|
rangerrob
Apr 9, 2009, 3:49 PM
Post #51 of 217
(6705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 641
|
It's a choss heap...who cares. Luckily the ice only rarely comes in.....there'd be some pissed off (and armed) people if they couldn;t climb fabulous Gunk ice when it was there. RR
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 9, 2009, 3:52 PM
Post #52 of 217
(6703 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
rangerrob wrote: It's a choss heap...who cares. Luckily the ice only rarely comes in.....there'd be some pissed off (and armed) people if they couldn;t climb fabulous Gunk ice when it was there. RR heh. not sure if those are fightin' words or not. i think you meant to say "rock"
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Apr 9, 2009, 4:03 PM
Post #53 of 217
(6693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
rgold wrote: Take it over to gunks.com Great, you /.'ed gunks.com Now where we gonna talk about how many snakes we've seen in the past week?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 9, 2009, 4:32 PM
Post #54 of 217
(6675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
qtm wrote: rgold wrote: Take it over to gunks.com Great, you /.'ed gunks.com Now where we gonna talk about how many snakes we've seen in the past week? can't but wonder if this is a coincidence.
|
|
|
|
|
jsh
Apr 9, 2009, 4:45 PM
Post #55 of 217
(6663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 118
|
marc801 wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: In reply to: What, specifically, do you want from us as climbers? Where land is closed we want you to respect the closure. What about that is so hard for you to comprehend? Kent, this is the same circular bull shit you've been spouting on gunks.com for a couple of years. Let's try it again: what, specifically, do you want from us as climbers to lift the closure? Exactly, Marc. Kent wants to answer a different question than the one I've been asking: What, specifically, do Kent et al. want FROM CLIMBERS in exchange for CLIMBING access?
|
|
|
|
|
elizaclimb
Apr 9, 2009, 4:46 PM
Post #56 of 217
(6661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2005
Posts: 32
|
This post makes me sad!
|
|
|
|
|
bubo
Apr 9, 2009, 5:24 PM
Post #57 of 217
(6641 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 16
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: qtm wrote: rgold wrote: Take it over to gunks.com Great, you /.'ed gunks.com Now where we gonna talk about how many snakes we've seen in the past week? can't but wonder if this is a coincidence. It's not a coincidence bro... on a high posting day gunks.com get three to four people tops. The webmaster here lets the site go on auto pilot, so I would guess that with this increased traffic the site just got over loaded and shut down.... Anyway... I agree with alizaclimb... not only is this a sad thing to read, but with posting on three climbing forums it sounds to me like Kent is on the verge of a mental melt down. I'm not a friend but I have known Kent for years... he bought his place next to the cliffs to be apart of… wait for it... "the climbing community". Now he's over 50 looking at 60, and somehow he thinks that a re-zoning law has decreased his property value more than the housing bubble busting is beyond me. Whatever future plans he thinks was thwarted with a rezoning law is nothing compared to the economic down turn that we are now facing. I think the only person Kent is really hurting is Kent. He bought his place to be next to and be apart of the very people and community that he is now pissing off. He is diluting himself with some kind of sudo-psycho babble that tries to justify why he is hurting the very people that he bought his place to be apart of in the first place. Putting climbing issues aside… I think we have the unfortunate experience in reading a full blown melt down on the net
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 10, 2009, 12:45 PM
Post #58 of 217
(6507 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
jsh, Julie- It's not that I won't answer your questions, it's that you don't like the answer. It's as if you were at someones house and you decided you liked their patio furniture. You say "what do you want for the patio furniture?" They say "we don't want anything for it, we like it right where it is". You say, "you're not answering my question....what do you want in exchange for the patio furniture". And around it goes. Bubo.....this is some community. People targeting others and taking what they can. Nice. Also, you present another spurious argument, that because the real estate market has fallen the impact of the zoning law is inconsequential. This simply isn't true. On community, throwing elderly people on the ridge under the bus, figuratively speaking, destroys community. An interesting Australian ethicist named Peter Singer, now at Princeton, wrote a book many years ago called How Are We To Live? In it, when speaking of community, he suggested we would do well to expand our idea of community to include as many other people as possible. Here in Gardiner, landowners have been excluded from the community. Our land has been targeted and landowners well being has been disregarded. It's hardly a way to foster community. Conflict free land preservation would build community. Everyone coming together to share the burden would build community. Unfortunately that's not the culture here on the Shawangunk Ridge.
|
|
|
|
|
onyerbike
Apr 10, 2009, 1:01 PM
Post #59 of 217
(6496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2007
Posts: 15
|
In reply to: CapedCrusader wrote: jsh, Julie- It's not that I won't answer your questions, it's that you don't like the answer. It's as if you were at someones house and you decided you liked their patio furniture... Umm, Kent, instead of unnecessary analogies, can you spell this out in the terms that Julie, Aya and others have asked? It appears to be "There is nothing I want in return for granting access to my property. The closed section is off limits to everyone. Please respect this. Thanks and goodbye." If you'll just admit this, it would be helpful and we can all get on with our lives.
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 10, 2009, 1:13 PM
Post #60 of 217
(6480 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
Onyerbike, Using different words I've said pretty much exactly what you've said. I've been very clear. The land that's closed is closed.
|
|
|
|
|
onyerbike
Apr 10, 2009, 1:18 PM
Post #61 of 217
(6476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2007
Posts: 15
|
OK, thanks. Thats good to know. Will respect your rights as property owner. best, OYB
CapedCrusader wrote: Onyerbike, Using different words I've said pretty much exactly what you've said. I've been very clear. The land that's closed is closed.
|
|
|
|
|
jsh
Apr 10, 2009, 2:50 PM
Post #62 of 217
(6424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 118
|
Note that Kent has never actually said "There is nothing I want from climbers. I don't want them to boycott the Preserve on my behalf, I don't want anyone to protest the Gardiner zoning laws for me and my cause. I don't want to leverage their interests for mine. I want nothing from climbers." He's said that he wants us to obey his closure; fine. But I don't believe for a minute that that's *all* he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Apr 10, 2009, 3:00 PM
Post #63 of 217
(6410 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
Me either. In fact, I believes what he *wants* is for people to ignore the NT/P'ing signs, so he can continue his online machinations and feel he is doing something, rather than working with/through political entities where changes can actually be effected. For the life of me, I don't see how asking climbers to respect closure changes one damned thing for those people he's purportedly attempting to assist.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 10, 2009, 3:03 PM
Post #64 of 217
(6410 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jsh wrote: Note that Kent has never actually said "There is nothing I want from climbers. I don't want them to boycott the Preserve on my behalf, I don't want anyone to protest the Gardiner zoning laws for me and my cause. I don't want to leverage their interests for mine. I want nothing from climbers." He's said that he wants us to obey his closure; fine. But I don't believe for a minute that that's *all* he wants. Exactly. Or else why would he close the land out of the blue that has been open for decades? The folks who seem to be losing out are the ones who probably deserve it the least. I don't know anyone who has trashed or disrespected the land. I just don't understand what has changed if nothing has been gained (or if no gain is expected).
|
|
|
|
|
onyerbike
Apr 10, 2009, 3:06 PM
Post #65 of 217
(6405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2007
Posts: 15
|
Yeah, I know, which is why I tried to get a plain statement without any qualifiers, analogies or other potential obfuscations. All this stuff about zoning and respect and the GCC is just prologue. The land is closed, thanks and goodbye. The land value doesn't change, the old lady buys catfood. We rap in. Oh well.
jsh wrote: Note that Kent has never actually said "There is nothing I want from climbers. I don't want them to boycott the Preserve on my behalf, I don't want anyone to protest the Gardiner zoning laws for me and my cause. I don't want to leverage their interests for mine. I want nothing from climbers." He's said that he wants us to obey his closure; fine. But I don't believe for a minute that that's *all* he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
Apr 10, 2009, 3:17 PM
Post #66 of 217
(6391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
|
On the one hand, it's painfully clear that the closure has nothing at all to do with whether climbers have, or have not, trashed the land. It's being closed because the owners are pissed off about the zoning law. On the other hand, it's equally clear that it is about money: that's what the zoning law changed (i.e., the marketable value of the property). So Kent's argument that: "Porkchop brings up a common straw man argument which is, if we landowners don’t like the new zoning law 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" is basically dishonest. Maybe they don't want to have McMansions up and down the ridge, but they sure as hell want to subdivide and develop to some extent. If they didn't, the zoning law wouldn't affect them. In short, their idea of being "good stewards" is not to leave the land undeveloped, but to cut it up and build on it. That's why they care. To be clear, I don't necessarily blame them for that: they want what's in their interests, just as climbers want what's in theirs (i.e., free access everywhere). I don't have a problem with either side acting in its interests, I just don't like being BS'ed about it.
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 10, 2009, 3:30 PM
Post #67 of 217
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
It's interesting that everyone is posting their opnions on what they think I *really* want. For the record, in the future, what I want is conflict free land preservation, not development. As gunks.com is back up, I'll be largely continuing there rather than here or on the Taco.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 10, 2009, 3:50 PM
Post #68 of 217
(6366 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
CapedCrusader wrote: As gunks.com is back up, I'll be largely continuing there rather than here or on the Taco. Actually, it seems that it is dead again.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Apr 10, 2009, 4:17 PM
Post #69 of 217
(6341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
Yes it seems it is all about money on your side and about preservation on the other. So far my understanding of the zoning laws that caused any loss in property value are those that we as preservationists should be supporting. What I would like to see happen is to have the owners sell their land a reasonable prices, but to allow them to live on that land for free as long as they live. The lack of taxes and money they might make from investing their lump sum might help to minimize their loss. Ken, set up the organization and fund to help both the land owners and preservation and you have my $100.
In reply to: Ken: jsh, Julie- It's not that I won't answer your questions, it's that you don't like the answer. It's as if you were at someones house and you decided you liked their patio furniture. You say "what do you want for the patio furniture?" They say "we don't want anything for it, we like it right where it is". You say, "you're not answering my question....what do you want in exchange for the patio furniture". And around it goes. Kent if this were true you wouldn't posting. You do want something, and that is a bunch of out of town climbers to perform a miracle and "protect your little old lady".Guess your getting step done, at least some of the out of climbers now know of your quest. Now all you have to do is wait for the miracle!
(This post was edited by mheyman on Apr 10, 2009, 4:40 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
apeman_e
Apr 10, 2009, 4:20 PM
Post #70 of 217
(6336 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2008
Posts: 212
|
without any doubt, this really is all about money. Which is OK...sadly, money makes the world go 'round and everyone's gotta do what they have to do to get the $$$. It just looks like you're deceiving yourself and others when you pretend that this is about something else. But it probably helps you sleep at night to continue the charade. In the meantime, my partners and I will respect your wishes and stay off your land.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Apr 10, 2009, 4:35 PM
Post #71 of 217
(6318 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
CapedCrusader wrote: ... conflict free land preservation.... Searching this term online, I don't find, from what I can gather, any relevant links. I'd think that, if this were a concept being utilized, I'd at least be able to find some information. Perhaps Kent can point to some links that explain what is involved in this concept. Places that are working within that structure, issues that get addressed, things like that.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 10, 2009, 4:58 PM
Post #72 of 217
(6300 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: As gunks.com is back up, I'll be largely continuing there rather than here or on the Taco. Actually, it seems that it is dead again. I've had no difficulty getting to or posting to Gunks.com in the last week. Here's a link to that thread which is working perfectly on Firefox version 3.0.8: http://www.gunks.com/...ads.php/topics/44082 Cheers, GO
|
|
|
|
|
Dillbag
Apr 10, 2009, 5:04 PM
Post #73 of 217
(6293 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2007
Posts: 93
|
Strange... it worked for me at home this morning, but doesn't work here in the office... which it always has before. Site is in it's DEATH throws... I give it another week or so before it's completely dead. Someone needs to jump in and give it some epi quick! Anyone know Evan's email?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 10, 2009, 5:09 PM
Post #74 of 217
(6286 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
cracklover wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: As gunks.com is back up, I'll be largely continuing there rather than here or on the Taco. Actually, it seems that it is dead again. I've had no difficulty getting to or posting to Gunks.com in the last week. Here's a link to that thread which is working perfectly on Firefox version 3.0.8: http://www.gunks.com/...ads.php/topics/44082 Cheers, GO Didn't work for me, but I don't use firefox. Thanks for trying though.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 10, 2009, 5:22 PM
Post #75 of 217
(6271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Just tried my link above on IE 7.0, and that works fine too. What are you seeing when you try? GO
|
|
|
|
|
|