Since climbers make up a significant percentage of revenue generated, we are asking that you stop donating to the Mohonk Preserve if the ruling favors the Defendants.

This has come up repeatedly over the last few years. Take a look at posts by CapedCrusader and you will find what you are looking for.

Ah. I remember this stuff now. I also seem to remember that it was pretty damn ambiguous as to whether or not there was any wrongdoing.

I also seem to remember that the previous poster (CapedCrusader) wouldn't even use his/her real name. I'm not going to lend credence to an advocacy group who won't go out and tell me who they are.

So, who are you? Who is in this organization? Where is the funding for this organization coming from? What do you have to gain from this?

His name is Ken(t) or something like that. There's enough people who know who he is to say that he really isn't posting anonymously.

BTW - I think this message is considerably better presented than the previous one, even though the closure remains.

Gmburns2000,

Thanks for the post. Which closure are you speaking of? A lot of our members have land that has been open to the public and some that is closed for various reasons. It is our hope that the climbing community will take a close look at the courts decisions and make donations accordingly.

You figuring out his name by inference is not at all the same thing as being upfront and having the character to do it him/herself.

To the OP: If you think your argument has legs to stand on, and you want support, you better damn well come out with it. If you have legal issues with presenting this information, you shouldn't have posted in the first place.

I'll assume this is a sham until proven otherwise.

GMburns2000,

As I stated before we are an advocacy group started to share the burden that is placed on adjacent land owners to the Mohonk Preserve when a conflict arises. It is our hope that rock climbers who are a source of income for the Mohonk Preserve will adjust their financial support accordingly if multiple verdicts are not in favor of the Mohonk Preserve.

GMburns2000,

As I stated before we are an advocacy group started to share the burden that is placed on adjacent land owners to the Mohonk Preserve when a conflict arises. It is our hope that rock climbers who are a source of income for the Mohonk Preserve will adjust their financial support accordingly if multiple verdicts are not in favor of the Mohonk Preserve.

Does this mean I have to hear about old ladies being forced to live off cat food again?

At least this thread seems more focused on what the group feels is predatory land acquisition tactics, instead of the zoning / devaluation aspect. There is surveying that can be done and records to review, right? Property boundary disputes seem pretty mechanical and I don't see a cause to rally around. If the land did belong to the Preserve, but someone was incorrectly told the land they were buying included it, that is a crappy situation, but not the Preserve's fault (from my point of view - I've no concept of the legal issues involved).

Please stick to those details, and drop the appeal to emotion on the cat food lady.

The zoning rule complaining never made sense to me - it seemed to be:
1) The developers who wanted to put houses along the cliffs were willing to buy the land for $$$
2) The town, strongly influenced by the Preserve (though wasn't it a vote by your other neighbors?), changed the zoning laws to prevent the developers from building what they wanted
3) The land is now worth less as nobody else is willing to pay $$$
4) The Preserve is happy to buy the land for $

Kent has always seemed to argue that the land owners would never sell to developers, but are entitled to $$$ for the land. The land owners "lost" money from buyers they wouldn't sell to, and old ladies have to live on cat food if the Preserve doesn't pay the developer inflated market rate. And I think there was a sentiment that the Preserve collected all those user fees and could afford it, so why not?

1) The developers who wanted to put houses along the cliffs were willing to buy the land for $$$
2) The town, strongly influenced by the Preserve (though wasn't it a vote by your other neighbors?), changed the zoning laws to prevent the developers from building what they wanted
3) The land is now worth less as nobody else is willing to pay $$$
4) The Preserve is happy to buy the land for $

You forgot the final step.

After the change in zoning laws the property owners who wanted to put an apartment complex(n1) at the base of the gunks stamped their feet, held their breath, and pouted like spoiled children. So, in retaliation against the climber community for not supporting their quest to develop the land around the gunks, the property owners closed their land to climbers. They didn't own the cliffs, but they owned enough land next to the cliffs that they could block access to the Near Trapps. So they did. Out of revenge against a user group that had the temerity not to support massive construction next to one of the best cliffs on the east coast.

n1 - In fairness, I don't know if they wanted to build an apartment complex. It also could have been a chemical manufacturing plant. Or perhaps an industrial waste processing site. Whatever would make them the most money, I suppose.

I am not here to argue the merits of zoning in the town of Gardiner, or the arguments of another author. I will however do my best to post documents and decisions as court cases finish for those interested in a civil discussion.

I am not here to argue the merits of zoning in the town of Gardiner, or the arguments of another author. I will however do my best to post documents and decisions as court cases finish for those interested in a civil discussion.

In all fairness, you are missing one piece of the puzzle. There was a big shark-like developer who was trying to build a massive development on the ridge. There was massive local opposition, and the Preserve capitalized on that opposition to write up new zoning law which was designed not just to kill the big developer's project, but also to devalue the land below what it had been worth before the whole thing started.

That succeeded, the landowners were really pissed, and for whatever reason, they do not seem to have gone back to the local government and their neighbors to get the zoning changed back to something more measured. Instead, since they're angry at the Preserve, and they think climbers have a big say with the Preserve... they're attempting to take it out on climbers, in vague hope of getting climbers to pressure the Preserve.

Not a hell of a good strategy, IMO, but that's how I see it.

Well meaning people (other Gardiner residents) got scared into supporting something which benefits the Preserve, and really hurts those with land adjoining the ridge. Those Gardiner residents who passed the crappy zoning law need to fix the problem. Trouble is, they don't seem to care that their neighbors are getting screwed. And that truly is a shame.

GO

In all fairness, I think you're simply spewing BS out of ignorance. Do you actually have a dog in the fight, or are you just maligning people you don't know for fun?

... they're attempting to take it out on climbers, in vague hope of getting climbers to pressure the Preserve.

They closed part of my favorite climbing areas out of spite. That's my dog in this fight. You said it yourself:

Ok, great. They've taken it out on me. I have heard and understood their message. My response is perhaps not what they were hoping for, but here we are.

It seems to me that there is a symbiotic relationship between MP, landowners who adjoin the preserve and users. perhaps a strong advocacy group in the gunks is needed for climbers?

Well if they closed climbing access in an attempt to pressure the Preserve to re-zone their property then they didn't do out of spite.

Charles Crocker, a railroad investor and owner of a house on Nob Hill built a high fence around his neighbor's house in the hope of persuading his neighbor to sell having spoiled his view.

The property owners have closed access to the Nears in order to deliberately hurt, annoy, or offend the climbing community,

so that the climbing community will pressure the Preserve, which will pressure the town to reverse the zoning decision (the voters come in here somewhere),

so that the property owners can sell their land for greater value.

The MPNA has landowners in our group with land that is both open and closed just like Mohonk Preserve. I understand that it's a place you like to climb so we are just trying to educate patrons such as yourself as to the ramifications of your patronage. We are not trying to keep you from climbing per se just trying to educate the public and get some support behind our cause.

The MPNA has landowners in our group with land that is both open and closed just like Mohonk Preserve. I understand that it's a place you like to climb so we are just trying to educate patrons such as yourself as to the ramifications of your patronage. We are not trying to keep you from climbing per se just trying to educate the public and get some support behind our cause.

Since climbers make up a significant percentage of revenue generated, we are asking that you stop donating to the Mohonk Preserve if the ruling favors the Defendants.

The local activists are in the works. This post is simply a start to a very long process not a cry to "stop the donations now". Wait for the courts decision and then do what you think is right.

The local activists are in the works. This post is simply a start to a very long process not a cry to "stop the donations now". Wait for the courts decision and then do what you think is right.

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association is an advocacy group for adjacent neighbors of the Mohonk Preserve. The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association was formed in direct response to the confrontational tactics used by the Mohonk Preserve. In the event a dispute with the Mohonk Preserve we can offer help in the following areas:

Surveying
Legal representation
Title
Ancient document research
Maps

There are at least two cases before the courts right now. In both cases Mohonk Preserve is the Plaintiff. For those of you not familiar with the legal terms, that means that the Mohonk Preserve is suing their neighbors. We will post the outcome of these trials here and on our facebook page when the judges have written their respective decisions. Since climbers make up a significant percentage of revenue generated, we are asking that you stop donating to the Mohonk Preserve if the ruling favors the Defendants. As various cases finish we will be posting documents, transcripts, photos, maps and other useful data for the public to view. Thank you for your support.

The Mohonk Neighbors Association

Billcoe,

MPNA is not trying to close land at all! In fact the ridge is largely the way it for two reasons. The first is that it's difficult (access)and expensive to "build on the ridge" and the second is that many private landowners like their land undeveloped.

The local activists are in the works. This post is simply a start to a very long process not a cry to "stop the donations now". Wait for the courts decision and then do what you think is right.

Perhaps you didn't know that the largest developer of the ridge is Mohonk.

Not only the 400 room hotel that is an eyesore from lucas turnpike,

... but the new spa, the new visitor center, the old visitor center, and the various rental properties and subdivisions that mohonk has created, a golf course, a ski lift, all of the Smiley family houses next to the mountain house, and miles off roads.

Mohonk Preserve is legally allowed to sell off pieces of its land every year.

There is no entity known as "Mohonk". There's the Mohonk Mountain House and the Mohonk Preserve.

Most consider it a beautiful building and a shining example of an architectural style that has all but vanished, and it's pretty hard to see all but a fraction of it from Lucas Tpk. You speak like this is some sort of new construction.

Again, stop conflating the MP and the MMH. The spa was built in an area already surrounded by other development, the century old golf course is smaller than a lot of the local farms, and exactly when was that ski lift last operational? 40 yrs ago? 50? Please show us on a Google satellite photo the lift and associated ski trails.

The point is - so what? You've got your panties in a bunch about all this "development" done by the MMH, some completed half a century or more ago on private land, yet you're all up in arms over landowner rights on the ridge supposedly being taken away by the Preserve and local zoning changes. You really can't have it both ways.


Necessary in case they ever need to raise money for their taxes. Part of the framework of being "private land held in public trust". MP is a non-profit org, but not a tax exempt one. When has the Preserve ever sold off pieces of its land?

Try and stay on topic, we are talking about the gunks not north carolina, the gunks ridge is largely undeveloped except for the major developments that were done by the Smiley family and Mohonk Preserve. Who said anything about Property values?

MarcC, try and stay on topic and get your facts straight. Mohonk Preserve does not pay any taxes, you clearly do not know the area since the entire Mountainhouse is visible from the west side of the mountain, especially Lucas turnpike. Why do you keep mentioning zoning and property rights? Reread our mission statement, you will find no mention of this. The bottom line snarky marc is that the Mohonk Preserve is suing their neighbors and we are an advocacy group for those neighbors. Get it yet?

MarcC, try and stay on topic and get your facts straight. Mohonk Preserve does not pay any taxes, you clearly do not know the area since the entire Mountainhouse is visible from the west side of the mountain, especially Lucas turnpike. Why do you keep mentioning zoning and property rights? Reread our mission statement, you will find no mention of this. The bottom line snarky marc is that the Mohonk Preserve is suing their neighbors and we are an advocacy group for those neighbors. Get it yet?

...you clearly do not know the area since the entire Mountainhouse is visible from the west side of the mountain, especially Lucas turnpike.

Lucas Tpk is about 3 miles away from the Mountain house, thus this "eyesore" is a tiny, tiny part of the view. Oh, and it's predominantly the main building and tower section that's visible.

For those unfamiliar, this is the eyesore we're talking about.

Front (aka West side) view:
[image]http://www.paullarosa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Front_of_Mohonk_Mtn_House-300x225.jpg[/image]

East/lake side view:
[image]http://potterfs.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/img_4323.jpg[/image]

Mohonk Preserve does not pay any taxes,...

That's a pretty spot. Definitely not a eyesore.

If the MPNA is serious, they better get themselves a PR because this lunatic is doing more harm than good. If anything, I'm curious if the plaintiff could use some of these inflammatory statements from the mouthpiece of the org. in the courtroom...hell, it's borderline extortion... 'You don't do what we want, we'll ruin your income." Classy.

Try and stay on topic, we are talking about the gunks not north carolina, the gunks ridge is largely undeveloped except for the major developments that were done by the Smiley family and Mohonk Preserve. Who said anything about Property values?

All of the McMansions I see popping up in North Carolina refute that statement. Also, if the private land owners just want to live on their land and leave it undeveloped, why do they care what the property values are? Lower property values equals lower property taxes unless I am missing something.

... Mohonk Preserve does not pay any taxes, ...

A google search comes up with no hits except the threads this guy has created acknowledging the existence of this neighbors group.

Can we get this fraud deleted and banned please?

A google search comes up with no hits except the threads this guy has created acknowledging the existence of this neighbors group.

Can we get this fraud deleted and banned please?

Kent, your slip is showing. If you are speaking for MPNA, then attitude in your posts is entirely counter productive. Don't keep posting on here if you can't take the responses. Otherwise just ignore those that get you aggravated.


For background, and to show where property values came into the conversation:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Yes Kent, YOU brought up property values. Changing your avatar doesn't change what you have posted in the past.

Hey Jakedatc,

Did you read the three articles we posted? Tell me what you think ok. Thanks

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

It is certainly possible that this is not Kent. Based on the facts that he has barely refuted that he is Kent, he has the same posting style, has shot his cause in the foot in the same fashion, and is barking up the same tree (albeit from a different angle), I feel safe in my assumption.

Seems he realized his last line of "reasoning" did not take, so he has regrouped and is trying a different angle.

I think we can all agree that the Mt house is a nice building. However it's carved into the side of the mountain and as such negates the preservationist legacy of AK smiley. But, to be honest it's their land and they can do what they want but don't call yourself a preservationist and a "save the ridger" while your building hotels, spas, 2 visitor centers, golf courses, the 12 or so houses next to the mt house, a fire company, getting paid $25,000 by the city of ny to drill a tunnel through your lands, clear cut the mountain etc, etc etc... Yeah the mountain house is from 1870's and the golf course is from 1880's and the aqueduct is from 1907 and the visitor center is 1970's and the new vc and spa is from a few years back but it keeps growing and thats development, not preservation...

Hey photoguy190,

The preserve has been the Plaintiff in every case against it's neighbors. I had hoped that the above articles would be interesting from a historical standpoint. As I stated before as we get more docs and decisions we will post them here and on our Facebook page which is in the works. You are right to want to see both sides as that's the only way to see the whole story. Thanks for your interest.

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

I don't think it is kent.. kent posted up on Gunks.com and has said it was not him. Kent at least has the balls to put his name behind what he says. I think his tactics are stupid and self defeating but i'll at least respect that he doesn't hide behind a fake entity

Hey photoguy190,

The preserve has been the Plaintiff in every case against it's neighbors. I had hoped that the above articles would be interesting from a historical standpoint. As I stated before as we get more docs and decisions we will post them here and on our Facebook page which is in the works. You are right to want to see both sides as that's the only way to see the whole story. Thanks for your interest.

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

I think we can all agree that the Mt house is a nice building. However it's carved into the side of the mountain and as such negates the preservationist legacy of AK smiley. But, to be honest it's their land and they can do what they want but don't call yourself a preservationist and a "save the ridger" while your building hotels, spas, 2 visitor centers, golf courses, the 12 or so houses next to the mt house, a fire company, getting paid $25,000 by the city of ny to drill a tunnel through your lands, clear cut the mountain etc, etc etc...

Hey photoguy190,

The preserve has been the Plaintiff in every case against it's neighbors...

]I think we can all agree that the Mt house is a nice building.

But, to be honest it's their land and they can do what they want

clear cut the mountain etc, etc etc...

Hey Jakedatc,

Did you read the three articles we posted? Tell me what you think ok. Thanks

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

Post the names of your President, vice president, Mailing address and phone number where your 'association" can be reached.

Evasion of a simple, direct question is one of Kent's hallmarks: he will 'reply' so you can't accuse him of ignoring you, but that 'reply' meanders off into whatever direction he feels like prattling on about.

That, combined with the auto-reply, and the escalation of outrage for not following his direction, the elision into property values/taxes, the flips between uber-friendly and hostile: clearly Kent. Don't be fooled by his denial - that's kindergarten stuff.

I asked a similar, simple direct question early on in the Gunks version of this. The 'moderation' there is ill-advised, so I will ask it again here: how many members does your group claim? (hint: the answer should be an integer). How many climbers support you, as you suggest there are so many above? (again, an integer will suffice).

Further along the lines of legitimacy: are you licensed to provide the services you claim? (hint: yes, or no). Or are they just hooks with bait on them?

Coppertone asked: does your request to stop 'donating' cover day and yearly passes, or just donations? The actions you request of climbers negatively impact the local economy (and thus property values); how do you reconcile that with your aim?

Last, in the previous iteration of your lunacy, you baited? bribed? hijacked? climbers to join your revolution against zoning laws in Gardiner (to protect your imaginary profit); the end result was that climbers are now banned from 50' of the Nears. Why or how do you expect climbers to back you now?

Looking forward to more non-answers,
Julie

The preserve has been the Plaintiff in every case against it's neighbors.

3. The MPNA troll seems to me to be founded on a fundamental contradiction:
<snip>

Next, we are asked to withhold support for the Preserve if it wins certain unspecified cases. But if the truth, as established by the court, is that the Preserve legally owns the land in question and the "neighbors" do not, then the Preserve's actions seem to be justified and the neighbors illegal claims to the land become the proper subject for condemnation.

You can't rely on court judgments against the Preserve (actually, not against the Preserve) as grounds for condemnation and then go on to ask for more condemnation from rulings supporting the Preserve.

3. The MPNA troll seems to me to be founded on a fundamental contradiction:

First come references to adverse court rulings as evidence of the Preserve's misdeeds. Such references are only of value if one believes the courts are capable of discerning the truth, so it seems that assumption is a given in this situation.

Next, we are asked to withhold support for the Preserve if it wins certain unspecified cases. But if the truth, as established by the court, is that the Preserve legally owns the land in question and the "neighbors" do not, then the Preserve's actions seem to be justified and the neighbors illegal claims to the land become the proper subject for condemnation.

You can't rely on court judgments against the Preserve (actually, not against the Preserve) as grounds for condemnation and then go on to ask for more condemnation from rulings supporting the Preserve.

I thought MPNA was saying that if the ruling is *against* the Preserve, that would show that they are continuing to attempt to steal land from their neighbors, and the courts are slapping their hand.

...In the current case, MP is the plaintiff (the one doing the suing) in an evil, fraudulent land grab attempt. So if the court rules against the MP, then we should stop supporting them as they've been shown as evil.

If the court rules in favor of the MP, then MPNA can say, see, they're continuing their pattern of legal abuse against their neighbors, and that's evil, so we should stop supporting them...

I thought MPNA was saying that if the ruling is *against* the Preserve, that would show that they are continuing to attempt to steal land from their neighbors, and the courts are slapping their hand.

If you go to this website:

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASSearch

you can search for lawsuits filed in all Counties of the State of New York. If you go to "party search" and enter "Mohonk Preserve" as the plaintiff, exactly one current case appears:


Court: Ulster Civil Supreme
Index Number: 002747/2009
Upstate Index Number: 09-2747
Case Name: MOHONK PRESERVE, INC. vs. ULLRICH, CHRISTOPHER E., SARAH C.EMOND,
Case Type: Other Real Property
Track: Standard
RJI Filed: 08/31/2009
Upstate RJI Number: 55-09-01628
Date NOI Due:
NOI Filed: 03/02/2010
Disposition Deadline: 06/03/2011
Disposition Date:
Calendar Number: 55-09-01628
Jury Status: Non-Jury
Justice Name: HON. MARY M. WORK

I think it would be interesting to get more information about this particular lawsuit. Perhaps MPNA or Kent can bring us up to speed?

Curt

That's one Curt, but there is one other. The one you cited goes to trial sometime this fall. The trial for the other case is already over and a decision is pending.

I know little about either case and so cannot responsibly comment until decisions are issued.

Actually chadnsc what I said was please look at the information presented here, become familiar with it if you want, we will post outcomes of current lawsuits where the Mohonk Preserve is suing their neighbors, and in general just be an informed consumer. If you want to donate to them after reading the outcome of the lawsuits, that is your business. The MPNA would like to thank the many climbers who continue to support us.

Actually Mo you asked us as climber (since according to you we make up a large part of their funding) to stop donating to the Mohonk Preserve if the lawsuit didn't turn out the way you want it to.

If you would like to support the MPNA, why not consider making a donation directly to that organization as well?

I know this is off-topic, but I'd like to take this time to formally reinforce my support of the Mohonk Preserve and the efforts it makes in environmental education and conservation.

I just made a donation of $50, designated to go specifically toward land acquisition. If you, too, would like to donate to the Mohonk Preserve, the link to do so is here:
https://web.memberclicks.com/...mop&formId=42439



On a quasi-related tangent, I'd like to point out that recreation is NOT the primary mission of the Mohonk Preserve.
"The Preserve's mission is to protect the Shawangunk Mountains by inspiring people to care for, enjoy, and explore the natural world."

To me, this means that climbing, hiking, cycling, strolling, riding, photographing, having picnics, etc., are encouraged to facilitate the development of our relationship with nature. Please consider that, when being asked as a climber or member of some other user group, to withhold your financial support, that such a request comes at the detriment of plants and animals who don't have the option to simply go somewhere else. The Shawangunk Ridge(and by association, the Preserve) is the only place available for them.

Our natural lands have all but disappeared, and the acreages protected by The Mohonk Preserve and other entities which do similar work are vitally important.

Let those who feel unjustly wronged with the Preserve's actions seek legal assistance and justice - I'd never suggest otherwise! But please don't seriously consider withholding donations which sustain the preserve.

If you would like to support the MPNA, why not consider making a donation directly to that organization as well?