|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 1:47 PM
Post #1 of 194
(18348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Aug 3, 2010, 1:55 PM
Post #2 of 194
(18344 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Welcome back CapedCrusader.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Aug 3, 2010, 1:56 PM
Post #3 of 194
(18342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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.
That's quite a request. Care to share some details?
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Aug 3, 2010, 2:01 PM
Post #4 of 194
(18329 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 2:05 PM
Post #5 of 194
(18320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
As soon as the courts make a decision we will post it here and on our facebook page. Until then keep donating as you normally would. If at some point, we shed some light on this issue that compels you to cease donating to the Mohonk Preserve so be it. We want donors to know the ramifications of their donations.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Aug 3, 2010, 2:13 PM
Post #6 of 194
(18307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
boymeetsrock wrote: 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?
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 2:36 PM
Post #7 of 194
(18276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
Shoo,
Sorry, you'll have to wait until the courts decide, but here's an interesting article for you to read.
By WILLIAM J. KEMBLE
Correspondent
ROSENDALE — Town resident Sue Boice Wick is asking officials to explain how the town can claim 77 acres will be sold for $340,000 for use by Mohonk Preserve when deeds cite much smaller property sizes.
Wick, a title examiner, spoke during a telephone interview last week after learning the town would sell property to the New York City-based Open Space Institute, which would then donate the land to Mohonk Preserve.
"I don't find them holding title to that much property and their sketch map that's included ... has two separate pieces," she said. "One is 47 acres (of a 51.97-acre parcel), which does belong to the town, and the other is a 30-acre parcel that is claimed and assessed to Stephen Larsen and it's not the piece that they need to connect to Mohonk."
Wick contends the Town Board resolution passed on June 10 to sell the property did not clearly identify the owners.
"There is nothing in the ... documents that indicate that the town of Rosendale has any right to claim, much less convey this 30 acres," she said.
"What it boils down to is that the town should not be selling its neighbor's land," Wick said. "This project needs to go back to the drawing board, be properly researched, corrected, and represented in a legitimate manner."
Town Supervisor Patrick McDonough said the 77-acre figure is correct and does not include Larsen's property, which is a separate sale being handled by Open Space Institute and Mohonk Preserve. He acknowledged that the size of the town property is listed with Ulster County at 51.97 acres but expects it to be declared larger when a survey is completed by Open Space Institute.
"It was showing as 47 acres in some town records but based on the title description it's probably more like 77 acres," he said. "As soon as a survey is done, which OSI is doing as part of this process, we'll know for sure exactly what it is."
Wick said the confusion appears to be part of a routine used by Mohonk Preserve to improperly obtain land titles.
"They are in the habit of doing this type of land deal where they piggyback a piece of property on another deed," she said.
"They take people to court if they don't just let go," Wick said. "They took my grandmother's (3.6 acres of) land. They gave it back though ... after they reduced it by 20 percent."
Mohonk Preserve spokeswoman Nadia Steinzor said the organization has had some boundary disputes in court but contends there were no legal issues surrounding the parcel own by Wick's grandmother.
"The preserve has never tried to acquire it or take it or anything to that affect," she said. "We have done surveys in that area and back in the '90s there was a question about the property but we never went out to try and get it."
Mohonk Preserve Executive Director Glenn Hoagland said the dispute arose from a survey done by the group as part of routine property transactions and was intended to clear up records.
"Due to our survey work we discovered in the mid-1990's that parcel had been incorrectly mapped by the Ulster County tax map mappers as belonging to the preserve," he said. "As soon as we found out that 3.6-acre parcel held by her grandmother was mapped to us but we didn't have a deed to it we went to her and said, 'Did you know you owned this property?'"
Hoagland said steps taken by the preserve to protect its properties include making sure public records are correct.
"That ownership of record is found in the Ulster County Clerk's office," he said. "Now the Ulster County tax map is different. They don't represent accurate ownership, they're just maps, and from time to time we have found that the Ulster County tax maps can be incorrect. So we have to make sure ... that we're matching what the tax maps say to what we have deeds to."
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Aug 3, 2010, 2:41 PM
Post #8 of 194
(18266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
shoo wrote: boymeetsrock wrote: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Aug 3, 2010, 2:47 PM
Post #9 of 194
(18252 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: 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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Aug 3, 2010, 2:48 PM
Post #10 of 194
(18247 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
If anything, I think they should be using more predatory practices. I am sorry you can't parcel off your land and turn it into a subdivision.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 2:52 PM
Post #11 of 194
(18244 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Aug 3, 2010, 2:59 PM
Post #12 of 194
(18230 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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.
The closure of a couple hundred yards of cliff line in the Near Trapps.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Aug 3, 2010, 3:04 PM
Post #13 of 194
(18217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
shoo wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: 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. 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.
Well, what I'm saying is that anyone in the Gardiner / New Paltz (or even general NY area who frequent these towns) know who this person is personally (as in, they've met him, climbed with him, had coffee with him, etc).
However, having said that, due to the person's response to my post above, I'll embarrassingly admit that this probably isn't Kent because he certainly would have known about the closure in the Nears.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 3:10 PM
Post #14 of 194
(18206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
MPNA was not part of any negotiations with said land owner.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 3:15 PM
Post #15 of 194
(18191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Aug 3, 2010, 3:22 PM
Post #16 of 194
(18176 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
So, what you're saying is that your interests are upset that Mohonk is mapping their property boundaries?
Wick states that property was taken from her family and then a smaller portion of that property returned. The article later refutes that the property was ever taken at all. Which is it?
The "Neighbors" seem to be upset that there has been some rezoning, and that the preserve is expanding. But I haven't yet seen a coherent argument that the "Neighbors" have a legitimate gripe with the town or the preserve. Rezoning happens. Land values change over time.
It seems to me that the "Neighbors" are digging themselves a bigger hole by speaking out publicly when they cannot form a clear argument or show that they have in fact been wronged in some way. Most of us on here will never be able to afford such parcels of land, never mind be able to complain that our land value has dropped. This is akin to the whole "wealth tax for persons making over $200K a year." You're not going to get any sympathy from the rest of us with that kind of attitude. Further, most of us are quite pleased with the end result of the Preserve's work.
How about this Kent? If we all have to wait until after the judgments are released for a coherent argument to be made, how about you wait until after the judgments are released and then make a coherent argument?
|
|
|
|
|
mr_rogers
Aug 3, 2010, 3:22 PM
Post #17 of 194
(18176 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 57
|
For those of you who are wondering: WTF? Here's the skinny.
The bastards at the MPNA have effectively closed a section of the Gunks to climbing because they're upset that the town prevented them from selling their land to a developer and turning the area into a parking lot.
They're a bunch of selfish children that dress up their thirst for lucre with flowery language about property rights and independence.
If you think that the land around the gunks, extending right up the base of the Near Trapps, would look a lot better with a large property development, then support the MPNA.
"I'm Mr. Rogers, and I think these neighbors suck."
|
|
|
|
|
mattm
Aug 3, 2010, 3:27 PM
Post #18 of 194
(18168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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.
You need to present SOME kind of argument as to why climbers should not support an organization that's benefitted us for decades.
Your posts are MUCH to vague to be taken seriously at this point, regardless of validity. Heck, I'm not even sure what you're saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Aug 3, 2010, 3:45 PM
Post #19 of 194
(18142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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.
you say this as if the courts are making some sort of moral decision.
look, it's been hashed out here before. I don't think anyone wants to screw over anyone else. Even if the MP loses I'll still spend the money to climb there because, well, I like it. This doesn't mean that I hope the landowners get screwed as a result; it merely means that I want to climb, preferably with a lack of conflict.
Maybe your call will strike a chord with some. If it does, then good luck, but I think you'll find there are more people on this site who'd rather see something worked out than get into a fight. Unfortunately for you, as I said above, even if the MP has supposedly picked the fight at the beginning, they're still in a better position because they actually offer more to more people.
I'd probably be MUCH more likely to pay a couple of bucks to access the closed land in the Nears than I would be to stop donating to the MP, btw.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Aug 3, 2010, 4:03 PM
Post #20 of 194
(18127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
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 $$$ for the land. The land owners "lost" money from buyers they wouldn't sell to, and old ladies have to live on cat food if the Preserve doesn't pay the developer inflated market rate. And I think there was a sentiment that the Preserve collected all those user fees and could afford it, so why not?
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 4:25 PM
Post #21 of 194
(18083 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
I am not here to argue the merits of zoning in the town of Gardiner, or the arguments of another author. I will however do my best to post documents and decisions as court cases finish for those interested in a civil discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 3, 2010, 4:28 PM
Post #22 of 194
(18080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
mojomonkey wrote: Does this mean I have to hear about old ladies being forced to live off cat food again? At least this thread seems more focused on what the group feels is predatory land acquisition tactics, instead of the zoning / devaluation aspect. There is surveying that can be done and records to review, right? Property boundary disputes seem pretty mechanical and I don't see a cause to rally around. If the land did belong to the Preserve, but someone was incorrectly told the land they were buying included it, that is a crappy situation, but not the Preserve's fault (from my point of view - I've no concept of the legal issues involved). Please stick to those details, and drop the appeal to emotion on the cat food lady. The zoning rule complaining never made sense to me - it seemed to be: 1) The developers who wanted to put houses along the cliffs were willing to buy the land for $$$ 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?
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
|
|
|
|
|
mr_rogers
Aug 3, 2010, 4:31 PM
Post #23 of 194
(18073 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 57
|
mojomonkey wrote: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 3, 2010, 5:04 PM
Post #24 of 194
(18029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
mr_rogers wrote: mojomonkey wrote: 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.
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?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Aug 3, 2010, 5:14 PM
Post #25 of 194
(18015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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.
A discussion of what then? Aren't boundary disputes pretty mechanical? What point are you hoping to make?
Edit: And yes, I realize your "point" was to ask climbers to stop supporting the Preserve if they lose their cases, but that doesn't make sense to me. If you feel they are wrong, wouldn't you want us to not support them regardless? Why should not supporting be tied to whether or not they can win a court case? If they lose in court, what is the justification for "punishing" them more?
(This post was edited by mojomonkey on Aug 3, 2010, 5:21 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
