...It seems everyone wants to put there sights on a few more public cases, but there are many other sad instances of bullying by the Preserve. But not everyone wants to air the dirty laundry, and for good reason...

This ideology of " I like the preserve and climbing, fuck it's neighbors and take there land" is like saying "I like my gas sucking SUV fuck Iraq, bomb the shit out of them."
I hope you don't don't go through life with such ignorance.

People from Georgia really are ignorant!

For those of us "in" the community, whom have moved here for the beauty of the area, not just to pave the land and club baby seals! It's disheartening to see such a beneficial organization cause such problems with it's neighbors. It seems everyone wants to put there sights on a few more public cases, but there are many other sad instances of bullying by the Preserve. But not everyone wants to air the dirty laundry, and for good reason.
"Not all is idyllic in the small logging town of Lumberton." Blue Velvet 1986.

I'd love to tell the story's. But until my neighbors want to make it public, I won't share their names, or there story's in detail.
No I didn't finish High Shcool, I was to busy killing spotted owls with my pellet gun.

I'd love to tell the story's. But until my neighbors want to make it public, I won't share their names, or there story's in detail.

No I didn't finish High Shcool, I was to busy killing spotted owls with my pellet gun.

You mean "their sights." The problem here is that you and the MPNA are making some fairly serious allegations without providing even one shred of evidence that supports your claim. A reasonable conclusion is that you are probably unable to do so.

By the way, don't bother telling me that people in Arizona are stupid, I'm only too well aware.

Curt

This is confusing enough, so let's not make it any more confusing. There are two separate issues that landowners in the Gunks have raised here at RC.com.

1) The first was posted some time ago by Kent (CapedCrusader) and the issue was related to devaluation of his property and the property of others near the Shawangunk ridge due to a rezoning measure passed by the town of Gardiner, NY.

2) The second is the focus of this thread, in which the issue is the supposed use of litigation by the Mohonk Preserve against its neighbors.

I don't think (but I'm not sure) that these two issues are related--except that some of the parties are the same.

Curt

At the heart of both arguments, however, is the belief that the MP has targeted its neighbors unfairly. If I remember correctly, the rezoning issue came about because the MP supposedly had a significant role in getting the zoning changed.

So while the issues seem to be different, both the players and the heart of the matter appear to the same.

Not really Burnsey2000, in fact MPNA is NOT saying support us or we will close land (we don't even have that authority), MPNA wants Patrons of the Mohonk Preserve to see the documents that are available so they may make an informed decision. If you choose to continue to support the Mohonk Preserve after reading the information that we have presented so be it. Even though MPNA is in contact with many landowners, it is up to each individual landowner to decide how they use their land. Some will close, others will stay open.

Come on curt,

We provided the Decision to Index#77-226. As well as all the index#'s for court cases that included the Mohonk Preserve. We will Provide documents as cases finish or are no longer in court. We are working on Documents for the Waterworks Parcel and the Louise Haviland Parcel. The Haviland Parcel was acquired by the Mohonk Preserve with Robert K. Anderberg (OSI general counsel) acting as agent for MP in a foreclosure proceeding against Louise Haviland.

I believe I have read everything you have posted here and I still do not see any evidence that the Mohonk Preserve has acted at all improperly towards its neighbors. If you want to get any traction here, I think that's what you will need to clearly demonstrate.

Curt

Curt,

Fair enough, We will post more soon. I agree with you that we have not posted enough documents.........Yet.

I don't think his point is that you aren't posting enough documents - it was that they weren't convincing that the MP is bullying the neighbors. Increasing posting volume won't help - people will (already have?) become tired of them and stop reading. If you had a big, damning reference to post, you should have done it by now.

Their is no documentation, but the Preserve has created some animosity with it's neighbors that own the Clove Chapel.
For several years the County Highway department has been trying to put a guardrail up in front of their parking area. A place which is used by hikers to access the Undivided Lot trail. The road has a gentle curve there, and I can see no reason for a guardrail other than to prevent parking. The preserve has no way of regulating those hikers who should be buying day passes, and I would guess they are missing out on a nice size coin every weekend.
OK, no "clear" connection here, though anyone could fill in the blanks
.. but..
Just three years ago the Preserve came up with an agreement with the owners. They were allowed to "Build a parking lot" by themselves, with their own money, across the street on Preserve land. The agreement was that they would gate this lot, open it for Chapel Services, keep it locked otherwise, and a guardrail would go in on the other side.
The chapel owners actually built the lot, cutting down trees and filling in the ground with crushed stone, a cable is across it now. But the Preserve decided to change their agreement last minute with a clause that they could "terminate the agreement after one year."
Obviously they backed away from this.
I think the Chapel owners would just like to forget the whole thing at this point.

Their is no documentation, but the Preserve has created some animosity with it's neighbors that own the Clove Chapel.
For several years the County Highway department has been trying to put a guardrail up in front of their parking area. A place which is used by hikers to access the Undivided Lot trail. The road has a gentle curve there, and I can see no reason for a guardrail other than to prevent parking. The preserve has no way of regulating those hikers who should be buying day passes, and I would guess they are missing out on a nice size coin every weekend.
OK, no "clear" connection here, though anyone could fill in the blanks
.. but..
Just three years ago the Preserve came up with an agreement with the owners. They were allowed to "Build a parking lot" by themselves, with their own money, across the street on Preserve land. The agreement was that they would gate this lot, open it for Chapel Services, keep it locked otherwise, and a guardrail would go in on the other side.
The chapel owners actually built the lot, cutting down trees and filling in the ground with crushed stone, a cable is across it now. But the Preserve decided to change their agreement last minute with a clause that they could "terminate the agreement after one year."
Obviously they backed away from this.
I think the Chapel owners would just like to forget the whole thing at this point.

Yeah MPNA heard about this a while back except the version we heard was that MP wanted to own the lot after a year, and then the landowners backed away. Interesting though. It will be interesting once we contact all the adjoining landowners how many problems we will hear about.

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]

Here is the eyesore from Lucas Turnpike.