|
|
|
|
marc801
Aug 5, 2010, 6:32 PM
Post #51 of 194
(7669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: Perhaps you didn't know that the largest developer of the ridge is Mohonk.
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: Not only the 400 room hotel that is an eyesore from lucas turnpike,
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: ... 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.
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.
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: Mohonk Preserve is legally allowed to sell off pieces of its land every year.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 5, 2010, 6:38 PM
Post #52 of 194
(7666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Aug 5, 2010, 6:44 PM
Post #53 of 194
(7656 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
marc801 wrote: MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: Perhaps you didn't know that the largest developer of the ridge is Mohonk. There is no entity known as "Mohonk". There's the Mohonk Mountain House and the Mohonk Preserve. MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: Not only the 400 room hotel that is an eyesore from lucas turnpike, 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. MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: ... 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. 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. MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: Mohonk Preserve is legally allowed to sell off pieces of its land every year. 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?
Thank you for your informative post, the op's response was very misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Aug 5, 2010, 6:46 PM
Post #54 of 194
(7655 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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?
Don't come on here with vague insinuations and then tell me that my on topic statement was off topic. All I have to do is drive two hours to see what developers would like to do to the Gunks. I thought you were complaining that the Mohonk Preverse pushed through legislation that caused property values to plummet. Maybe that was your other screen name that said that.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 5, 2010, 6:49 PM
Post #55 of 194
(7649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Aug 5, 2010, 6:51 PM
Post #56 of 194
(7644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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?
See door.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Aug 5, 2010, 7:00 PM
Post #57 of 194
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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?
Well, you are doing a hell of a job.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Aug 5, 2010, 7:18 PM
Post #58 of 194
(7622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Aug 5, 2010, 7:33 PM
Post #60 of 194
(7609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
marc801 wrote: MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: ...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]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Aug 5, 2010, 7:36 PM
Post #61 of 194
(7604 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: Mohonk Preserve does not pay any taxes,...
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Aug 5, 2010, 7:37 PM
Post #62 of 194
(7601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
carabiner96 wrote: marc801 wrote: MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: ...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] 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.
Compared to the East side, the west side is kind of eyesore ish...
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Aug 5, 2010, 7:38 PM
Post #63 of 194
(7600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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?
what about the bold text below:
johnwesely wrote: MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Aug 5, 2010, 7:56 PM
Post #64 of 194
(7586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: ... Mohonk Preserve does not pay any taxes, ...
that may not be entirely true. any income earned not directly related to the mission is taxable, regardless of tax status. for instance, a non-profit hospital must pay income tax on parking fees, even if patients are the only people allowed to park in the garage.
I'm not sure what non-mission income they earn, but I'm sure there are some (I've only been in the visitor's center once, is there a gift shop? do they sell t-shirts? etc.)
Also, they must also pay the typical "employee" taxes that all employers must pay.
It is not unreasonable that a non-profit be allowed to sell land for any reason, really. Just because they have tex-exempt status doesn't mean they are forever hand-tied. Non-profits go out of business, too (not that the MP is heading in that direction).
Also, you're confusion of the MP and the Mohonk House properties is deceptive.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 5, 2010, 8:02 PM
Post #65 of 194
(7576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
A google search comes up with no hits except the threads this guy has created acknowledging the existence of this neighbors group.
" No results found for "mohonk preserve neighbor association"."
Can we get this fraud deleted and banned please?
(This post was edited by jakedatc on Aug 5, 2010, 8:04 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Aug 5, 2010, 8:04 PM
Post #66 of 194
(7573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
jakedatc wrote: 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?
Are you not entertained?
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Aug 5, 2010, 8:05 PM
Post #67 of 194
(7572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
jakedatc wrote: 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?
That's funny, I did the same thing about 20 minutes ago and found no mention of this 'association' except for what you found.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 5, 2010, 8:18 PM
Post #68 of 194
(7559 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
boymeetsrock wrote: 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.
I'm not sure if this guy is Kent (CapedCrusader) or not, but he is certainly equally obtuse in his posting. This topic appears to be somewhat different than Kent's issue, which primarily involved diminished property valuations due to rezoning of property along and adjacent to the ridge.
What the two have in common, however, is the completely unrealistic expectation that climbers are going to somehow take sides against the Mohonk Preserve--an institution that is one of the best friends that climbers have.
This guy (MohonkNeighborsassoc) has certainly hurt instead of helped his cause by much of his own nonsensical posting. Public relations is certainly not part of his day job.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 5, 2010, 8:19 PM
Post #69 of 194
(7557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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. But I digress, The MPNA is here to offer a service to neighbors of the Mohonk Preserve that are being sued by the Mohonk Preserve, and if a few climbers feel our pain, than thats great, and if others don't well thats ok too.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 5, 2010, 8:22 PM
Post #70 of 194
(7550 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
post the names of your President, vice president, Mailing address and phone number where your 'association" can be reached.
|
|
|
|
|
photoguy190
Aug 5, 2010, 8:28 PM
Post #71 of 194
(7541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2006
Posts: 191
|
I really would like to see both sides of the cases you say are in court. To even get to court there has to be facts on both sides. Both sides have to have claims. You claim the preserve is using underhanded tactics to get what they want. There however are many cases that happen the other way. A small individual is trying to pad their pockets off a larger organization. I'm not saying that is what is happening here but they way you have responded on here gives me that impression.
(This post was edited by photoguy190 on Aug 5, 2010, 8:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 5, 2010, 8:28 PM
Post #72 of 194
(7541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
Hey Jakedatc,
Did you read the three articles we posted? Tell me what you think ok. Thanks
The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Aug 5, 2010, 8:30 PM
Post #73 of 194
(7537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 5, 2010, 8:31 PM
Post #74 of 194
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: Hey Jakedatc, Did you read the three articles we posted? Tell me what you think ok. Thanks The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association
I didn't read shit. I do not believe you are a legitimate group and until you prove otherwise then your credibility is absolutely zero.
how about YOUR name scared?
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 5, 2010, 8:34 PM
Post #75 of 194
(7525 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
boymeetsrock wrote: 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 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
