4 Duryea Road Escapes The Wrecking Ball

You owe it all to capitalism.

So did Karl Marx, ROC...

Tell it to New Orleans.

(did the website blow up! I imagine this is what it is like to ride on a Russian space craft.)

anyway, Crank, huh? What did New Orleans have to do with Capitalism.

If not for federally insured flood insurance homes would *never* have been mortgaged (and therefore built) in the low lying areas.

New Orleans is precisely an example of the failure of government where capitalism could have succeded had it been left to operate.

Flood insurance increases the "moral hazard" risk. it encourages people to do things which are inherently unsafe, since another entity makes them whole again.

It's no accident the 1600s French neighborhoods in New Orleans had minimal flooding.

The city, state and feds are doing the same thing with the new flood maps. People can build in the same place, they just have to raise their foundations by three feet...

It's just a nice phrase.

I think this has more to do with the power of democracy & a free press & public opinion than capitalism. Assuming that the house will stand.

I doubt he would care much what the press said or the public if he was not operating a high profile business in town.

Am I hearing this right? People are celebrating the fact that the town has restricted what this guy can do with a house he just bought? The way this reads he sounds like he wants to make sure the house is sound before he makes a decision. What authority does the Montclair Council really have anyway?

This is great news for us preservationists. ROC, you are right, I'm sure it was probably due to him being a Montclair business that made him reconsider his plans. If he were from, say, Jersey City or someplace, the bad PR might not have affected him so much.

Crank, I'm sure the house will stand. Even if it has some structural issues they are surely able to be solved.

"People are celebrating the fact that the town has restricted what this guy can do with a house he just bought?"

It threatened to, but didn't yet. (a misuse of government) The marketplace "restricted" him. A fine solution.

"Even if it has some structural issues they are surely able to be solved."

Surely not on your dime. You couldn't sound more self-righteous. "Preservationists" huh? You sound more like “overactivists.” I'm surprised there’s not more interest on this site in the town's interference.

J,

There have been numerous, lengthy debates about that very thing. I agree with you about interference in private property rights.

In Maui's defense, she is actually one of the most reasonable voices in the debate (for the other side).

I find it ironic how everyone drags this guy and his business through the mud throughout this entire process when there was never any definative information on what was going to be done with this house. Now that the he has announced that he will be refurbishing the house, you still disparage him and say he's just being self-serving b/c of the bad press. Face it Baristafreaks, there are 40,000 people in this town and hundreds more who are looking for houses here. Outside of the 10 regulars who waste their lives in internet Chatville and a few neighborhood mothers that have been making me ill by parading their children in front of the camera's, nobody really cares. In the end, he could have knocked it down without any of your permission. Its time to now give this guy some credit for doing what you consider to be the right thing.

It appears that no decision has been made yet on this issue anyway. I do think people should be a bit more wary of things like the "Montclair's Historic Preservation Commission." Who are the people on this "Commission" and how did they get there? They sound like positions ripe for those seeking nothing more than self-importance and notoriety.

Thanks, ROC, I appreciate that! I do try to see both sides of issues even if I don't agree with the point of view.

Regarding the "not on my dime" comment from J, it's not that I am advocating forcing anyone to pay a huge amount of money to fix up a house that is falling down. My comment stemmed from the fact that those who don't value older homes tend to exaggerate the problems of the home's condition to make it easier for them to knock them down. For instance, someone a week or two ago was commenting on how awful the kitchen was in this house and how you couldn't possibly live in the house with that terrible kitchen. There was nothing nonfunctional about the kitchen. It just wasn't state of the art. This is the type of exaggeration I am referring to. If the house truly was falling down I would not expect anyone to pay huge amounts of money to save it. But this house was obviously not at that state of disrepair. I'm involved in trying to preserve another, much older house (which admittedly has problems) and there are those who want to just tear it down. They see peeling paint and other signs of disprepair and assume this means the walls are falling apart. In reality the house has stood for over 200 years and is actually in pretty good shape considering that.

Who's disparaging him? I applaud his business acumen.

And LOC,

Spare us the judgment.

Who exactly are you to say:

"Outside of the 10 regulars who waste their lives in internet Chatville..."

All praise to Mr. Van Note, if the article is true. Just as he never explicitly announced that he would definitely tear down the house, now he doesn't explicitly confirm his apparent plan to restore/flip it.

I don't know why he would be coy now. Couldn't he get a lot of positive PR if he played this up a bit -- "I have roots in this community and realized that restoring the grand house would be the best thing for the town that I love" etc. etc.

wait! leftofcenter, are you the poster
"left of center like suzanne vega"?

J, if all they were after were notariety, I'd have no problem. What they are after is the control of my property rights in the guise of "public good", much worse.

LOC, I did not mean to disparage Mr. Van Note for now doing "the right thing." If he has indeed had a change of heart (or never actually was going to demolish the house) then great. Perhaps if he'd been a little more transparent about things in the beginning we never would have gotten into this debate about the fate of the house. He has certainly played it close to the vest, hasn't he?

J, the members of a Historic Commission in any town are subject to appointment by the elected officials so some can be political appointees who just want power, but generally they are people with a sincere interest in historic preservation and architecture. The Municipal Land Use Law also requires that several members have specific areas of expertise (architecture, history, etc.) and cannot just be anyone. The Montclair HPC, from what I have seen, genuinely cares about historic preservation and keeping the unique "sense of place" that Montclair offers.

"My comment stemmed from the fact that those who don't value older homes tend to exaggerate the problems of the home's condition to make it easier for them to knock them down. "

The same could be said for those who play down any problems because the want to force someone else to preserve the property at their expense.

Have you been inside Maui? Are you versed in structural matters?

"I don't know why he would be coy now."

It doesn't sound like this guy ever made up his mind about what to do. From the article it sounds like he was assessing his options. Maybe he's not as diabolical as he's being made out to be.

MG - How do you know what the structural damage of this place is? If it was bad enough for a homeowner to decide it wasn't worth fixing would it require you and your "Overactivist" friends to come in and determing that for them?

In response to teh following....

Who exactly are you to say:

"Outside of the 10 regulars who waste their lives in internet Chatville..."

Take a look at every article that has been written on this website, there are at most 10 people doing 95% of the talking. As stated, you are wasting days and days of potentially productive time yapping with fellow yappers. Hence my comments that have gotten your panties in a ruffle.

Oh, leftofcenter, I can assure you my panties are not in a ruffle. You are meerly the latest to reach in to make the attempt!

ROC and J, I can't speak for the Duryea house (although from the pictures it certainly seemed to be quite livable in its current condition, and I did go look at the outside of the house a few weeks ago and it seemed to be fine).

But I can indeed speak for the structure of the 200 year-old house I mentioned in my post.

I have been inside it numerous times and examined it from the outside thoroughly. And, two engineers have accompanied me inside the house, in the basement, etc., and said that the house is sound; there is no sign of dry rot in the main beams, the house is not sagging, there isn't even any obvious water damage from the roof, which admittedly is not in good shape. So yes, I think for that house I can state it is sound.

And just to be clear: If a professional structural engineer examined the Duryea house thoroughly and said for whatever reason (major infestation of termites, whatever) the house truly was on the verge of collapsing, and would cost more to fix than it would ever sell for, then of course that would be another story.

"ROC and J, I can't speak for the Duryea house..."

Then why do you?

LOC, as one of the regulars, please know that for every 10 people who actually post on this site there are hundreds more who are just reading. From what I understand, Baristanet gets 5000 hits a day. And although I admittedly get on it probably 10-15 times a day myself, if the other 9 of us are similarly inclined, that still only accounts for 150 of those hits.

MG - But as for the house we're all talking about, your answer is no. This site is overflowing with overactivists like yourself who are looking for a cause where there is none. My advice to all those interfering in other people's real estate affairs: get a hobby.

Maui

Annnette told me it was 7,000 per day

ROC, I never said I KNEW that the Duryea house was structurally sound. I have said all along that it appears to be fine and that, in my experience, those who want to knock down old houses like to find excuses to do so. I said that if a real, viable engineering assessment were done that confirmed that the house is truly on its last legs, I would say yes, demolish it. I just find it extremely unlikely that is the case given that people have been living in it continuously, that the house appears to have been kept up nicely (if not modernized in the kitchen), etc. And the fact that the daughter of the owner is saying that the house is fine, leads me to believe that any problems are being exaggerated.

Sorry, my mistake. Kristen lives across from the house. But I think I read somewhere that the former owners also said the house was not falling down.

J, in case you hadn't figured this out...historic preservation IS my hobby!
;-)

I also have a number of other interests beyond that.

"Crank, I'm sure the house will stand. Even if it has some structural issues they are surely able to be solved."

Surely, you can't possibly know anyting of the sort.

You also called "an exaggeration" the owners concern that the home had structural problems. You know Maui, *he's* been inside!

Which of you is on more solid ground?

It's been my experience that an assessment of a building's structure requires a little more than a pass by in a car.

J says, "My advice to all those interfering in other people's real estate affairs: get a hobby."

J, my advice to all those interfering detrimentally in the charm and appeal of Montclair as a picturesque town filled with venerable residences is: watch out.

ROC, it's been my experience that those who do not have an engineering degree (which I assume includes Mr. Van Note) are not any more qualified to judge whether a house is structurally sound by "eing inside" than I am by my "drive-by." And I speak from direct experience with certain people in my town.

Ooops, typo. "being inside."

"J, my advice to all those interfering detrimentally in the charm and appeal of Montclair as a picturesque town filled with venerable residences is: watch out."

Yikes, shades of Mao. But, yes, "watch out" they may come next for your house!

"ROC, it's been my experience that those who do not have an engineering degree (which I assume includes Mr. Van Note) are not any more qualified to judge whether a house is structurally sound by "eing inside" than I am by my "drive-by." "

Perhaps in your case. But many could see sagging beams or dry rot etc and surmise as he did in his statement that there *may* be a problem.

Your point has been reduced to asserting that a non-engineer need not look inside a house to ascertain *their* assessment (as, you know, the *owner* of the property) of the structure's "bones".

Just think of the oodles of time you'll save next time you seek to purchase a house!

Boy, for someone who claims the *other* side exaggerates too much, you sure are, well, liberal with the facts!

p.s.

BYW, since his *business* is to buy, sell, rennovate, demolish and construct homes. I do suspect Maui he's pretty qualified to make such judgements.

Not denying that if it's something obvious, Van Note could notice it. But remember, one notices what one wants to notice, depending on what one wants the outcome to be. And yes, my "side" could be equally at fault in doing that, and I admit I am biased in favor of saving the house. That's why I say have it assessed by a true expert.

"That's why I say have it assessed by a true expert."

It used to be in this country that such decisions were left to property owners (since, well, it's their money!) and not drive-by "neighbors".

That's the point.

nope. that wasn't me above...

"Shades of Mao"?!

Nope. No homicidal dictator here, ROC (and you have had the nerve in the past to take offense at things I have said to you?).

"Watch out" is not a threat of any kind of violence -- it's truly what a developer should do in Montclair if they think there's easy money to be had by gutting what makes Montclair special. The Duryea case is an example that, post-Crisco, the community will pull together to fight the vision of those to whom property is taken entirely out of context from the neighborhood and community.

Shades of Mao.... Civil ordinances and historical preservations a communist threat? See McCathry.

Ah, ROC, we get back to the original issue that we disagree on. His property rights. Remember, the original discussion started based on Crank's note above:

"I think this has more to do with the power of democracy & a free press & public opinion than capitalism. Assuming that the house will stand."

I merely said that I doubted the house was in any real danger of not being able to stand. Not that I had any say over what he decided.

Oh please.

Such ginned up offense.

I am not calling you Mao, maui.

But siezing property rights for the public good is with the non-physical threat of "watch out" is, yes a "shade" of Mao.

Or more accurately, a shade of Maoism.

Eminent domain and public use is written in the constitution. Are you saying that constitution is Maoist?

5th Ammendment,
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There was no siezure of property rights. There was community outrage and attendant pressure, along with an attempt to restrict the property's use in accordance with existing law and consitutional precedent. Had it happened and, in a huge stretch, it had been found by a court to have been a "taking", he would have been justly compensated. Not a credible shade of Mao there -- you just thrive on drama.

"restrict the property's use in accordance with existing law "

Quite wrong. Razing a structure is "use". It's "disuse". Zoning controls "use".

To forbid someone from *removing* something is not telling how to use the property it is telling them how to "dis-use" the propert.

Telling them what they may build or not as a replacement has to do with "use".

"Razing a structure isn't "use".

lasermike, since you see this as a "taking", ok, how was the owner compensated?

I heard that Jimmy Hoffa might be buried in the backyard...does this increase the value of the home?

I thought appletony's explanation was adequate.

I did find this explanation....

Constitutionality of Historic Preservation Regulation
Historic preservation regulation should be considered as one part of zoning and land use law. It is
based on the police power of a community. Ordinances dealing with historic preservation have been
found constitutional if they are well written. InPenn Central Transportation Co. v. New York, which
was a precedent-setting court case in 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court found that communities could
protect their historic resources as long as property owners had a reasonable use of their property left
open to them and that their property rights were not violated by this action.
SenateBill 847, signed into law in 1979, made Illinois the first state in the nation to legislatively adopt
the Penn Central rule. Under this amended law, a municipality making the historic designation may
not have to compensate a property owner, unless the designation denies the property owner of all
reasonable use of the property.

"Razing a structure isn't "use".

You're getting into semantics to no effect: say it all you want, but an historical designation and the restrictions attached thereto comprise a restriction on "use" in the eyes of the law. His apparently intended use of the property was to raze one, build two.

Laser,
I've been on the phone a lot today do u know how many of my calls were monitored?

Ice baby,

all of them. every single one. does that make you feel better.

now call everyone that you don't like so that their calls will be mionitored from not on!

"I thought appletony's explanation was adequate."

I encourage this as your mantra, laser. You'll do better that way.

mionitored= monitored

i've got to re-train that hand

not a single one ice.

We can agree on somethings.

All this thinking about property and community reminded me of a fascinating book called Order Without Law (well, fascinating to law students and other assorted eggheads). It's a nifty piece of B.S.-lessening academic writing (a rare species, that).

I was just driving down Lorraine Ave and saw a huge crane w/ a wrecking ball on it parked outside the Duryea House. Are they knocking it down, what should we do Baristafriends??

"a fascinating book called Order Without Law"

Chapter 6: Pitchforks and Torches

Chapter 9: Posse Faq

Chapter 10: Minority - Schminority

Chapter 13: Mob rule rules!

one more:

Chapter 4: Midevil, not so evil.

"I was just driving down Lorraine Ave and saw a huge crane w/ a wrecking ball on it parked outside the Duryea House."

I'll bet Barista made at least one phone call...

Any news?? It looked like they were about to knock it down. I can't believe this is happening!

Someone reported a bear loose inside the house. The wrecking ball is simply one of the many approved methods of dealing with bears who have entered Exclusion Zones.

If the house gets in the way, too bad.

ROC, didja actually look at the table of contents for the book and you're trying to make a funny, or are you assuming stuff about what's in it without having looked?

Anyway, if you consider people rallying to apply an enacted statute as "mob rule", who will save you? The courts? I thought you didn't like when the courts acted that way.

an attempt at humor after reading the "jacket".

"I thought you didn't like when the courts acted that way."

You're very much mistaken. I hold the courts in as high a regard as the other three branches. When the courts properly act to overrule laws which violate the Constitution it is a proud moment for our Republic!

When the courts invent Constitutional Rights in reaction to political pressures and the (ends justify the means) whims of the day, it is a dark day indeed, and we sould hold our heads in shame.

The other three? Please name the 4 branches of our gov't, I think I missed one.

(I know, I know, it's the entrenched bureaucrassy.)

oops.

Bad editing.

Ahh, "invented" rights -- such a bugaboo. And yet, finding historical designations to be a "taking" would require invention by the courts of a particularized property right found long ago not to exist.

I also don't consider the courts to be infallible.

Would you have considered Plessy vs. Ferguson "settled law" ?

p.s.

And why do you think the courts are where I'd seek the solution, anyway?

I asked you where you would seek the solution.

Where else would you appropriately turn when, in your eyes, a statute is being unconstitutionally applied?

Why on Earth would I accept Plessy as settled law?

This sounds more like a philosophical argument.

Personal Liberty vs. Community Standards.

Consider how Giuliani cleaned up the seedy sections of New York City. He did it through zoning and incentives. IE. directing personal liberties and creating government programs to reduce blight and improve profitability.

Giuliani cleaned up NYC primarily by enforcing criminal laws, including "quality of life" crimes like the aggressive panhandling done by squeegee men.

Can you say
Abner Louima
and
Amadou Diallo

they call it Giuliani time

hiding,
that has nothing to do with how Rudy cleaned up nyc. stop being a liberal apologist and acknowledge the job giuliani did in cleaning up the mess left by dinkins.

no apologies were received from Giuliani for what his storm trooper police did.

cleaned up = killed

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

I have never been accused of being Republican, but I think Guiliani did a commendable job as mayor and I consider him the true leader to step forward on 9/11. But, like Clinton, his personal life was a mess.

"Why on Earth would I accept Plessy as settled law?"

My point is that you seem to be saying that because the courts have not found Historic Preservation to be a "taking" the matter is settled once and for all.

The Supreme Court also once found that race segregation and "separate but equal" practices were ok. Those were later overturned.

"Where else would you appropriately turn when, in your eyes, a statute is being unconstitutionally applied?"

To the legislature. Amend the Constitution if necessary.

At least Guiliani didn't perjure himself and deny the same on tv.

yeah and he doesn't smoke cigars either. guess his sex life wasn't as good as $$$Bill's either

I'll bet he does just fine.

wonder where that one's been

I think that in Baristaville, the term "real estate developer" is synonymous with "wrecking ball". We are quick to accuse based on past history and disturbing trends. Hopefully the house will get fully refurbished, and sold to someone who will recognize its inherent majesty.

I think that in Baristaville, the term "real estate developer" is synonymous with "wrecking ball". We are quick to accuse based on past history and disturbing trends. Hopefully the house will get fully refurbished, and sold to someone who will recognize its inherent majesty.

Finally had a chance to drive by 4 Duryea today. No wrecking ball visible. Some kind of work van in driveway.

I forget whether anyone mentioned in previous threads that part of the house's tower looks like it's caved in on one side. Looks like the kind of thing, at least on the surface, that would make one want to get a thorough structural analysis.

That's because the wrecking ball was used! It must be stored on the side of the house that you couldn't view!