I remember years ago when I was a kid walking by this house and it being worked on by the “son” of the person who lived there. I remember him as someone who didn’t have it together so to speak. I have no idea who they are, but whoever they are, its a shame, but I think this house needs to be razed and something new put in its place. 69 Webb I would like to see rehabbed.
@Bullets
24 McClintock is uninhabitable. It is gutted inside. It currently looks “okay” because the owner made some quick repairs in the spring to be in compliance with a court order. Broken windows were repaired and a quick paint job was sprayed on. It has a less offensive exterior now but the interior remains a hazard. The back 2nd floor porch door remains open and animals still enter the home. I have seen cats and birds recently. Perhaps the raccoons have moved on. Don’t be fooled, the repairs were simply a Band-Aid, but I suppose they are better than nothing.
I just drove past this place, and I would hardly say this place is abandoned. The curtain in the front its ripped, but seems absent any exterior issue.
Ultimateley I can drive down any street in OG and find homes that have exterior issues making them less then ideal.
I would not use the words “progress” and “24 McClintock” in the same breath. Painting a tear down is insulting to those who have to live next to it. And I don’t think the ordinance as stated points to leaving a note as trespass. 1st degree, 4th degree or any degree.
And yet, of all the derelict houses that have been written about on Blogfinger, 24 McClintock has made the most progress; others appear to be moving backwards. 91 Cookman’s roof is still covered with a tarp–and now almost all its windows are wide open. The “work” that is going on at 80 Main seems designed to help it disintegrate faster. 14 Surf Avenue may or may not be torn down. 35 Embury was torn down. 78 Main Street looks no different than it did two years ago–or five years ago. 69 Webb? No change there. And the Park View….
Maxster is right, while you may have a problem with this house, if we were in a more conservative state like Florida and you entered onto someone’s property without authorization, they could have shot you under their Castle Doctrine laws. You’d be real dead.
I drove by this house, and it doesn’t seem terrible. It is architecturally unappealing, but that’s just how it is.
I understand OG4ever. but people can not take the law into their own hands by trespassing. It’s no different than getting out of a car first when someone cuts you off. That’s road rage and it could lead to a violent confrontation.
What if that homeowner was home and came out when the person came on to the property? Who knows what could have happened.
One MUST not take the law into their own hands. Justice is often slow, but it’s the safest way to go.
Actually, the poster of said notice would be charged with a 4th degree crime,
NJ 2C:18-3
“A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or surreptitiously remains in any research facility, structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, or in or upon utility company property. The offense is a crime of the fourth degree if it is committed in a dwelling.”
Here is a refresher on this house at 24 McClintock. The place has been deteriorating for years. The Township issued a notice of maintenance violations in August of 2009, which the owner, Jason Richelson of Brooklyn, NY, failed to heed. It took nearly two years for the Code Enforcement Department to bring the case to court. During that interim the HPC complained to the Township about the property, and 29 of the neighbors signed a petition listing various problems and stating that they feared a fire could break out inside the place.
The Township forced Richelson into a plea agreement on June 23 of last year, giving him six months to correct all violations. The six months ran out, no repairs had been made, and in December the case was back in court, where Richelson paid a $1,000 fine and was given another deadline.
If you want to read Blogfinger’s many previous stories about this house, go to the top of this page and type “24 McClintock” in the search field.
On February 16, in court again, Richelson agreed again to correct all violations. This time he finally complied.
However, the cited violations only dealt with the exterior of the house, not with whatever problems may exist inside. No Township official has ever inspected the interior, and since the house has stood unoccupied and in disrepair for years, its interior problems may be serious.
The house is currently listed on the Zillow.com real estate website as for sale by owner. A previous listing on this website contained this warning: “Only builders should consider [buying this property] because it needs to be rebuilt completely.”
To read the many previous articles about this house, go to the top of this page and type “24 McClintock” in the search field.
I am a neighbor. I saw this last night and planned to send it to Blogfinger only to find that someone beat me to it. Maxster, we have taken it to the authorities. Not much was accomplished by that. They fixed the porch and painted the house. I feel nothing was won here. I now live behind a freshly painted fire hazard. Come look at it and tell me you would like to have it your neighborhood. I do not know who posted that sign but I applaud them! If that was trespassing, then someone needs to charge the pizza and Chinese take-out restaurants that leave ads on my door!!
Can someone please report this house to the authorities!!!
Frankly, I think its good if neighbors hold each other accountable. A poorly maintained house shows disrespect to the neighbors (and lowers property values). There are a number of houses that would benefit from such notes.
Charles, I think there is an ordinance against hanging those flyers, because it can act as a red flag for unoccupied homes. And, I think I read that in Blogfinger.
The people who have a house next to that atrocity are the nicest people you could meet. Great neighbors who have had to put up with that for way too long.
Structures are treated differently than land in New Jersey. For open land of a homeowner, NJSA 2C:18-3, section b would probably apply.
“Defiant Tresspasser. A person commits a petty disorderly offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by: (1) An actual communication to the actor; or (2) Posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or (3) Fencing or other enclosures manifestly designed to exclude intruders. You also can’t peer into windows.
It would be interesting to know exactly what constitutes trespassing. I wouldn’t mind if trespassing included putting doorknob hangers and other advertising on someone’s house. That strikes me as a more serious offense than some aggrieved neighbor posting a complaint about an absentee landlord who flouted the law for years by failing to keep the property in a safe condition, which happens to be the case here. This is a neighborhood where, in just the past four years, there have been three horrendous fires, two of which have spread to multiple other buildings. If I lived near this house, I’d be fit to be tied.
As for taking the problem to the municipal government, it’s not as if that hasn’t been tried. These neighbors have been a model of patience.
I doubt that posting the sign would constitute trespass. More likely, the house could be classified as an “attractive nuisance” making the owners liable if something happened to someone on their property.
Are you saying someone who did not own this house, posted a sign on another person’s house? If so, that sounds like trespassing to me. This is NOT what private citizens should be allowed to do. That is what municipal government is for. Take your issues to them.
Could you imagine living next door to this nightmare (I dare say, the worst in the Grove), wondering what/who is living inside, and when will it burn down, taking the neighbors’ homes with it? How is this one allowed to continue?
Comments are closed.
Ocean Grove: a really cute small town at the Jersey Shore.
I remember years ago when I was a kid walking by this house and it being worked on by the “son” of the person who lived there. I remember him as someone who didn’t have it together so to speak. I have no idea who they are, but whoever they are, its a shame, but I think this house needs to be razed and something new put in its place. 69 Webb I would like to see rehabbed.
@Bullets
24 McClintock is uninhabitable. It is gutted inside. It currently looks “okay” because the owner made some quick repairs in the spring to be in compliance with a court order. Broken windows were repaired and a quick paint job was sprayed on. It has a less offensive exterior now but the interior remains a hazard. The back 2nd floor porch door remains open and animals still enter the home. I have seen cats and birds recently. Perhaps the raccoons have moved on. Don’t be fooled, the repairs were simply a Band-Aid, but I suppose they are better than nothing.
I just drove past this place, and I would hardly say this place is abandoned. The curtain in the front its ripped, but seems absent any exterior issue.
Ultimateley I can drive down any street in OG and find homes that have exterior issues making them less then ideal.
I would not use the words “progress” and “24 McClintock” in the same breath. Painting a tear down is insulting to those who have to live next to it. And I don’t think the ordinance as stated points to leaving a note as trespass. 1st degree, 4th degree or any degree.
And yet, of all the derelict houses that have been written about on Blogfinger, 24 McClintock has made the most progress; others appear to be moving backwards. 91 Cookman’s roof is still covered with a tarp–and now almost all its windows are wide open. The “work” that is going on at 80 Main seems designed to help it disintegrate faster. 14 Surf Avenue may or may not be torn down. 35 Embury was torn down. 78 Main Street looks no different than it did two years ago–or five years ago. 69 Webb? No change there. And the Park View….
@Maxtser, OG4ver
Maxster is right, while you may have a problem with this house, if we were in a more conservative state like Florida and you entered onto someone’s property without authorization, they could have shot you under their Castle Doctrine laws. You’d be real dead.
I drove by this house, and it doesn’t seem terrible. It is architecturally unappealing, but that’s just how it is.
@ OG4ever
“Maxster, we have taken it to the authorities”
I understand OG4ever. but people can not take the law into their own hands by trespassing. It’s no different than getting out of a car first when someone cuts you off. That’s road rage and it could lead to a violent confrontation.
What if that homeowner was home and came out when the person came on to the property? Who knows what could have happened.
One MUST not take the law into their own hands. Justice is often slow, but it’s the safest way to go.
Actually, the poster of said notice would be charged with a 4th degree crime,
NJ 2C:18-3
“A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or surreptitiously remains in any research facility, structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, or in or upon utility company property. The offense is a crime of the fourth degree if it is committed in a dwelling.”
Here is a refresher on this house at 24 McClintock. The place has been deteriorating for years. The Township issued a notice of maintenance violations in August of 2009, which the owner, Jason Richelson of Brooklyn, NY, failed to heed. It took nearly two years for the Code Enforcement Department to bring the case to court. During that interim the HPC complained to the Township about the property, and 29 of the neighbors signed a petition listing various problems and stating that they feared a fire could break out inside the place.
The Township forced Richelson into a plea agreement on June 23 of last year, giving him six months to correct all violations. The six months ran out, no repairs had been made, and in December the case was back in court, where Richelson paid a $1,000 fine and was given another deadline.
If you want to read Blogfinger’s many previous stories about this house, go to the top of this page and type “24 McClintock” in the search field.
On February 16, in court again, Richelson agreed again to correct all violations. This time he finally complied.
However, the cited violations only dealt with the exterior of the house, not with whatever problems may exist inside. No Township official has ever inspected the interior, and since the house has stood unoccupied and in disrepair for years, its interior problems may be serious.
The house is currently listed on the Zillow.com real estate website as for sale by owner. A previous listing on this website contained this warning: “Only builders should consider [buying this property] because it needs to be rebuilt completely.”
To read the many previous articles about this house, go to the top of this page and type “24 McClintock” in the search field.
I am a neighbor. I saw this last night and planned to send it to Blogfinger only to find that someone beat me to it. Maxster, we have taken it to the authorities. Not much was accomplished by that. They fixed the porch and painted the house. I feel nothing was won here. I now live behind a freshly painted fire hazard. Come look at it and tell me you would like to have it your neighborhood. I do not know who posted that sign but I applaud them! If that was trespassing, then someone needs to charge the pizza and Chinese take-out restaurants that leave ads on my door!!
Can someone please report this house to the authorities!!!
Frankly, I think its good if neighbors hold each other accountable. A poorly maintained house shows disrespect to the neighbors (and lowers property values). There are a number of houses that would benefit from such notes.
Charles, I think there is an ordinance against hanging those flyers, because it can act as a red flag for unoccupied homes. And, I think I read that in Blogfinger.
The people who have a house next to that atrocity are the nicest people you could meet. Great neighbors who have had to put up with that for way too long.
Structures are treated differently than land in New Jersey. For open land of a homeowner, NJSA 2C:18-3, section b would probably apply.
“Defiant Tresspasser. A person commits a petty disorderly offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by: (1) An actual communication to the actor; or (2) Posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or (3) Fencing or other enclosures manifestly designed to exclude intruders. You also can’t peer into windows.
It would be interesting to know exactly what constitutes trespassing. I wouldn’t mind if trespassing included putting doorknob hangers and other advertising on someone’s house. That strikes me as a more serious offense than some aggrieved neighbor posting a complaint about an absentee landlord who flouted the law for years by failing to keep the property in a safe condition, which happens to be the case here. This is a neighborhood where, in just the past four years, there have been three horrendous fires, two of which have spread to multiple other buildings. If I lived near this house, I’d be fit to be tied.
As for taking the problem to the municipal government, it’s not as if that hasn’t been tried. These neighbors have been a model of patience.
I doubt that posting the sign would constitute trespass. More likely, the house could be classified as an “attractive nuisance” making the owners liable if something happened to someone on their property.
Maxster: We received this photo from a Grover who saw it, photographed it and sent it to us. His comment was that he “found it entertaining.”
Are you saying someone who did not own this house, posted a sign on another person’s house? If so, that sounds like trespassing to me. This is NOT what private citizens should be allowed to do. That is what municipal government is for. Take your issues to them.
If it’s a practical joke, well; “ya got me.” 🙂
Could you imagine living next door to this nightmare (I dare say, the worst in the Grove), wondering what/who is living inside, and when will it burn down, taking the neighbors’ homes with it? How is this one allowed to continue?