individuals from outside of the area asking that your area be designated are doing so against their own best interests. The comparison isn?t equal. WHAT A CROCK OF PURE SPECULATION

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.
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]

Posted on: 2016/1/21 15:05
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 1:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5005
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I personally know people downtown who sold at low prices due to the demands of Historic Preservation. These were black and Hispanic property owners who did not have the means to fix their homes based on Historic standards. People forget them because they are not around. But it is the reason there are several black and Hispanic churches still in the Van Vorst neighborhood. I fought for historic preservation to stop Colgate tearing down homes especially in Paulus Hook, but I was never in favor of displacing people. I regret my participation in any historic preservation now. I will continue to fight against any rule that harms people. Houses should not come before people.


As I posted earlier, you are essentially fighting in favor of having the building where the Bill of Rights was written torn down. That is your position.

What you fail to realize is that those people may have sold cheap due to ignorance. They may have sold cheap due to other hardships. Claiming that historic preservation forced them out is an inability to relate cause to effect.

The historic preservation does not walk up to a building and tell people to fix it. They apply regulations and guidelines to permits that are applied for.

If someone is ?priced out? of a home that they are already paying a mortgage for, then it isn?t because they suddenly found that replacing a window cost them $100 more. The cost of their mortgage doesn?t go up. The amount of taxes paid doesn?t go up, without a revaluation.

The reality is, the property taxes in downtown were going to be raised regardless (a fact that you fail to understand). What historical designation did was save those homes from being torn down and turned into ugly pink brick buildings (something you seemingly desire). If anything, the individuals that sold their house were likely able to get more money than they would have received otherwise due to the historical designation.


Thank God, Pebble, you are not a psychologist, you take people's words and twist them. Carlos, who is stuck in limbo and cannot go forward, have similar stories as some people downtown except they did not have the funds to hire lawyers. You believe houses come before people, I don't. This law is there to throw out people who cannot afford to do the renovations.

Posted on: 2016/1/21 3:12
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1903
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I personally know people downtown who sold at low prices due to the demands of Historic Preservation. These were black and Hispanic property owners who did not have the means to fix their homes based on Historic standards. People forget them because they are not around. But it is the reason there are several black and Hispanic churches still in the Van Vorst neighborhood. I fought for historic preservation to stop Colgate tearing down homes especially in Paulus Hook, but I was never in favor of displacing people. I regret my participation in any historic preservation now. I will continue to fight against any rule that harms people. Houses should not come before people.


As I posted earlier, you are essentially fighting in favor of having the building where the Bill of Rights was written torn down. That is your position.

What you fail to realize is that those people may have sold cheap due to ignorance. They may have sold cheap due to other hardships. Claiming that historic preservation forced them out is an inability to relate cause to effect.

The historic preservation does not walk up to a building and tell people to fix it. They apply regulations and guidelines to permits that are applied for.

If someone is ?priced out? of a home that they are already paying a mortgage for, then it isn?t because they suddenly found that replacing a window cost them $100 more. The cost of their mortgage doesn?t go up. The amount of taxes paid doesn?t go up, without a revaluation.

The reality is, the property taxes in downtown were going to be raised regardless (a fact that you fail to understand). What historical designation did was save those homes from being torn down and turned into ugly pink brick buildings (something you seemingly desire). If anything, the individuals that sold their house were likely able to get more money than they would have received otherwise due to the historical designation.

Posted on: 2016/1/20 20:28
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 1:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5005
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Written Basis for issuing a StopWork Order, Removal of project details on the Portal Site, Updated Governing Documents, etc...

If the person has a Written Basis for issuing a StopWork Order then they can follow the reason that the order was issued and address the problem.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
What funds are diverted? I REPEAT: his Home Investment Funds
What legal fees is he undertaking? SERIOUSLY? Paying Lawyers & Experts in order to have these issues determined by the Courts

Maybe instead of spending money on lawyers, court fees and the time it will take to litigate the matter, the individual can comply with the city?s requirements...

Quote:

light12v wrote:
Exactly how many residents are you referring to? a Majority or just a handful?

I don?t know the exact numbers. What I know from conversations was that they were able to petition and get a large number of residents to agree with the benefits that that historical preservation brings.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
What constitutes 'enough'? I am a property owner in the area, living in Dr. Wm. Perry Watson's 1881 home [from where he created Pediatrics], and I was never approached regarding any Municipal Historic District Overlay since my purchase in Sept. 2006

As someone that has gone door-to-door with a petition, followed-up with fliers, sent out emails, and asked neighbors to invite others to make sure everyone is informed, yet still heard comments that I didn?t inform peopled... just because you don?t think you were approached doesn?t mean that someone didn?t make an attempt. I also know that there existed multiple community meetings on this very topic dating back years. If you didn?t attend those meetings, I don?t know why you believe it is on the petitioners to beg for you to join.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
"would welcome' ? Do you reside in the newly designated Historic District ?

I don?t reside in a newly or pre-existing historic district. I would like that to change without physically moving.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
If you will recall, many individuals who do not have property interests or reside within the district spoke out [both FOR & AGAINST] regarding Municipal Historic District Overlay...Are you Equally affronted by all of those Supporters also?

As Brewster noted, Yvonne benefited greatly from having her home designated historically. Those individuals from outside of the area asking that your area be designated are doing so against their own best interests. The comparison isn?t equal.


I personally know people downtown who sold at low prices due to the demands of Historic Preservation. These were black and Hispanic property owners who did not have the means to fix their homes based on Historic standards. People forget them because they are not around. But it is the reason there are several black and Hispanic churches still in the Van Vorst neighborhood. I fought for historic preservation to stop Colgate tearing down homes especially in Paulus Hook, but I was never in favor of displacing people. I regret my participation in any historic preservation now. I will continue to fight against any rule that harms people. Houses should not come before people.

Posted on: 2016/1/20 17:58
 Top 


Re: The loss of property rights in JC
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1903
Offline
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Written Basis for issuing a StopWork Order, Removal of project details on the Portal Site, Updated Governing Documents, etc...

If the person has a Written Basis for issuing a StopWork Order then they can follow the reason that the order was issued and address the problem.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
What funds are diverted? I REPEAT: his Home Investment Funds
What legal fees is he undertaking? SERIOUSLY? Paying Lawyers & Experts in order to have these issues determined by the Courts

Maybe instead of spending money on lawyers, court fees and the time it will take to litigate the matter, the individual can comply with the city?s requirements...

Quote:

light12v wrote:
Exactly how many residents are you referring to? a Majority or just a handful?

I don?t know the exact numbers. What I know from conversations was that they were able to petition and get a large number of residents to agree with the benefits that that historical preservation brings.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
What constitutes 'enough'? I am a property owner in the area, living in Dr. Wm. Perry Watson's 1881 home [from where he created Pediatrics], and I was never approached regarding any Municipal Historic District Overlay since my purchase in Sept. 2006

As someone that has gone door-to-door with a petition, followed-up with fliers, sent out emails, and asked neighbors to invite others to make sure everyone is informed, yet still heard comments that I didn?t inform peopled... just because you don?t think you were approached doesn?t mean that someone didn?t make an attempt. I also know that there existed multiple community meetings on this very topic dating back years. If you didn?t attend those meetings, I don?t know why you believe it is on the petitioners to beg for you to join.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
"would welcome' ? Do you reside in the newly designated Historic District ?

I don?t reside in a newly or pre-existing historic district. I would like that to change without physically moving.

Quote:

light12v wrote:
If you will recall, many individuals who do not have property interests or reside within the district spoke out [both FOR & AGAINST] regarding Municipal Historic District Overlay...Are you Equally affronted by all of those Supporters also?

As Brewster noted, Yvonne benefited greatly from having her home designated historically. Those individuals from outside of the area asking that your area be designated are doing so against their own best interests. The comparison isn?t equal.

Posted on: 2016/1/20 16:05
Dos A Cero
 Top 




(1) 2 »




[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