Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 65 of total 65 in this topic |
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Apr 8, 2009 - 08:30am PT
|
In Gardiner, New York, five pieces of land abutting the Mohonk Preserve are now closed. Accordingly, roughly 1700 feet of the Millbrook Ridge Trail has been rerouted off private land. Also, approximately 900 feet of cliff face in the Bayards and the Near Trapps is closed, including today’s closure of land south of the route Eenie Meenie in the middle of the Near Trapps.
For all those who have been, and continue to be, respectful of private property, on behalf of the owners of the above land, I thank you and apologize for this inconvenience.
For those who act as if they have a “fundamental right to climb”, support the Town of Gardiner’s punitive and coercive Ridge Zoning Law, and the Mohonk Preserve’s predatory land acquisition practices, these closures are a consequence of your flagrant disrespect for private property. The Gunks Climbers Coalition (GCC), the local Access Fund affiliate, deserves special mention. The GCC Chairman and Co-Chairman have both expressed support for the ridge zoning law, which unfairly takes so much from so few. In defending his support of the zoning law, when speaking of a specific property the GCC was trying to buy, the GCC Chair said “if the new zoning goes through, the property may become less valuable to the landowner and he may become much more willing to do the deal. This is one example of how these things are approached”. In addition, for years the GCC has steadfastly refused to establish any relationship with individual private landowners at three Gunks crags in Gardiner: the Near Trapps, the Bayards, and Millbrook. More than any other single party, today’s Near Trapps cliff closure is for the GCC.
Protecting Little Old Ladies on The Shawangunk Ridge from bullies and marauders….
The Caped Crusader
|
|
howlostami
Trad climber
Southern Tier, NY
|
|
What are the chances that you also happen to be a land owner?
|
|
schwortz
Social climber
davis, ca
|
|
caped crusader sounds a lot like kent
for the record kent - i'd have a lot more respect for your opinion if you dropped all of the transparent bullshit about rights and principles and just came out and told everyone what this is really about - MONEY
you want MONEY - maybe not now, but you want more MONEY for your property somewhere down the line...
i'll grant you that you allude to this, but you always couch it in terms of some sort of grander pretense...i call bullsh#t...i'll also grant you that i'm not much of a fan of the gcc either but their version of comic book villain hardly makes you the caped crusader by comparison
you're greedy, the preserve is greedy, the gcc is greedy, climbers are greedy, people are greedy...we all want what we cant have
you're process is no more the high road than the preserves
sad days when climbers are f*#king other climbers in the ass over a few bucks
|
|
schwortz
Social climber
davis, ca
|
|
one of the best of all possible places...the gunks...
|
|
john fairfield
Big Wall climber
|
|
+1 ^
yup sure sounds like good old quit claim deed kent.
Hey Kent why ya tellin all the cali climbers about the access being closed on your crumbly little choss pile behind your house?
You have neglected to even post this on Gunks.com. Hmmmm.
good luck to ya crepped crapsader on your egotistical mission.
I'll see ya
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I have related the story of getting kicked out of the Mohonk Mountain House on a trip back to the 'Gunks sometime this decade...
... the Guthrie-ite idea espoused in This Land Is Your Land are relatively recent, and mostly executed in the west as the east had all been bought up long before such sentiments became popular, and politically viable.
I do love the Catskills, and the Hudson River Valley... it is all owned, which is a pity, but it serves as a reminder and a lesson to us "California climbers" that the places we love could have also been that way, privately owned, and that our access subject to constant negotiation.
How does one own the land? It is still a very strange concept to me. Basically by asserting their rights through the threat of bodily harm. Ah 21st century "civilization." Things have not progressed as far, perhaps, as we might have guessed.
Thomas Cole, Catskill Mountain House The Four Elements 1843-1844
|
|
schwortz
Social climber
davis, ca
|
|
if the tacostand is a temple then ed (and werner) are its oracles
|
|
Porkchop_express
Trad climber
the base of the Shawangunk Ridge
|
|
I have not gone onto private property simply because the risk of being disturbed was far outweighed by the benefits of being relatively isolated and left to climb in peace. The preserve has not been predatory in their acquisition of land-- they have bought up land and set it aside for public use and relative conservation.
I am sure that if the caped crusader had his way that all the property along the ridge would be designated for multi-million dollar mansions-- after we do need more vacation homes looming over our grubby little hovels below. Under the thinly veiled guise of sticking up for little old ladies your rhetoric rings hollow.
I find it hard to believe that this is all about climbers bullying and abusing the landowners- having spent a great deal of time back in those areas, even during the peak times of the season, they tend to be very sparsely populated, and then by people who are simply looking for some space from the crowds.
What about trying to get help from the Preserve and the rangers? I have never seen any behavior from gunks climbers (locals, at least)which would knowingly jeopardize access. All closures or restrictions have been respected, so far as I have witnessed.
The affected areas seem peripheral enough(to non climbers) that the perception is that they can be pinched without anyone putting up too big of a stink.
Shameful.
For what its worth, I will be respectful of closures however bogus and idiotic they are; however I feel very free to express my opinion of them and their proponents.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 05:39pm PT
|
For many years, on a level playing field, the Mohonk Preserve has offered landowners far less than the land was worth and most landowners have declined. Then a new strategy emerged. The Mohonk Preserve used the “Green Assets Program”, essentially a lobbying campaign, to influence the comprehensive plans and zoning laws of a number of towns around the Preserve. The result in Gardiner has been a ridge zoning law which has stripped hundreds of thousands of dollars each from some landowners, and in one case over a million. Millions in total. We are happy to share the burden of preserving the land. We are not happy to shoulder it in such a grossly disproportionate way.
Many climbers, including the leadership within the climbing community, were supportive of the zoning law, climbers on the boards of The Mohonk Preserve, the Friends of the Shawangunks, and the GCC included. The community, many many climbers included, has chosen fit to burden a handful of people for something that benefits everyone. Given the circumstances, climbers have no reasonable expectation of a good relationship with ridge landowners or access to their land.
Porkchop brings up a common straw man argument which is, if we landowners don’t like the new zoning then we must want McMansions all the way down the ridge. If that were the case landowners would have chopped up their land into little pieces and developed the crap out of it long before the passage of the zoning law. Instead the landowners affected adversely by the law have been exceptionally good stewards of the land. That’s why you don’t see houses all over the eastern escarpment of the ridge.
For anyone who thinks landowners are greedy I invite you to come visit the neighbors with me for a day. We’ll drive around, meet some people, and walk their land. You’ll hear them talk about their love of the land, but also about how the ridge zoning law impacts them. Then see if you want to come back here and tell everyone how greedy you think they are.
All of this could have been done much more fairly. If the 10,000 Mohonk Preserve members contributed $100 a year each to a land fund the Preserve would have $1,000,000 a year set aside for conflict free land preservation . The Nature Conservancy identified the Shawangunk Ridge as one of “the last ten great places on earth” and they were intimately involved with the Green Assets Program. If the 1,000,000 Nature Conservancy members contributed just $1 a year each then another million a year would be available for conflict free land preservation. Instead, a handful of landowners are burdened with hundreds of thousands of dollars each, collectively millions, in costs. Because we landowners object to this, climbers think we are greedy.
The Gunks community, climbers included, deserves a land preservation organization like the Harvard Forest with their Program On Conservation Innovation, and we deserve a climbing access organization like the Southeastern Climber’s Coalition, which has done a great job of promoting climbing access and respecting private property.
As for my personal motivations, my financial interests have largely been protected, so I am in fact standing up for little old ladies on the ridge, among others. These modest and gracious people, long time residents on the ridge, have been thrown under the bus. If I don’t speak up for them, who will?
|
|
Aya K
Trad climber
New York
|
|
I have been listening to this go back and forth between Kent and the GCC for what seems like forever on gunks.com and I STILL don't understand how keeping me (not a landowner, not a local, not a GCC member, but a long time gunks climber - like the vast vast vast majority of gunks climbers (honestly I don't even know what the GCC does except like try to promote bouldering or something????)) accomplishes for anyone?
If I, someone who has been frequenting gunks.com forever, barely understand who and what the GCC are, do you think the majority of gunks climbers have even HEARD of it? As someone who has been frequenting gunks.com forever, I still can't quite wrap my head around all of this zoning ridge blah blah blah blah blah blah blah stuff, so do you think that the average gunks climber has even heard of this big fight? And given that, do you think the average gunks climber who has been climbing in the Near Trapps for the past 30 years is going to take new No Trespassing signs seriously?? I don't.
I mean,personally I will respect any new no trespassing signs (looks like I'll be heading to Lost City a lot more on weekends rather than the far Nears), but really?
I can read what Kent writes, and I can understand, try to sympathize with and accept his point of view, but if I need to be honest about my emotions, well, it all seems sad, dumb, and ultimately pointless to me.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 06:24pm PT
|
Hi Aya,
How is school going?
I'll try to put it in a more succinct and human way. Because of the zoning law, one retired landowner, who was counting on being able to sell his land to fund the latter part of his retirement, if he lived that long, may well be shopping for his groceries in the pet food aisle.
Doesn't that upset anyone beside me?
|
|
Aya K
Trad climber
New York
|
|
Kent - it's a lot of busy work and I'd rather just be doing clinical stuff all the time!
I understand that you want to preserve the property value. That's not the point of my post.
I don't understand what keeping me, the average gunks climber, from traversing a 150ft section at the base of the Nears is doing to help that in any way, shape, or form. Saying that the most recent closure was precipitated by "bad attitude" is only confusing me even more. Which is it?
Also, to the vast vast vast majority of climbers, this closure (the first one that really impacts any significant number of climbers) coming TOTALLY out of the blue. We don't yet know how climbers are going to react, but I can almost guarantee that if you think "climbers" (all gunks climbers, the vast majority of whom don't know even know of your existence? or a few climbers from the GCC and gunks.com whom the majority of climbers don't know exist? the infinitesimally small percentage of gunks climbers whom you've found trespassing on your property? who, exactly?) have a bad attitude now, it's going to be much worse before it gets any better. And I do hope it gets better.
|
|
hagerty
Social climber
A Sandy Area South of a Salty Lake
|
|
Sure it's upsetting. It's also upsetting that this person was naive enough to think that nothing would ever change regarding the value of their land, particularly when it abuts protected open space. Particularly after seeing how the scuttled Marriott resort in the 80's initially put some of this in motion.
|
|
Domingo
Trad climber
El Portal, CA
|
|
And what are these various sums of millions of dollars going to do... settle "landowner disputes"... pay landowners off?
edit: what bvb said.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
without knowing anything about this, i will say its hard for me to believe, as implied in the above posts, that a bunch of climbers are resposible for creating and new zoning laws in the hudson river valley.
we're just not that organized.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 06:44pm PT
|
Aya, we are very appreciative of climbers who are respectful of private property rights. And so too, climbers have had unfettered access to private land for decades. This only began to change when the community, climbers included, stripped us of many of our property rights.
Hagerty, yeah, I was naive to think the MP would be a good neighbor. I'm making up for it now.
Domingo, the various millions would be available so the Preserve could compete in the marketplace for land rather than engaging in skullduggery. The skullduggery is destroying any sense of community we have here.
Bvb, I consider what the preservation community here has done to be immoral and unethical, but I also recognize it is very very organized.
|
|
Aya K
Trad climber
New York
|
|
Kent, that doesn't answer my questions in the slightest.
|
|
hagerty
Social climber
A Sandy Area South of a Salty Lake
|
|
>This only began to change when the community, climbers included, stripped us of many of our property rights.
<
Please stop lumping locals who just happen to be climbers in with the much larger community of Gunks climbers. And stop blaming the vast majority of Gunks climbers, who aren't locals, with stripping you of your property rights simply because they're paying for an annual Preserve pass and not storming the Gardiner town hall with pitch forks.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
Boss Angeles
|
|
Damn Smiley Brothers.
|
|
rbob
climber
|
|
Hi Kent,
I have a quick question. If indeed the land was taken away or the zoning rights were taken away or whatever... and the property value has indeed decreased... aren't you saving a bundle on property taxes? Granted it certainly doesn't cover the foregone land value, but I know this is a large part of the reason why some wealthy land owners put their land into conservation easements.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 07:06pm PT
|
Aya, perhaps you could rephrase your question. There is a long runon sentence in your previous post with a number of question marks.
Hagerty, many climbers were involved. If we had some way of sorting those involved from those not we would.
Rbob, unfortunately they are not giving us any kind of tax break. Additionally, if we do put our land into a conservation easement, the value of the easement and the tax benefit is pegged to the post zoning law appraisal price rather than the pre zoning law appraisal price.
I'll also add, portions of three of the five pieces now closed were previosuly slated to be given to the Preserve. This is, of course, no longer the case.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Caped, get out the facts! What is the current zoning, what density is permitted, and what environmental limitations are there on your property? Now what are the proposed changes and what will be the zoning, density, and environmental limitations on your property then? What are the current taxes and what will be the new taxes?
|
|
Aya K
Trad climber
New York
|
|
Kent,
1. Do you concede that the vast majority of climbers at the gunks have never heard of the ongoing dispute between a few landowners, the Preserve, and the few climbers of the GCC? And if so, what exactly do landowners hope to accomplish with today's closure?
2. The vast majority of gunks climbers have not been impacted by this ongoing dispute until this closure of the Nears. Do you think will take new "No Trespassing" signs posted on the trail seriously?
3. Who are the climbers with the "bad attitude" that you stated precipitated the closure of the section of the Nears? Are they the average gunks climber who knows of the existence of neither you, nor the GCC? Are they the small handful of climbers from the GCC? Are they the small handful of climbers whom you found trespassing on your property in the Bayards? Are they the small handful of climbers who post on gunks.com? Are they some other subset of climbers?
|
|
Aya K
Trad climber
New York
|
|
Actually, even if you think that the majority of gunks climbers ARE fully aware of this ongoing dispute, I still would like to know what closing the cliffs is intended to accomplish.
Perhaps I presume too much when I presume that there was a point to the closure?
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 07:41pm PT
|
Questions from Aya
"1. Do you concede that the vast majority of climbers at the gunks have never heard of the ongoing dispute between a few landowners, the Preserve, and the few climbers of the GCC?"
I don't really know. It's been on gunks.com for years and although not many post there any more, gunks.com has a viral quality to it. Many that I talk to seem to know what has been said there.
"And if so, what exactly do landowners hope to accomplish with today's closure?"
Raise awareness of the issues at hand. For the most part, now that the law has passed, the climbing community wants to sweep we landowners under the rug and pretend our land is really just part of the Preserve.
"2. The vast majority of gunks climbers have not been impacted by this ongoing dispute until this closure of the Nears. Do you think will take new "No Trespassing" signs posted on the trail seriously?"
Some will, some won't. Those that don't will make the point that climbers don't respect private property rights and that will be documented and publicized.
"3. Who are the climbers with the "bad attitude" that you stated precipitated the closure of the section of the Nears? Are they the average gunks climber who knows of the existence of neither you, nor the GCC? Are they the small handful of climbers from the GCC? Are they the small handful of climbers whom you found trespassing on your property in the Bayards? Are they the small handful of climbers who post on gunks.com? Are they some other subset of climbers?"
I'm not going to name names. From my experience, they seem to be scattered across all groups of climbers.
From a landowners perspective, not just mine, climbers at the gunks have a sense of entitlement to access on private land. A great example is the AI Wall, which has been closed for some time now. One has to either walk, ride a bike, or drive up the driveway to get to the wall. Even after "No Trespassing" signs were prominently posted on both sides of the beginning of the driveway, climbers would cruise right on in anyway, passing right through the signs. Only after the police were called, complaints were filed, and a few climbers had to show up in court did that stop.
As for the impact of the closure on you and people like you, in my original post I apologized for any inconvenience to respectful climbers, but this is unfortunately the way it has to be for now.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 07:43pm PT
|
Todd, the zoning law is 125 pages long. I'll respond with some highlights later, or perhaps tomorrow.
|
|
Aya K
Trad climber
New York
|
|
>1. Do you concede that the vast majority of climbers at the gunks have never >heard of the ongoing dispute between a few landowners, the Preserve, and the few >climbers of the GCC?"
>I don't really know. It's been on gunks.com for years and although not many post >there any more, gunks.com has a viral quality to it. Many that I talk to seem to >know what has been said there.
What do you expect the reaction of these climbers to the closure to be?
>"And if so, what exactly do landowners hope to accomplish with today's closure?"
>Raise awareness of the issues at hand. For the most part, now that the law has >passed, the climbing community wants to sweep we landowners under the rug >and pretend our land is really just part of the Preserve.
What do you hope that raising awareness among the climbers will accomplish? Obviously, increased awareness in and of itself does nothing. So what do you expect the outcome of increased awareness to be?
>2. The vast majority of gunks climbers have not been impacted by this ongoing >dispute until this closure of the Nears. Do you think will take new "No Trespassing" >signs posted on the trail seriously?"
>Some will, some won't. Those that don't will make the point that climbers don't >respect private property rights and that will be documented and publicized.
What do you expect this to accomplish?
>3. Who are the climbers with the "bad attitude" that you stated precipitated the >closure of the section of the Nears? Are they the average gunks climber who >knows of the existence of neither you, nor the GCC? Are they the small handful of >climbers from the GCC? Are they the small handful of climbers whom you found >trespassing on your property in the Bayards? Are they the small handful of c>limbers who post on gunks.com? Are they some other subset of climbers?"
>I'm not going to name names. From my experience, they seem to be scattered >across all groups of climbers.
>From a landowners perspective, not just mine, climbers at the gunks have a sense >of entitlement to access on private land. A great example is the AI Wall, which has >been closed for some time now. One has to either walk, ride a bike, or drive up the >driveway to get to the wall. Even after "No Trespassing" signs were prominently >posted on both sides of the beginning of the driveway, climbers would cruise right >on in anyway, passing right through the signs. Only after the police were called, >complaints were filed, and a few climbers had to show up in court did that stop.
So this is my opinion, and you obviously disagree, but my gut feeling is that there are a lot of climbers who have been climbing for a long, long time at the gunks. Without having the slightest clue as to why there were suddenly "no trespassing" signs in an area where no trespassing was ever enforced before, it would probably take a note of explanation for some people to believe it actually applied to climbing. I don't think it's very difficult to imagine that the average climber is going to scratch their head at a "no trespassing" sign on the trail at the Nears. A note of explanation saying, sorry climbers, but we need to close access for x, y, and z reason would probably go a heck of a lot further in ensuring compliance (and raising awareness) than taking climbers to court.
I can't possibly imagine how taking climbers to court for climbing in the Near Trapps would possibly not antagonize climbers even more than they already are.
>As for the impact of the closure on you and people like you, in my original post I >apologized for any inconvenience to respectful climbers, but this is unfortunately >the way it has to be for now.
Which is all well and good. I still won't support the decision to close access.
|
|
Domingo
Trad climber
El Portal, CA
|
|
I agree with Aya, with a note that the obvious outcome of this is normally polite, well-behaved climbers will join the antagonized or disrespectful climbers.
I think you're going to get more support for the new zoning law this way.
|
|
nx
climber
|
|
If there was no zoning law then the people could:
A) Not sell their land
- they don't lose anything.
B) Sell their land with a specific agreement that it cannot
be developed
- the land is NOT AS VALUABLE.
C) Sell it to someone who will build a McMansion or golf course
or whatever
- your poor old ladies make it rich.
You suggest that the preserve pay competitive
prices and bid - and potentially lose - against people who will
develop the land.
Seems like your way of raising attention to try
develop the ridge. "destroy the ridge." you might call it.
--
It sucks that land value went down for a group of
people. And the community benefits
from their "loss". But any plot of land in that area is
still worth a lot of money - and keeps the value
that you claim to appreciate [i.e. in a non-exploited state].
I guess those of us who don't own land will never
understand the the thrill of controlling it.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
I also agree with Aya, wondering what possible effect a closing of this area will have. The closure's been held over the Gunks.com forum's head for at least a few years now, as the ultimate act if....(if what,mm was never made clear, really).
Now the closure's enacted, and when it become's clear that the only thing that will change is that the 911 operators will dread picking up the phone on weekends when they see calls originating from certain numbers....(joke), then what? Is Phase Two REALLY to post names of trespassing offenders? Will the names of the minor children of the unsuspecting, leaf-peeping, tourists be included in this...what will it be? Letters to town newspaper? The police Blotter copy/pasted on rc.com/Stopo and Gunks.com? I mean.....rwally.
This all seems - so - inappropriate/ineffective a way to address political process. While I am sure the issues Kent is concerned with have value - Go to the town council, not internet climbers, for christ's sake. Take whatever action is taken to get the issues on meeting agenda's, write the politicians who actually DO deal with these things.
You ask "Does this upset anyone but me?" I would guess nearly anyone would be upset to know a person is actually going to starve to death via commercial cat food. Some of us actually DO know people who subsist by eating from garbage cans. I find it sort of difficult to imagine that someone with several acres of property is going to be forced to sell it at...what, under $1K an acre? Forgive my bluntness, but it's hard not to read that statement(pet food aisle shopping) as one based on emotion and not fact.
....wondering what would be of the Shawangunk Ridge had the Smiley's focused on maximizing their profit in passing the land into the future rather than creating the Mohonk Preserve...
|
|
climbingreen
climber
Where I Am
|
|
Tried the Near Trapps once...Pretty dirty cliff, but the route we did was good. Called something like "Magic Line" on the far end(towards Milbrook). A shame about the trail though.
|
|
Gunkie
climber
East Coast US
|
|
Here is one prime reason I don't frequent gunks.com. These pissing matches absolutely suck and are as bad as the political threads on the taco. But it's easy to avoid the politics here; just don't read 70% of the posts.
I have two other reasons for not hanging at my 'local' messageboard. Micro-management of threads and more pissing matches about stupid details of climbs between the same 6 people over-and-over-and-over. I know hell and it's got a name, gunks.com.
Climbing on private property manifests two distinct angles of attack: (1) The loudmouth who boasts about climbing on private property to receive some sort of tacit or not so tacit approval and then there are the (2) stealth climbers who quietly approach, climb, and leave no trace of their trespass.
I've seen more than one climbing area 'officially' shut down becasue of #1 and I can provide a disturbing list of nice east coast climbing areas now off-limits. I've not seen a climbing area shut down because of #2.
I think I'll go free Spinal Traction this weekend with a boom box cranking out some 1980's power rock.... I am #1.
|
|
climbingreen
climber
Where I Am
|
|
Judging by the size of the resort type thing over past skytop, the only reason the whole place isn't shut down is because of the amount of people recreating (Climbing, biking, walking) along the Trapps road.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 10:45pm PT
|
Haha Gunkie. First, if you're going to attempt to free Spinal Traction, I wanna watch. Second, if you pull it off, then as far as I'm concerned you can climb anywhere you want.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
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.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2009 - 08:42am PT
|
Zoo,
The last two sentences of my gunks.com post "Climbers easy access to climbing on private land is more important than the financial security of elderly people on the ridge. It's extraordinarily selfish."
Posts like yours will simply motivate more landowners to close their land.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
I'll go so far out as to say you, Kent, might actually be doing more harm than good for that elderly neighbor. If I read your posts correctly, it would seem they are counting on you to effect change. They've entrusted you.
And.....what are you REALLY doing to further their cause? The internet forums are real, in a sense, but are simply a tool. And for the goal you are looking to achieve(or are you? ie; the goal of rescinding/changing zoning laws), I would hazard you've been fairly ineffectual.
You've spent years of those people's time as they patiently wait for the caped crusader to save their land. And if you are truly honest with yourself - what have you achieved to present, even in part?
You say the goal is to raise awareness? Well....then maybe you HAVE achieved something. Imagine that. But, so far as I have seen, you have never suggested courses of action you wish people would take beyond simply *being aware* of this plight, and I don't think *raised awareness* is what that elderly neighbor is looking to you to provide(according to the tone of your postings).
The posting of 'No Trespassing' signs is not very clear, in telling the story you want told. I have seen the P/L spray painted on the cliffs last year or so. I thought it meant "Power Line" and had been put there with temporary paint to indicate some buried cable!
Letters to newspapers, petitions, protests, public notices, and - I would think most importantly - getting the issues on the agendas at local government meetings is more in line with what I would think as effective ways to initiate change. At the LEAST, why not include some form of notice of the issue along with those No Trespassing signs? A short blurb about why the sign, with an easy to remember URL they can go to for more information, schedule of meetings with the issue on agenda, petitions to sign, links to news articles and stuff like that....
I DO feel bad for a person who has been wrongfully handled by the government, Kent. Don't get me wrong. But I'll come right out and tell you that I believe the protection of the lands in the Shawangunk ridge - the homes of animals, insects, plants and others less fortunate that even your elderly neighbor - is more important to me.
Your elderly neighbor has YOU to help offset their food budget(for surely you would not let them eat pet food, as the types that are more economical than people food really ARE poisonous). I would happily donate money to a fund specifically set up to provide funds for nutritious foods, if that is actually an issue at hand.
Who is going to feed the animals who have nowhere to forage? And that's only the very smallest hint of the problem when ecosystems are destroyed.
|
|
Porkchop_express
Trad climber
the base of the Shawangunk Ridge
|
|
its not that people don't care about the financial future of senior citizens and want them to eat cat food. most climbers simply dont see that the old people will be eating steak every night if a few of us no longer climb back there...
if they were being put out on the street, i could see the righteous indignation. it is a fallacy to assume that anyone has a "right" to profiting off the sale of their land. that is something determined by the market and local zoning regs. I think the current housing market trend demonstrates this adequately.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2009 - 09:56am PT
|
Happie,
You're offering up another straw man argument, namely, if the little old ladies aren't destoyed then the land will be developed and ridge ecosystems will be destroyed. This is a false dichotomy.
The land should be protected. The burden should be shared. What are you willing to contribute?
|
|
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.
|
|
Dirk
Trad climber
...and now, Manhattan
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2009 - 10:16pm PT
|
But why us? So the town of Gardiner screwed you -- now you are mad at the climbers?
|
|
richross
Trad climber
gunks,ny
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2009 - 11:08pm PT
|
Caped Crusader Vader.
|
|
Caped Crusader
Trad climber
Gardiner, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 13, 2009 - 09:09am PT
|
From Dirk "But why us? So the town of Gardiner screwed you -- now you are mad at the climbers?"
Because there were many climbers involved at every step in the process. In the very beginning, years ago at a town comprehensive plan meeting, run by a Mohonk Preserve paid consultant, a climber took a magic marker out of a ridge landowners hand and used it to draw all over maps of private land on the ridge saying "we want this, and this and this". I'm paraphrasing. On the other end of the process, last year, when the Wustrau's got variances so they could build their driveway, climbers sat on the board of directors of the (supposed) Friends of the Shawangunks when FOS sued the Wustraus in an attempt to have the variances voided.
Rich, nice garb which provides me with a segue to the fact that many of us landowners along the ridge regard the Preserve as something of an Evil Empire. After all, they are the ones with the $100,000 a year Executive Director, a public relations or spin doctoring staff, extensive connections with politicians and publishers, operating out of their multi-million dollar visitor center, with their millions of dollars, and a phalanx of lawyers. They and their partners are the ones who have used the trickery of quit claim deeds, the bullying of litigation, and lobbying for zoning that greatly devalues the land of their neighbors. Who's Darth Vader now?
Caped Crusader aka Luke Skywalker
|
|
Porkchop_express
Trad climber
the base of the Shawangunk Ridge
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2009 - 11:29pm PT
|
Hi-
I just wanted to say that i have looked into some of the issues that we have been kicking around here and talked to some others who are better informed than I and I see where the land owners are coming from. I also wish that climbing access didnt have to be revoked and maybe it won't have to be, but it really is pretty weak for the Preserve to strong arm the private sector like the are trying to do.
That said, I feel like more climbers are able to be reached through reason and persuasion than taking away climbing. Regardless, I have seen things differently and for what its worth I am reneging on some of the views I espoused without getting all the details.
I doubt I can do anything to assuage the conflict, but if I can or could I certainly would be interested in helping and to that end I am going to shut up and accept the closures such as they are for the time being in hopes that this all gets ironed out.
Steve
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2009 - 12:20am PT
|
Kent, I rarely climb in the Nears.
But I do respect private property rights. I have a hard time understanding the entitlement attitudes of some (I hope only a minority) climbers.
I would be willing to bet that most of the "entitlement" types would be speed-dialing 911 if you showed up deer-hunting in their posted "no hunting - no trespassing" back yards (even if they were renters).
Of course, the real question is what is the size of the intersection of the set of entitlement climbers and set of property owners!
Another example of the entitlement mentality:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=837538
LOL!
|
|
| Messages 1 - 65 of total 65 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!