Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2009 - 09:58am PT
|
Porkchop,
the market is the market, no one is complaining about that. It affects us all.
The beef is the many have helped themselves to the goods of a few. They've subjected those of us on the ridge to regulations they would never accept for themselves in order to take something without paying for it.
Again, the burden of preserving open space on the ridge should be shared.
|
|
Aya K
Trad climber
New York
|
|
Kent,
You say that your goal is "increased awareness" by climbers of the issues at hand.
I still do not understand how this furthers your goal of protecting your property values.
Could you please explain?
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
What I contribute is about 125 hours service each year in helping control erosion through trail maintenance, an effort to tread lightly in my use of the areas, an annual membership to an organization whose mission is to preserve such lands and educate the public(and whom I feel actually DOES do those things quite well). I attempt to raise awareness through some of the writings I do, as well.
You see - my MP membership pays for MORE than access to climbing/hiking in that area. I wish to educate people, right here, right now, to view their day pass fees/memberships/donations for what they actually are.
edit: "namely, if the little old ladies aren't destroyed then the land will be developed and ridge ecosystems will be destroyed."
Give me a f'ing breaK. jUST WRITING SOMETHING, kENT, DOES NOT MAKE IT FACT.(oops, Cap Lock).
|
|
Porkchop_express
Trad climber
the base of the Shawangunk Ridge
|
|
Ok thats fair enough- I certainly value the limitations of private property- I just fail to see how not letting some people climb is going to change any of the problems. It seems that you might catch more flies with honey in this (and most) case.
People could theoretically climb on private property if the owners took it upon themselves to enforce basic regulations. Its not like the areas in question are highly trafficked anyhow.
Additionally, while the landowners have rights, they ought not to trample on the cares of user groups like climbers and other recreationalists who have been using the land to no ill effect long before any of these old people were even thinking about buying property.
|
|
Aya K
Trad climber
New York
|
|
Actually, the section of the Nears that was just closed is highly trafficked. It's the first closure related to this mess that is likely to actually impact a lot of climbers - most of whom had no idea any of this was/is going down.
And some of the land in question has been owned by these families for longer than people have been regularly climbing at the gunks, just FYI.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2009 - 10:30am PT
|
Aya, sure.
It's my opinion that fair minded climbers, aware of all of the facts, will recognize the Preserve's conduct as predatory. They will recognize what the Town of Gardiner has done with the zoning law as punitive and confiscatory. They will recognize that respecting property rights is the best way to establish a productive relationship with landowners.
As such, climbers who vote in Gardiner, and there are many, may start to vote for people who promote community through mutual respect.
Even if climbers embrace only the third item, the idea that respecting property rights, including land closures, is the best way to relate to landowners, that alone will go a long way toward a more productive relationship between landowners and climbers. A relationhsip that could transcend the differences landowners have with the Preserve and the Town of Gardiner.
On the other hand, if climbers reject the idea that respecting property rights is the optimal way to relate to landowners, and instead pursue entitlements then that will go a long way toward motivating the large number of landowners in Gardiner who are not Mohonk members to say, enough is enough.
So we win either way. If climbers drop the sense of entitlement then we can all begin to move toward a future where climbers and landowners can happily coexist. If climbers push for entitlments then that will inspire many folks in town to give the more predatory folks on the town board, who are effectively proxies for the Preserve, the boot. A new board will start the process toward a new and better zoning law.
The zoning law as written is so unfair that, with or without my involvement, this town and this ridge will be in turmoil in one way or another until the law is either repealed or fixed.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2009 - 10:34am PT
|
Happie, regarding your effin break, I was paraphrasing your straw man's argument. The little old ladies and the ecosystems can both be protected if the burden is shared. What about that do you disagree with?
Edited to add:
Also, your $100 annual Mohonk Preserve membership is great. But why should landowners be forced to contribute hundreds of thousands each? Why can't we contribute $100 a year too?
|
|
hagerty
Social climber
A Sandy Area South of a Salty Lake
|
|
>They've subjected those of us on the ridge to regulations
<
Exactly how many landowners are we talking about in all this?
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
What I disagree with was your statement that "little old ladies must be destroyed."
If you honestly believe that is the case, I think you ought to get it to the attention of Oprah, or CNN or Fox News or ABC, for it is a story they would be interested in.
As to why you can't pay a hundred dollars instead of 100 thousand - I am pretty completely uneducated about how taxes work, so have no way to answer that question. I've already offered to donate money to your neighbor's fund for food. Considering the level of income I have, and the uncertainty of who might help me eat once I am too old to work, I think that is pretty damned generous. Let me know when you have that fund set up. My initial donation will be for $100.00.
Ive also given you what I think is a pretty god suggestion about increasing your attempt to raise awareness(adding info to the No Trespassing" signs. Or do you think it is more effective that people think "P/L" painted on a rock face signifies a buried power line?
Reading into your statement about proxies in gov, it seems to me your strategy is pretty long term(booting elected official to change a tide); well beyond the lifespan of your elderly neighbor. Gee. I guess she's just as much a pawn in the game you are playing as you suggest climbers are to the MP and/or town of Gardiner. Sad. Losing my respect quickly.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2009 - 11:09am PT
|
Happy, more later. Gotta go live in the real world for a little while.
|
|
hagerty
Social climber
A Sandy Area South of a Salty Lake
|
|
rgold wrote:
>
I understand Kent's interest in getting as wide a readership as possible, but carrying on three parallel discussions about what is surely about as local an issue as it is possible to have is nuts.
Take it over to gunks.com (you too, Gunkie!), which is surely the appropriate venue for this particular discussion, whatever gdc's perceived faults may be in general.
<
Good idea, but besides all the bugs and neglect, gunks.com isn't even on-line at the moment.
|
|
Mojomonkey
climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
All part of Rich's plan to kill yet another round of these threads (that have gone around and around for years on gunks.com)
|
|
apinguat
Trad climber
kingfield, me
|
|
Mohonk Preserve.
Their priorities are so askew the access fund needs to build the toilets.
ridiculous.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I haven't been there, and so have no comment on the merits. It sounds like a complicated situation, in part relating to differing views of the rights of private owners and local governments. I'm curious about the legal aspects of this, though. Caped crusader seems to be suggesting that owners have been unjustly deprived of rights by local governments, affecting the value of their property or its fungability.
There was an important U.S. Supreme Court a few years ago, from Connecticut - Kelo v City of New London. It may have some relevance, but I'd be happy to learn more about it.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/eminentd.htm
The nexus between what the law requires and permits, private property rights, and local government, can be a tangled one.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 10, 2009 - 08:16am PT
|
Happy said ....What I disagree with was your statement that "little old ladies must be destroyed."
It's not my statement. I was paraphrasing your false choice between the little old ladies and the ecosystem on the ridge.
As for how I'm going about defending landowners Happy, I'm sorry you don't like it. I'm sorry it's inconvenient for climbers. Clearly you can't begin to understand what all this is like for us.
The bottom line is, a few dozen landowners have been forced to bear the burden of protecting open space on the ridge. Meanwhile the 5,000 Gardiner town residents, the 10,000 Mohonk Preserve members, and the 1,000,000 Nature Conservancy members contribute nothing, or at best they buy a Mohonk Preserve pass, wooohooo. Why shouldn't everyone share the burden?
Jstan- There are currently five pieces of closed land. I own two that go from the road to the top of the ridge in the Bayards. Additionally the landowner in the Near Trapps whose land was closed this week, has authorized me to act as their agent and they have asked me to close their land.
As for the PIPC or the Mohonk Preserve, they of course don't own the land so contacting them won't be much help. The local Access Fund Affiliate, the GCC, could have had played a constructive role here. Unfortunately the people running the GCC seem to perceive their role as facilitating climber's participation in the coercive practices of the large land acquisition organizations on the ridge. The idea for them, if I'm not mistaken, is if the Freinds of the Shawangunks or the Mohonk Preserve can wrest the land from the neighbors then climnbers will have access. Of course, this strategy is a primary inspiration for the closures.
Lastly, Todd, I haven't forgottena about your request for details on the law. It's a complicated law and I want to post about it succintly but still accurately. I have to brush up before responding.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 10, 2009 - 08:28am PT
|
Mighty Hiker......Kelo was about emminent domain. The town hasn't used emminent domain. Curiously emminent doman would have would have been better for landowners as they would have had to compensate landowners.
The Supreme Court case that has more bearing on our current siutation is Lucas vs. South Carolina. Lucas was a developer who bought a vacant lot on an already very developed barrier island. After he bought it the State of South Carolina passed a zoning law saying no more development on barrier islands. Lucas sued the state. Scalia, writing for the majority wrote, if any "viable use" remains then the state need not compensate the landowner anything.
After that, in some comunities towns have written zoning laws to take as much as they can while still leaving some viable use. That's what has happened here in Gardiner.
For Lucas the outcome was different. The law took all of the use of the land and so Lucas won his lawsuit and the State had to pay him for the land. It was something like a million bucks. Ironically, the state then sold the land to another developer who built a house on it. The reason the state sold it was a million dollars was too great a price for the people of South Carolina to pay for one lot. That's the perverse logic of all this.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2009 - 09:43am PT
|
.... tax burdens: I don't doubt many property owners here in NYC wish the rest of the world shared a portion of their tax burden too, since so many of them visit! The gov does what they can, collecting hotel, parking, road tolls and such. But the larger share of the tax burden simply falls on the property owners. Yet my landlord bears the burden of weekly $300 sanitation tickets when people throw their trash on the sidewalk in front of our building, among other things.
That's the way property tax goes, Kent.
Gardiner has been known to have a tough tax situation for a long time, from what I understand. Though I can't move at this time in my life, I do fantasize of being up in the Gunks area. Even with my limited knowledge I realize it would be much more expensive to choose Gardiner or New Paltz over Rosendale or Kerhonksen.
FYI - I have every intention of respecting the wishes of those landowners you are supposedly representing. I just hope they aren't being inadvertently harmed by your efforts. I truly do not see how you are, in any way, forwarding their cause. If you actually HAVE brought forward petitions or utilized any tools that effect governmental policy, that would be a different case, but I don't believe I have ever noticed/heard about such attempts.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 12, 2009 - 02:57pm PT
|
Gunks.com is buggy as hell, I'm inclined to leave Tacoans in peace, and so this is being consolidated to rock climbing.com.
I miss Ouch!
later......
|
|
Dirk
Trad climber
...and now, Manhattan
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2009 - 07:50pm PT
|
Looks like you HAVE raised awareness, Crusader-- in light of the closure I'm throwing all of my support behind the Preserve, as will most of the rest of the forum.
If you stood to make a profit off Yosemite Valley, would you close that, too?
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 12, 2009 - 08:41pm PT
|
Dirk, that's a common refrain of the uninformed. "They must be profiteers."
If you can tear yourself away from climbing when you next come up, spend a day with me and I'll take you around to meet the people of whom I speak. Then see if you want to come back here and tell everyone what profiteers they are.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!