April 26
...serving up your daily dish.
With babies in tow, HHPF members Kristin Kenney, who grew up on Duryea Road, and Andrea Sandahl Hart, a Duryea resident, start the petition drive for 4 Duryea. After posing with a group of members for the Ledger, the gals went off to garner signatures from supporters already in their corner -- the nuns who live on Lorraine Avenue.
So that's pretty preservationists, check. Cute babies, check. Nuns, check. Talk about your ammunition. Sounds like the makings for a novel not unlike this one.
UPDATE: For more on the history of the Duryea/Huestis house, including interviews with the previous owner, see an article on the controversy from our friend, Phil Read. Like Baristanet, Read also had no luck trying to get a comment from Jim Van Note.
Dear Kristin & Andrea
If you want this house to be saved SO much...maybe ask your husbands to make an offer that the Van Notes can't refuse...and then you can spend your day redecorating this "historical" house, instead of standing outside it getting signatures.
P.S. I am glad to see that you rather spend a beautiful day posing for pictures than taking your children to a park...I guess it shows what your priorities in life are!!!
Posted by: JOB | Apr 26, 2006 7:33:43 PM
JOB, perhaps these ladies believe (as I do) that they are investing their time in their children's future. Lessons in preservation, history and civic activism all at once.
A very valid investment of their time.
I commend RoC for his defense of the right to free speech, even when he disagrees with their message.
Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Apr 26, 2006 7:48:32 PM
It takes a lot of courage for people to mobilize, speak to the Historic Preservation Commission and put a petition in front of the town council. I applaud this group's effort.
I laugh at JOB and his cheap shots.
Posted by: shelly | Apr 26, 2006 7:50:44 PM
kristin and andrea are obviously just 2 desperate housewives with nothing else better to do than pose with their infants and try to gather signatures.
Posted by: jdc | Apr 26, 2006 8:54:46 PM
JOB, jdc, boy, the warmth flows unalloyed from these 2. Kind of base posts from them, however one feels about saving the house. Another 2 candidates for the hospitality staff at Red Cheetah, even.
Posted by: cathar | Apr 26, 2006 9:11:57 PM
Do you have to be a resident of Montclair to sign or can peeps from neighboring towns join in?
Posted by: PAZ in GR | Apr 26, 2006 9:14:13 PM
Wow, I've never heard of such hostility towards someone working for, what seems like, a good cause.
I worked a comedy club that was going to be torn down in order to widen a road by a lane, and we did whatever we could legally do to keep it up. Unfortunately, it failed...I guess we should've done better things like make sure dinner was on the table.
Posted by: jennnnn | Apr 26, 2006 9:14:17 PM
I must say that while I support preserving "homes of character," the photo above reeks of wealth and elitism, like a Town & Country magazine cover. Maybe the Ledger photo will look more humble, but I would have instead organized 100 supportive townspeople around the house for a photo to better represent the movement against the developer's wishes.
Posted by: Jim | Apr 26, 2006 9:48:18 PM
"Ask your husbands" to make an offer, so you can spend your time redecorating?
I think you got stuck in a time warp, JOB. Somewhere around 2 centuries ago. . .
Posted by: latebloomer | Apr 26, 2006 9:50:14 PM
I would like to see some cute dogs in the picture as well...but seriously, kudos to SOMEONE getting involved!
Posted by: Miss Martta | Apr 26, 2006 9:52:59 PM
wooo proud graduate of lacordaire here! home of the lorraine nuns.
Posted by: Katie | Apr 26, 2006 9:57:17 PM
Answered my own Q. Only Montclair taxpayers can sign, oh well, too bad.
Posted by: PAZ in GR | Apr 26, 2006 10:08:40 PM
Proud graduate of Lacodaire as well Katie:)(well not exactly graduate- skipped my senior year to go to college but I am certain if I paid for it I could have been):)
Posted by: cstarling | Apr 26, 2006 10:42:35 PM
The Council agreed to ask the HPC to advance a nomination for this building that we will act on as soon as we get it.
Posted by: Ed Remsen | Apr 27, 2006 7:50:12 AM
Cursor on the picture discloses title as "Duryeachicks". Very cutesie.
Posted by: Byron | Apr 27, 2006 8:12:03 AM
How is this retroactive ordinance not a misuse of law? It is unevenly applied and targeted. I suppose the council's calculation is that the developer will not sue because of other business concerns? Then, is that ethical?
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Apr 27, 2006 8:16:14 AM
I read the ordinance online, and I do not understand how ROC can characterize landmarking a documented historic property as a misuse of law. ROC, you've stated this a number of times here and on other threads. Please explain your interpretation of the ordinance and how you reached your misuse of law conclusion.
Posted by: shelly | Apr 27, 2006 8:24:32 AM
BTW, I think there also ought to be an organized boycott of the Rhodes-Van Note Real Estate Agency.
I certainly wouldn't list anything with them. I would avoid their agents. I would drop my agent if he/she were associated with RVN. I would encourage others NOT to buy properties list by RVN. If you must buy a RVN property, do use an agent from another company; first to protect your interests, second to reduce the corporate commission.
Ethics roll down from the top. Whatever one's feelings about historic preservation, this is clearly a case of missing ethics.
One can only assume that employees share Mr. Van Notes lack of ethical standards, or they would leave.
Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Apr 27, 2006 8:29:05 AM
On another note, aren't there moral standards for Real Estate Agents administered by an Ethics Committee? Shouldn't Mr. Van Note be reported for lying?
Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Apr 27, 2006 8:33:00 AM
Shelly, It's the "after the fact" nature of the ordinance. It is solely aimed at making "illegal" what was before "legal" in order to prohibit the actions of one person. That is a capricious use of law.
It's as if you chose a particular block to buy a house because you wanted to rent your second floor out to a tenant and the zoning allowed for it. Your neighbors decide to block your legal use *after* you purchase the house and in a effort t block your legal use seek to have the zoning of *only your house* changed.
Fair?
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Apr 27, 2006 8:35:54 AM
OK, I'll really stop after this one.
I don't know Kristen or Andrea, but I am a long time Montclair volunteer. Please be aware and advised that when you put your best foot forward, there is someone out there prepared to step on it. You've had a little taste of that here. It may get worse.
There are many others who are quietly supporting you. Think of them.
The thanks last much longer than the grousing.
Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Apr 27, 2006 8:36:47 AM
