|
number7
Jun 14, 2003, 3:25 AM
Post #26 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 175
|
That's great curt. Thank you for bringing 25yrs of experience to this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 14, 2003, 3:28 AM
Post #27 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: That's great curt. Thank you for bringing 25yrs of experience to this discussion.
Thank you also for calling anyone who disagrees with you "dumb."
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
number7
Jun 14, 2003, 3:36 AM
Post #28 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 175
|
Curt, I don't like arguing with people over the internet, but after looking at your profile, it is obvious you are not dumb. I would say you are probably just one of those people talking about how your stock did last week. I really hope you don't have any plastic Jesus lawn ornaments :D .
Now give us something we can work with.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 14, 2003, 3:46 AM
Post #29 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Curt, I don't like arguing with people over the internet, but after looking at your profile, it is obvious you are not dumb. I would say you are probably just one of those people talking about how your stock did last week. I really hope you don't have any plastic Jesus lawn ornaments :D . Now give us something we can work with.
No plastic Jesus lawn ornaments, no plastic pink flamingos, nothing like that--just xeroscape here in AZ.
The only reason I mentioned the 25 years of experience there is to substantiate my long term love for the Gunks. If you read my earlier post you will see that this is a place that I treasure and would fight tooth and nail to protect. Do you remember the Marriott ordeal? I sure do.
My position is simply that one needs to pick one's battles carefully. In my opinion, this is one not worth fighting. And, if you disagree with me, it does not mean I think you are dumb.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
raindog
Jun 14, 2003, 3:46 AM
Post #30 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2003
Posts: 200
|
In reply to: This particular development would not be noticeable in any way from the Gunks.
I know this is a climbing forum and all...... but.... Just because you can't notice the development from the Gunks, doesn't mean that the development is ok. No, I have never even been to the Gunks, let alone lived there. However, I still feel that this development is wrong as is any such development anywhere in the world. These kind of developments come in and totally change the landscape. They flatten hills to fit the large houses and 3 car garage in. They rape the land. I have seen it too many times before in my admittedly short existence.
peace,
JR
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Jun 14, 2003, 3:46 AM
Post #31 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
wait right there boys, I'll get you a ruler ... and now back to the topic, please.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 14, 2003, 4:07 AM
Post #32 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: This particular development would not be noticeable in any way from the Gunks. I know this is a climbing forum and all...... but.... Just because you can't notice the development from the Gunks, doesn't mean that the development is ok. No, I have never even been to the Gunks, let alone lived there. However, I still feel that this development is wrong as is any such development anywhere in the world. These kind of developments come in and totally change the landscape. They flatten hills to fit the large houses and 3 car garage in. They rape the land. I have seen it too many times before in my admittedly short existence. peace, JR
OK raindog, I think that is a position that you have every right to take. But, by your own admission, this is really about a worldwide "anti-development" stance on your part and not about the topic of "Save the Gunks."
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
thedesertnomad
Jun 14, 2003, 4:14 AM
Post #33 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2003
Posts: 216
|
--it is adjacent to Minnewaska State Park--well to the south of the Preserve.
Curt
Curt... it has been a few years since I was around the Gunks (every other day) I used to make the hike to Millbrook for a little peace and quiet, right on the border of Minnewaska (damn Nazi's would grab gear if it was on their property)... Do you know if this area out that far would be affected by this ?!? I need to research this little tid bit... those are my old stomping grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 14, 2003, 4:23 AM
Post #34 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: --it is adjacent to Minnewaska State Park--well to the south of the Preserve. Curt Curt... it has been a few years since I was around the Gunks (every other day) I used to make the hike to Millbrook for a little peace and quiet, right on the border of Minnewaska (damn Nazi's would grab gear if it was on their property)... Do you know if this area out that far would be affected by this ?!? I need to research this little tid bit... those are my old stomping grounds.
Well, as you probably know, the ownership of Millbrook cliff is divided in half. the Northern half is Mohonk Preserve property and the Southern half is Minnewaska State Park property--where climbing is technically not allowed. The dividing line is roughly at the route "Westward Ha."
The Awosting preserve and this development in question, is further South yet, by a few miles. I think this development would have no impact one way or the other on climbing possibilities at Millbrook.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
thedesertnomad
Jun 14, 2003, 4:25 AM
Post #35 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2003
Posts: 216
|
Thanks for the fast info Curt. Didn't think from your love of the Gunks that you would be local to me. Great and magical place, with kick ass climbing !!! Yeah, I remember the Westward Ha rap... lol (great view)
|
|
|
|
|
raindog
Jun 14, 2003, 4:29 AM
Post #36 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2003
Posts: 200
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: This particular development would not be noticeable in any way from the Gunks. I know this is a climbing forum and all...... but.... Just because you can't notice the development from the Gunks, doesn't mean that the development is ok. No, I have never even been to the Gunks, let alone lived there. However, I still feel that this development is wrong as is any such development anywhere in the world. These kind of developments come in and totally change the landscape. They flatten hills to fit the large houses and 3 car garage in. They rape the land. I have seen it too many times before in my admittedly short existence. peace, JR
OK raindog, I think that is a position that you have every right to take. But, by your own admission, this is really about a worldwide "anti-development" stance on your part and not about the topic of "Save the Gunks."
Curt
Curt,
Thanks for respecting my opinions. I agree, mine is a stance about world wide development. I just get fired up whenever I here news of a new development going into previously untouched land. I guess everyone has their own agendas. :)
Peace,
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Jun 16, 2003, 1:01 PM
Post #37 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
In reply to: Well, as you probably know, the ownership of Millbrook cliff is divided in half. the Northern half is Mohonk Preserve property and the Southern half is Minnewaska State Park property--where climbing is technically not allowed. The dividing line is roughly at the route "Westward Ha."
if they are going to build houses then they should just blast millbrook since it is a pile of choss to build a highway for the houses. seems like a good idea huh curt. i was thinking about building a house at the top of mt. hunter. just tucked away enough so people on denali can't see the house. :roll: spray somewhere else!
--Said roar, roar, the thunder and the roar
Son of a bitch is never coming back here no more
The moon in the window and a bird on the pole
We can always find a millionaire to shovel all the coal
Clap hands
--Tom Waits
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 17, 2003, 11:34 PM
Post #38 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
piton,
In reply to: if they are going to build houses then they should just blast millbrook since it is a pile of choss to build a highway for the houses. seems like a good idea huh curt.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Jun 18, 2003, 4:06 PM
Post #39 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
In reply to: Since you asked, this sounds like an idea coming from a real moron to me.
well that's a typical response i would expect from someone with an 8th grade mentality :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
reasontobehave
Jun 18, 2003, 4:19 PM
Post #40 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Posts: 11
|
It's not just whether that particular piece of land is ok, and not a threat to the Gunks where I've never been and perhaps never will be.
If the part about golf coursing is true, then you have mega watering needs, this changes the whole thing. Houses and families are one thing, golf courses another. If you want to see what golf courses have done to the environment, look no farther than Florida. Overpumping for all the darn resorts has resulted in sink holes and dried up natural lakes and ponds. The developers just need to get one foot in, then the next parcel they want they will say, well, you let us do the first one, so we'll sue you if you don't let us do this one, too.
Beware when you start siding in with them. Private land rights are one thing, but they are restricted by zoning issues and comprehensive land use planning. When you switch ground from single family homes to a country club/golf course situation, you are dealing with the devil so you have to watch it. Bye now, Kathy
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jun 19, 2003, 12:53 PM
Post #41 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
I support the Save the Ridge initiative. I believe this development will be a mortal wound in the side of the Shawangunk ridge, decreasing forever an already tiny island of wildness in the midst of the Northeast megapolis. I am joined in this position by well over a thousand local petitioners and more than fifty conservation organizations. Virtually everyone who I know personally who opposes the project is a landowner. The issues involved are complex and multifaceted, and it isn’t clear that rc.com provides a venue conducive to an informed debate. However, here is a sampling of the underlying issues for anyone who actually cares about such things.
1. Property rights. Those who advance the view of this issue as an abrogation of individual property rights ignore that fact that there is no such thing as an absolute right to do whatever you want with your property, any more than there is an absolute right to do anything you want personally. Society in general, and the immediate community in particular, have a legitimate stake in what happens to an individual’s property. This is why we have zoning laws and environmental protection laws, and the opposition to the Awosting Reserve is conducted according to the letter and spirit of those laws. Given that neighboring property owners have certain legitimate interests in what happens to adjoining property, and given that the proposed reserve borders on State lands, the affected neighbors in this case are in fact the citizens of New York State.
2. Density. It has been mentioned a number of times that this is a “low-density” development and therefore not objectionable. The implication in these posts is that a “high-density” development would be objectionable, but no one has defined the density terms, nor suggested criteria that separate the unobjectionable from the objectionable densities. When a builder says “low density,” their frame of reference is the standard suburban development with houses practically on top of one another. What is low-density to a developer may not appear in any sense low-density to a hiker at Castle Point or a climber at Millbrook. Nor does a builder’s concept of density have even a remote connection to the environmental impact of a development.
In an effort to provide a visual understanding of the density of this development, the Save the Ridge site has superimposed 350 points of light on the valley view of the 2600 acre tract. (See this.) The image is not entirely accurate; there seem to be houses on cliff faces, including Millbrook, but the general impression of what 350 non-clustered residences will look like in this development is fair. In a typical high-density suburban development, individual points of light would not be visible at this scale, they would blend together into solid blocks. However, it is hard to imagine anyone looking at this representation and characterizing it as “low density” in terms of visual impact. A pristine viewshed will be transformed into a suburban one. (The developers claim that from many viewpoints, many houses will be invisible because of construction materials and carefully considered sightlines. However, no one will know the extent of these claims until the entire development is completed. In any case, the increased traffic, increased noise, and air pollution emanating from the 350 houses is not something that can be hidden by careful siting.)
Those whose only concern is whether or not their climbing opportunities will be affected should know that many of the proposed houses lie in the high wild watershed area separating the cliffs of the Palmaghatt. This is not only one of the most remote and beautiful areas of the Shawangunk ridge, it is also a region of enormous and only partially tapped climbing potential.
3. Environmental effects. There is an enormous list of concerns. I believe that the proposed development is such an egregious assault on the ridge environment that it will never survive the State review process in anything remotely resembling its present form. Here are just a very few points to consider:
a. The development will be clearly visible from Millbrook Mountain, Castle Point and Hamilton Point and their adjacent carriageways. The development will come very close to the cliffs around Gertrude's Nose, Castle Point, Hamilton Point, and the Long Path that runs along Margaret Cliff and Ice Caves Mountain. Coming within a half mile of Lake Awosting, and surrounding Mud Pond, the most remote of the ridge's sky lakes, the development crosses Beaver Brook, Dwaar Kill, and up the Palmaghatt ravine These intrusions will destroy spectacular pristine views that are a major reason people flock to the ridge. In an area accessible to 40 million people who spend the vast majority of their lives gazing at cityscapes and suburban sprawl, this would be an incalculable loss.
b. Nearly the entire 2600 acres of the parcel is forested, 93 acres is wetland, including both state and federally protected wetlands; 26 acres comprise surface water bodies, including Tillson Lake. The so-called “protected” areas created by the developers are, for the most part, gaps between homes and the roads that criss-cross the site. The road network permanently compromises the ecological integrity of the pieces it carves from the ridge, subverting at the outset the very concept of protection.
c. The project will require as many as 12 new road crossings over state-protected streams. The construction and maintenance needs associated with these roads can easily destroy the water quality in these streams.
d. Discharge from a planned wastewater treatment plant into a tributary of the Palmaghatt Kill also endangers water quality. An estimated 196,000 gallons of wastewater each day will be discharged from the development into watershed tributaries.
e. There is a pervasive and well-founded concern that the developers have no idea of the impact of the development on groundwater resources. The builders estimate the housing development will use 20,000 gallons of water per day, and the golf course 50,000 gallons per day. A number of knowledgeable opponents of the plan, including professional hydrologists, believe these estimates to be too low. The tendency of development engineers to radically underestimate water consumption is a known and notorious feature of the defeated Marriot proposal for Lake Minnewaska, which would have been drained by the usage promoted by those developers. Moreover, the yearly averages cited by the developers give no insight into the critical demands of peak usage during summer months.
f. The project will require massive alteration of the steep slopes along the Shawangunk Ridge. Approximately 60 percent of the land surface to be developed is on slopes greater than 15 percent. The northwestern, upper half of the project site has an average slope of approximately 30 percent toward the top of the ridge. To make these steep slopes accessible, the submitted plan proposes switchback roadway layouts. Roadways paralleling the steep slopes must be carved into the side of the ridge. At a number of proposed locations, the ground is so steep that an elevation drop of 30 feet or more, measured perpendicular to the roadway right-of-way, will be required. Such road cuts will require extensive removal of soil, rock, and woodlands. Since bedrock depth is generally less than 2 feet, an enormous amount of rock will have to be blasted and then removed or dumped.
g. The increased runoff associated with developed land, if not managed on these steep slopes, will produce pervasive soil erosion and intense sedimentation of streams and wetlands. With bedrock less than 2 feet below the ground surface, the choice of structural storm water and erosion control management facilities is very limited, with standard management options such as detention basins and sediment ponds not possible or extremely difficult. (The developers have yet to address these issues.)
h. The required road-building in the heart of the Shawangunks will introduce exotic plant species that will, in some cases, drive out native species. (Anyone who doubts this need only note the purple loosestrife monoculture of most roadside wetlands.) The exotic plants that wealthy homeowners plant in their yards will further colonize and degrade the natural state of the ridge ecosystem.
i. Bird feeders installed by homeowners not only provide a locus for the spread of aviary diseases, they will also attract the small black bear population that now inhabits the ridge, as will garbage and barbecue leavings. These currently wild bears will, in short order, be turned into nuisance bears and become subject to the wrath of homeowners who want their property “protected” from the scavengers the homes have created.
As I said, this is a very small sample of the environmental concerns.
4. Mohonk Preserve opposition. The Mohonk Preserve has traditionally been extremely reticent about public comment on development. This case is different. The Preserve's board voted April 6 to oppose the project, after working behind the scenes to urge owner John Atwater Bradley to scale down the project.
''What's key about this property is its location and its relationship to the larger ridge landscape,'' said Glenn Hoagland, executive director of the Mohonk Preserve. “While the preserve is not opposed to development categorically, we always try to be part of the protection of the ridge without impinging on its unique character...the high slopes, cliff bases and summits of the Shawangunk Ridge are not a suitable place for the intensive and large-scale development proposed for the Awosting Reserve. The Preserve has always welcomed caring neighbors, but this proposal fails that test."
5. Poughkeepsie Journal oppostion. The Journal is a generally conservative paper that rarely comments on environmental issues and could be expected to argue for property owner’s so-called rights. This case is different. In an editorial on the subject, the editors say,
“It's a lousy place for development. Town of Gardiner officials should do everything they can to discourage it, or at least mitigate the environmental effects, which could be numerous and devastating to the region…Regrettably, Bradley is not interested in selling his land to environmental groups that want to protect it for future generations. Instead, he wants to dot the base of the ridge with cabins, forever changing one of the most breathtaking areas in the Hudson Valley. Environmental groups and others concerned about open space protection should use every legal means at their disposal to fight this development.”
These comments give some perspective on the opposition to the project, a development which seems to me to be similar in scale and devastation potential to the Mariott proposal that threatened Lake Minnewaska years ago. I have not touched on the effects on particular endangered species, nor on local concerns such as whether taxes collected from the development will fully offset the services the town will have to provide, nor on social concerns such as whether the community will be affected by a large very wealthy weekend population with little or no stake in local issues. The environmental issues alone provide an overpowering reason for anyone concerned with the preservation of vanishing wilderness to oppose this development as nothing short of an outrage, and the opposition from private citizens, government officials, and conservation groups unites people of extremely diverse social and political insticts in unanimous disapproval of an idea whose time has not, should not, and, in my opinion, will not, come.
|
|
|
|
|
number7
Jun 19, 2003, 2:42 PM
Post #42 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 175
|
GOD BLESS AMERICA! So please everyone, sign the petition and object this proposed development in any way measurable.
And in the meantime, start reading Edward Abbey's, The Monkey Wrench Gang. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
melonhead
Jun 19, 2003, 3:15 PM
Post #43 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 295
|
Save the Gunks!!
Kick all the hippies and yuppies out!!!!!!!!!
Yeah!
Melon
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 19, 2003, 4:10 PM
Post #44 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In the interest of full disclosure:
Normally I don't think that personal information has any relevance to discussions on newsgroups or BBs. However, I found the following quote from a post by Hooker on this site to be of some relevance. (link) "[Drkodos] live in Las Vegas. I also own property in Accord New York, is that okay? My husband is a real estate agent, teacher and real estate developer."
I pass no judgement one way or the other, but since Curt and others have explained their relationship to the Gunks area, I found the above to be a relevant lense through which to read the strong pro-development comments of "locals" drkodos (the developer) and hooker, his wife. And since they've been open about their means of livelyhood and place of residence, I can't imagine they'd mind me mentioning it.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
reasontobehave
Jun 19, 2003, 8:07 PM
Post #45 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Posts: 11
|
Bravo, cracklover, for your research abilities.
Cracklover, keep up the good work, none of you are liars OR idiots, as that agent called anyone who has concern over major changes in land use, rgold sounds totally authentic, and these real estate guys are in it for one thing--MEGABUCKS. Love, Kathy in Dade City, Florida.
on edit: P.S. From the link you provided this Kodos guy seems a fairly angry type, out of proportion to the chatter here. Too easily offended, very defensive about his way of earning a living, which he is entitled to, but when he threatens you in any way he is going too far.
|
|
|
|
|
number7
Jun 22, 2003, 12:46 AM
Post #46 of 46
(5372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 175
|
BUMP - For those of you who haven't signed it yet :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
|
