April 26
...serving up your daily dish.
Hold the wrecking ball. Baristanet has learned from the 1st ward's Gerald Tobin that 4 Duryea Road is on deck to be nominated for landmark status. Tobin said he was close to having three other council members back him up for the nomination. An email from Kristin Kenney, an organizer of the recently formed Huestis House Preservation Friends (HHPF) reads as follows...
The Montclair Historic Preservation Commission plans to nominate #4 Duryea Road, The Huestis House, for landmark status, protecting it from destruction.
Councillor Gerald Tobin is bringing this issue up with the Town Council, and needs 4 council votes to enact a permanent landmark status for the property.
Please help us preserve this historic home by urging the Town Council to act.
Our petition campaign begins today!
Interested parties can get the PDF petition here (directions below) or go sign it in person at 4 Duryea today at 3:30. The HHPF will be petitioning and posing for pictures for the Star Ledger in front of the historic house. Who knows, maybe the Montclair Times may even get in on the act.
Directions:
1) Get the petition signed and return via mail by May 4th. Please mail your signed petitions back to:
THE HUESTIS HOUSE PRESERVATION FRIENDS (HHPF)
P.O. Box 43244
Upper Montclair, NJ 070432) Please get signatures from Montclair taxpaying residents.
3) One signature per petition signer only.
4) Please do not identify the developer in this matter. Rather, appeal to the petitionees. Main points: a developer plans to destroy the house and construct new builds. We must preserve this Historic property. Please see the petition for help with wording, or contact us at this e-mail address.
5) Please enlist friends to help you, if you can. Let's get pages of signatures!
6) Don't forget to mail your petitions back to our address above!
Thank you for your commitment to this crucial matter.
Many thanks,
Kristin Kenney
THE HUESTIS HOUSE PRESERVATION FRIENDS
"Witches" I tells you! They're all witches! How dare they dispense with their own private property as they see fit. To arms! Gather the pitchforks!
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Apr 26, 2006 2:29:20 PM
Although I feel that tearing down the house would be a shame and that it is appropriate to resist any variances to accomplish Mr. Van Note's scheme, this is not the right way to go!
Willy-nilly historic designations are not fair to the property owners. Properly enacted historic districts or historic designations requested by a property's owner are one thing, but this is no more than an attempt to appropriate a portion of the property.
A pity.
Posted by: appletony | Apr 26, 2006 2:41:23 PM
I just read the petition. It says that the developer outlined his plans to Duryea area residents. Does anyone have details?
Posted by: appletony | Apr 26, 2006 2:46:48 PM
Please note, the house IS on the National and State Registers of Historic Places. It's not as if the town is suddenly designating this as a historic site out of the blue. The problem is, registration on the State and National Registers only protects historic houses from destruction using public funds, but not private endeavors. What should have been done is, as soon as the house was placed on the Register, a local ordinance should have been passed to protect it on a local basis, where the only true protection lies for historic houses or neighborhoods. Now it does make it look as if they are doing something "after the fact." In reality they should have done it way before this ever came up.
Posted by: mauigirl52 | Apr 26, 2006 2:55:53 PM
If the new buyerr wanted to tear down the single family house and build another single family house I wouldn't care about design. But the plan to tear down one house, and build two is what bothers me. Like many locations around town there isn't room to build two houses without them being crappy and squished together.
I've posted it before and I still meant it - if the developer is going to live on the property once building is complete then I'm fine with it. If they aren't going to live on the property then the neighbors who have to live next to it should get a say.
Posted by: hrhppg | Apr 26, 2006 2:57:57 PM
I love Right of Left's post! Dripping with elitist derision, love it. It must be so hard to be besieged by Philistines (who don't want three four-story houses where one used to be)
Posted by: bb | Apr 26, 2006 3:05:59 PM
I like how the developer keeps getting generically called "the developer" (even in the petition). Isn't the developer this guy? If it's not Mr. Van Note, then all apologies, but I think it is. The same Mr. Van Note who, according to the link, "part of the enthusiastic Rhodes Van Note team where we cherish the word of mouth recognition our clients give us as a locally owned and operated independent firm that delivers cutting edge technology with a home town touch." [bold added by me].
They must love the word of mouth recognition that this plan is going to get them!
Again, I feel that an after-the-fact ordinance is unfair, but word-of-mouth reaction by the community as well as resisting all variance requests are fair game.
Posted by: appletony | Apr 26, 2006 3:08:33 PM
Note also that the proposal regarding 21 North Mountain will be heard tonight.
Posted by: appletony | Apr 26, 2006 3:32:56 PM
Why don't these developers stop tearing down beautiful historic homes in Montclair, and start investing money into Clifton where they can renovate homes there, especially in the Montclair Heights or Rosemwar section where the nicer homes go for between $500,000 and $1,500,000.
Posted by: Carl | Apr 26, 2006 3:58:41 PM
Carl: Well said!! I've been wondering about this for years. There are plenty of ramshackle foreclosures throughout Essex County. Why not go after those than some glorious old Victorian or Gothic treasuer?
Posted by: Miss Martta | Apr 26, 2006 4:07:01 PM
Any ordinance before or after the fact which deprives the owner of tearing down *their own* property is tyranny.
Cry not when the Eminent Domain-er comes for thee!
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Apr 26, 2006 4:07:50 PM
p.s.
I hope the township is talking to a good lawyer. If this ordinance's sole purpose is to single out one owner in the otherwise legal dispensation of his property, we will all be spending some tax money on lawyers soon.
The township will deserve to be sued.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Apr 26, 2006 4:10:23 PM
Right, who cares about ugly old Clifton. Send the developers there, so they don't dig up bucolic Montclair.
New Yorkers, developers, and others that are attracted to Montclair should stay far away from Clifton. It is dirty, ugly, crime ridden, corrupt, the schools stink, and everyone knows that those low life Clifton people hate children.
Posted by: shelly | Apr 26, 2006 4:12:18 PM
This town use to be very conservative about construction permits, it is only the past few years that things have relaxed to this point where the town has no control.
It may be view as oppressive to the developer, but again they aren't building homes for themselves to live in. In this case (my old neighborhood being turned into an overdeveloped ghetto) I support families and the neighborhood over some guy who wants a bigger bottom line.
Profit above people is a really bad way to grow a community.
Posted by: hrhppg | Apr 26, 2006 4:30:53 PM
It's not just about the "evil" developer. By taking away property rights you are preventing the owners (real flesh and blood humans) from full access to the marketplace. You deny them what you have for yourself. They become second class citizens because you feel you "own" (without any payment whatsoever) the "history" of *their* property.
Putting the preservation of *things* above the civil rights of individuals is a good way to grow tyranny.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Apr 26, 2006 4:45:37 PM
It's not just about the "evil" developer. By taking away property rights you are preventing the owners (real flesh and blood humans) from full access to the marketplace. You deny them what you have for yourself. They become second class citizens because you feel you "own" (without any payment whatsoever) the "history" of *their* property.
Putting the preservation of *things* above the civil rights of individuals is a good way to grow tyranny.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Apr 26, 2006 4:47:09 PM
And it could be argued that forcing people to live next to an overdeveloped property is tyranny. Forcing homeowners to accept their own property values going down for one persons profit is also a form of tyranny.
Our government already distinguishes between first and second homes in calling things a primary residence. Again, if we were talking about the buyers primary residence then fine, let them do whatever they want because they’d have to live with the results.
But we aren’t talking about a primary residence. We aren’t evicting anyone from his or her home. We aren’t talking about a poor family man, without any means, fighting the state to keep a roof over his kids heads.
50+ families will be affected by this one person. Like a King ruling from a throne, as long as the King is happy, f*&$ the little people.
Posted by: hrhppg | Apr 26, 2006 5:00:01 PM
Putting the preservation of *things* above the civil rights of individuals is a good way to grow tyranny
No, doing so without due process (as in enacting the law after the fact to single out the one developer), or without just compensation, is a good way to grow tyranny. Otherwise it is merely law.
Posted by: appletony | Apr 26, 2006 5:05:49 PM
"And it could be argued that forcing people to live next to an overdeveloped property is tyranny."
Precisely! Yes! You've got it! And the proper way to prevent overdevelopment is evenly applied *objective* zoning codes!
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Apr 26, 2006 5:10:01 PM
"But we aren’t talking about a primary residence. We aren’t evicting anyone from his or her home. We aren’t talking about a poor family man, without any means, fighting the state to keep a roof over his kids heads."
correct. basing justice on the "goodness" of the indivdual involved seems to be an indelibly liberal notion which I will never understand.
The millionare, pauper, mench and schmuck all deserve *precisely* the same measure of freedom. (That's why she wears the blindfold!)
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Apr 26, 2006 5:14:59 PM
My objection is the person who bought the property didn't buy it for what it is, but for development purposes. If the original owner of the property tore it down to build something else I could see the point about denying the property owner his or her rights. But the developer could buy property elsewhere that is not a historic home. I know he's within his LEGAL rights (if the subdivision/variances are approved) but it doesn't make it right. I know, ROC, that we disagree on this subject. But history matters. Otherwise everything looks the same and we don't know where we came from.
Posted by: mauigirl52 | Apr 26, 2006 5:37:33 PM
Perhaps Maui you could explain to me this notion that some people ("good") deserve the full measure of justice while other people ("bad") don't.
I am having a hard time with it.
Can you just outline for me the qualities one must poses for the full measure?
History is important as are civil rights. Everything old or finely made is not historic. We must tread very carefully when we take away someone's property (or property rights or aspect thereof).
I believe in historic preservation and even the forced preservation of historic property when it rises to the *actual* level of historic.
But in any and all cases when the community claims property rights on otherwise private property then the community should pay. If this property can only be sold to someone who won't raze it as a consequence of the ordinance and the owners fetch $300,000 less for the property than the current offer, then the citizens of Montclair should pay the $300,000. (read the fifth amendment, please).
Mind you, I think much of these problems would disappear and the correct priorities would surface if in all cases the taxpayer had to foot the bill of the forced historic preservation.
Forcing a small subset of the citizenry to foot the entire bill (as is the case in many "progressive" public policies) of historic preservation is really theft, plain and simple.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Apr 26, 2006 5:50:37 PM
