|
carabiner96
Aug 3, 2010, 5:19 PM
Post #26 of 194
(8403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
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.
I am curious on what you are here for.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 5:23 PM
Post #27 of 194
(8399 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
The courts decisions will offer clarity on this topic and the MPNA will post these decisions and other documents to help patrons make informed decisions. Perhaps you will choose to donate to other climbing areas or to specific programs at the preserve that are not for land acquisition. Or perhaps multiple verdicts would prompt you to simply not support that corporation at all.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Aug 3, 2010, 5:25 PM
Post #28 of 194
(8396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
cracklover wrote: 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
Thanks for the info. If the Preserve was opportunistic in rallying against the development and pushed the restrictions passed what was needed / reasonable, that would be something Kent and others should try to shed light on. That was before the Gunks were on my radar and since I don't live there I don't have more than your word to go on right now. And even if I were swayed, I couldn't vote to change anything. Propose reasonable amendments and discuss them with people in town that could actually vote to enact them. But if, after the case is made, other Gardiner residents still want the stricter zoning laws, I suppose that is democracy.
Maybe the rest of their neighbors do not feel the ridge adjacent landowners are being screwed? Or perhaps feel it is for some greater good, whether that is protecting the ridge/environment or lining their own pockets.
|
|
|
|
|
mr_rogers
Aug 3, 2010, 6:06 PM
Post #29 of 194
(8368 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 57
|
cracklover wrote: 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 closed part of my favorite climbing areas out of spite. That's my dog in this fight. You said it yourself:
In reply to: ... they're attempting to take it out on climbers, in vague hope of getting climbers to pressure the Preserve.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 3, 2010, 6:12 PM
Post #30 of 194
(8353 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
mr_rogers wrote: cracklover wrote: 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? In reply to: ... they're attempting to take it out on climbers, in vague hope of getting climbers to pressure the Preserve. 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.
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.
You can't be so stupid not to realize this so I have to agree with cracklover that you're simply maligning people you don't know for the hell of it.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 6:21 PM
Post #31 of 194
(8336 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 3, 2010, 6:26 PM
Post #32 of 194
(8323 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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?
You mean like this one?
http://www.gunksclimbers.org/
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
mr_rogers
Aug 3, 2010, 6:36 PM
Post #33 of 194
(8308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 57
|
chadnsc wrote: 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.
spite
Verb: Deliberately hurt, annoy, or offend (someone).
Noun: A desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone: "he'd think I was saying it out of spite".
For example: A "spite fence"
A spite fence is an overly tall fence, structure in the nature of a fence, or a row of trees constructed or planted between adjacent lots by a property owner who is annoyed with, or wishes to annoy a neighbor, or who wishes to completely obstruct the view between lots.
Here, let's use it in a sentence:
In reply to: 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.
I admit that they are legally permitted to do this; they have the right to restrict access to their land. But don't ask me to like it, or support it. Especially given that I disagree with (a) their overall goal, and (b) the methods they employ in pursuit of that goal.
(This post was edited by mr_rogers on Aug 3, 2010, 6:37 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 7:56 PM
Post #34 of 194
(8264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
From the Chronogram:
Pirates of the Shawangunks
Planet Waves for August 2001 | By Eric Francis
......To get the most out of this story, you'll need to be familiar with two concepts, and then the rest should be obvious, or if not, unbelievable. The first is "land conservancy" and the second is "adverse possession."
......A land conservancy is a nonprofit organization created to preserve what is left of nature. In New York's Hudson Valley -- particularly along the Shawangunk Ridge and in the neighboring valleys -- there are a number of them, including the Mohonk Preserve, Friends of the Shawangunks, the Rondout Land Conservancy, and others. Their charge is to protect undeveloped land perpetually, and make it available to the public for limited use, such as recreational or educational purposes.
......Land conservancies, like 501-C nonprofit organizations, are exempt from paying real estate taxes and corporate taxes. They get their money through public donations and from huge trusts, like Open Space Institute and the Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund. They acquire much of their land from people who have homes neighboring an existing preserve, who either willingly sell their land to a conservancy, or will it to them. Willing is a big deal for a conservancy; in their PR materials, they like to use the word a lot, such as "willing seller."
......Next: adverse possession. This is a method of acquiring property that is akin to squatter's rights, or acquisition by trespassing. The classic adverse possession case is if you build a barn and half the barn is on your neighbor's land, but your neighbor doesn't notice or doesn't care. If 10 years go by, you can make an adverse possession claim to the land on which your barn sits. You occupy it, you built an improvement, and maybe your deed isn't clear about the boundary line. If you win in court, the land is yours. It is an extremely rare method of land acquisition, and it's not friendly.
......Now, here is the story of how a land conservancy called Friends of the Shawangunks is fighting with its neighbors, Karen Pardini and Michael Fink, to acquire their land by adverse possession. Friends of the Shawangunks works directly with Mohonk Preserve, and in fact was created in the 1960s as an "advocacy organization" for Mohonk. Today, it sells most of the land it acquires to Mohonk.
......In 1994, Friends of the Shawangunks, with the assistance of Mohonk, sued two of its neighbors, Karen Pardini and Michael Fink. Karen and Michael are the current owners of the old Smitty's Ranch on Clove Road. This now-closed High Falls bar and hotel was an Ulster County landmark for generations. The lawsuit is an extremely complicated tale, but in brief, Friends and Mohonk, according to court exhibits, made a claim to land they knew they didn't own. The suit was going quite poorly for them, and in fact a judge later dismissed all the original elements and said that Karen and Michael could sue Friends of the Shawangunks for fraud.
......The conservancy felt it needed to get Karen and Michael's land another way, so in 1995, it purchased a strange old deed from two area men, Wayne Kelder and Lars Hagen. In 1982, Kelder and Hagen had purchased an ancient deed at an estate sale for $7,000. The deed contained no address, no metes and bounds, no exact acreage, and not so much as an approximate road location. The estate sale deed dated back to an even older World War II-era tax sale deed, which in turn went back to a 1911 "quitclaim" deed. At minimum, you could say that this is a very shaky chain of title. The funniest part is that in 1911, the same piece of land was conveyed twice: once when it was taken by the state for taxes, and again when the prior owners, after losing it, "sold" it to a logger. So, there was the real land, and the phantom deed which originated with the 1911 purchase by the logger.
......It appears as if the creators of the original phantom deed altered the description of the land in such a way that it didn't match the real property or the real deed that was on file with the county. In fact, no other deed in the county has descriptions/adjoinders which align with this one.
......At the time Kelder and Hagen purchased the phantom deed at the estate sale in 1982, neither the current deed nor any of the prior ones were on record with the county as far back as the 1940s. Nobody could actually find the land on the ground, including Hagen, Kelder, or the mystery deed's previous owners, the Osterhaut family. In more modern times, no title searcher has been able to locate the phantom parcel of land.
......Kelder and Hagen filed their deed with the county attached to a map encompassing about a third of the property already owned by Karen Pardini and Michael Fink -- the old Smitty's Dude Ranch. The Kelder and Hagen deed had nothing to do with Karen and Michael's land; the real land to which their phantom deed once pertained (nearly a century ago) was more than a mile away.
......If you're wondering why everybody is after the Smitty's Ranch property, it's that it's no ordinary piece of real estate. It's a secluded, lush forest with the spring-fed Coxing Kill running straight through its center. There is a five-tier waterfall. Most of the 204 acres are undeveloped; there's just a house and a barn. It's commercially-zoned, making it extremely valuable. And, best of all, it's adjoined by Mohonk Preserve on three sides. No neighbors! Except, of course, for Mohonk -- and the land in question is directly in view of the tower at the Mohonk Mountain House.
......Meanwhile, Norman van Vaulkenburgh, the joint-surveyor and land-acquisition official employed by both Friends of the Shawangunks and Mohonk Preserve, was aware of the supposed Kelder and Hagen claim when he was searching for land in the Clove Valley that could potentially be preserved, back in the early '90s. Their claim was something of a joke, because the deeds referred to nothing, nowhere, and everyone knew it.
......Van Vaulkenburgh conducted an extensive search for the alleged Hagen/Kelder parcel, and in a confidential 1993 report to the Friends of the Shawangunks, obtained by Chronogram, he concluded that Kelder and Hagen had no claim to any land anywhere in the vicinity, nor did any of their predecessors listed in the various deeds for "many years" before. "In conclusion, we can find no basis of the claim of ownership by Hagen and Kelder," van Valkenburgh wrote in his report to Friends of the Shawangunks, which was certified with his land-surveying license and official seal.
......Then, two years later, in 1995, in the middle of their failing lawsuit against Karen and Michael, van Valkenburgh and the Friends of the Shawangunks reversed themselves on the issue of whether the phantom Kelder and Hagen property existed. For $37,500, Friends purchased from them the very claim which van Valkenburgh had previously said didn't exist! With that in hand, Friends went back to war with Karen and Michael.
......But in a 1997 decision, State Supreme Court Judge Vincent Bradley ruled that the Hagen-Kelder deed had "no relevance" to Karen and Michael's property because the "Hagen/Kelder quitclaim deed description does not, in fact, cover any of defendants' property and is also void for vagueness."
......This did not stop the Pirates of the Shawangunks. If the Kelder and Hagen deed was pure fluff, then they would take the land by the only remaining method, adverse possession. The conservancy, in its court papers, claimed that Kelder and Hagen had hunted and chopped wood for a full decade on the land, a form of trespassing which they feel gave them the right to steal it from its owners.
......Who exactly is doing this? The links between Friends of the Shawangunks, Mohonk Preserve and other organizations like Open Space Institute are well-established. One is a man named Robert Anderberg, who has been intimately involved with all three organizations for many years. Another is Norman van Valkenburgh, who does all the surveying for Friends and Mohonk. Another is Keith LaBudde, president of the Friends of the Shawangunks; he married into the Smiley family, founders of Mohonk Mountain House, which in turn created the Mohonk Preserve.
......Mohonk Preserve's executive director, Glen Hoagland, when I interviewed him, denied any involvement in the lawsuit, stating that the two conservancies, while sharing many of the same people, are technically separate. But there is rather amazing documentation that emerged in the course of the case that both corporations acted as one entity in commiting some of the more outrageous acts for which they will soon face a separate lawsuit for fraud.
......The current 'adverse possession' lawsuit against Karen and Michael is now in its final stages; this summer, the trial over whether Pirates of the Shawangunks can preserve land by adverse possession is slowly unfolding. Though Judge Bradley already threw out their case, an appeals court sent it back to State Supreme Court for a trial on the specific issue of whether the adverse possession claim was valid. [Note on June 6, 2002: The case was finally dismissed for complete lack of merit, and all appeals are exhausted.]
......Even if it is, does this open the door to a new method of land conservation -- glorified trespassing? Hunting and cutting trees on land you don't own, then claiming it as yours?
......We shall see.++
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 7:58 PM
Post #35 of 194
(8257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
Buying Land, Crying Foul; Preservationists Accused Of Overzealous Tactics In Bid to Keep Land Wild
By JOSEPH BERGER
Published: June 2, 1998
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE
HIGH FALLS, N.Y.— Karen Pardini and Michael Fink, two middle-aged children of the back-to-the-land 1960's, had long had their eyes on a largely untamed patch in the Shawangunk Mountains.
So when the land became available in 1986, they cobbled together a down payment to buy 211 acres and began fixing up a tumbledown barn. For eight years, they camped out in woods and took pleasure in their land, sometimes hiking to a ridge at the end of their property to savor the soaring views of the Catskills.
Then one day, as Ms. Pardini walked along the road that cuts across her property, she noticed pink and yellow ribbons put up by a local surveyor. Someone else, she realized, coveted her property.
It eventually turned out there was a claimant, and it was not a wily real estate speculator but a land preservation group, the Shawangunk Conservancy. The conservancy, one of 1,100 such groups nationwide that pride themselves on their ethics by buying from willing sellers with unclouded titles, had long desired the land as a missing link in a 50-mile chain of ridgeland that it wants to render forever wild for the pleasure of hikers and climbers.
The group produced two unorthodox deeds that, it argued, proved that it now had possession of almost half of the land Mr. Fink and Ms. Pardini thought they owned.
In the long, nasty quarrel that followed, a judge ruled in March that the conservancy's deeds were worthless and said Ms. Pardini and Mr. Fink could sue for fraud. As a result, the conservancy and other groups that preserve land in the Shawangunks have found themselves on the defensive. Even some other land preservationists have accused the conservancy of overzealous tactics.
''Land conservation for many people is a crusade,'' said David Church, executive director of the New York Planning Federation, which advocates sound land use. ''And well-meaning or not, what you discover on a crusade is that the means are justified by the ends.''
The conservancy is appealing the judge's decision. Keith LaBudde, its president, says it acquired the disputed land in legal and upright fashion because Ms. Pardini and Mr. Fink never authentically owned it. He rejects the idea that his group should have passed up the disputed land rather than distress people who bought the land in good faith.
''Environmentalists are supposed to be featherheads, is that it?'' said Mr. LaBudde, a 63-year-old retired professor of computer science. ''I think what you do is pursue with rigor, you look at all the facts and approach it in a businesslike way.''
The dispute has had some wider ramifications as well. Though the conservancy is a small, 10-year-old organization, it works to acquire land with much richer and better known organizations in New York like the Mohonk Preserve and the Open Space Institute. Together, the three groups have assembled more than 10,000 acres in the breathtaking Shawangunks, which stretch from the Delaware River almost to the Hudson and are the setting for the popular and historic Mohonk Mountain House resort near New Paltz.
The Pardini-Fink dispute is not the first in which residents in the New Paltz-High Falls area have felt mistreated by preservationists. At least two other landowners say that within the last 10 years they were pressured to give up long-held mountainside properties after they were barred from using the rights of way to the land. The Mohonk Preserve eventually acquired the properties. The preserve denies that it acted improperly and says that the disputes were complicated by such factors as conflicts with neighboring landowners.
At bottom, Mr. Fink and Ms. Pardini accuse the conservancy of trying to steal their land by tactics more fitting a real estate operator than an upright environmental group. ''Everybody knew it was our property,'' Mr. Fink said in a recent interview. ''Just because the bike wasn't in the backyard and tied up doesn't give you permission to take it.''
Ms. Pardini had long craved the land. Almost 15 years before she and Mr. Fink made the down payment, Ms. Pardini camped out at Smitty's Dude Ranch here. It had a bar popular with hippies and was owned by an engaging character, Wilbur Smith, who kept his land in his wives' names.
1 2 NEXT PAGE >
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE
Buying Land, Crying Foul; Preservationists Accused Of Overzealous Tactics In Bid to Keep Land Wild
Published: June 2, 1998
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE
(Page 2 of 2)
In 1983, Ms. Pardini, a midwife and teacher of African dance, met Mr. Fink, who made a living selecting trees for lumber. They fell in love and talked about one day buying ''Smitty's'' land. In 1986, they raised enough for the $300,000 purchase by asking their parents and a sister to mortgage their homes. Eight years later, they saw the ribbons put up by Norman Van Valkenburgh, the surveying consultant for both the conservancy and the Mohonk Preserve.
Mr. Van Valkenburgh, a former director of lands and forests for the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, has a crusty appreciation of land disputes, writing mystery novels about such conflicts with titles like ''Murder in the Catskills.'' Poking around in deeds for land the conservancy might buy up for preservation, he wrote a letter in 1994 to Mr. Smith's first wife, Mary Lue, telling her ''it may come as a surprise,'' but she still owned 30 acres of Fink-Pardini land. A 1965 deed by which she conveyed the land to his second wife ended with a comma in the middle of a sentence, omitting the pages that described two parcels. Mr. Fink and Ms. Pardini said it was a 30-year-old clerical error. Mr. Van Valkenburgh said, ''How did I know it was a clerical error?''
The conservancy paid Mary Lue Smith $5,000 for her title. But in an affidavit in the Fink-Pardini case, Mary Lue, who eventually remarried Wilbur Smith as his third wife, said Mr. Van Valkenburgh and the conservancy's counsel, Robert K. Anderberg, ''misled and tricked me and my husband'' into accepting $5,000. She said they had implied that the land was unclaimed and landlocked. Mr. Van Valkenburgh replied that he showed the Smiths deeds and maps.
The conservancy also tried to claim another piece of Fink-Pardini land using another deed with an aberrant pedigree. In 1982, two outdoorsmen, Wayne F. Kelder and his brother-in-law, Lars Hagen, bought 40 acres of ridgeland for $7,000 from the heirs of a woman whose own acquisitions were based on fuzzy deeds dating from 1911, 1928, 1937 and 1946. The boundaries were highly questionable, defined only by the adjoining owners rather than by the usual manner of distance and angle from the nearest roads.
Although Mr. Kelder and Mr. Hagen admit they had only a sketchy idea of where their land was, they spent 13 years hunting and cutting wood on the property without protests, never realizing it was owned first by the dude ranch and then by Ms. Pardini and Mr. Fink.
The accumulation of conflicting claims persuaded Mr. Hagen and Mr. Kelder to sell the land to the conservancy for $37,500 rather than become mired in costly litigation. Mr. LaBudde said he ''never had any suspicion'' the land was owned by Ms. Pardini and Mr. Fink. Nevertheless, he added, ''We recognized we were buying a problem.''
One issue the dispute has exposed is that deeds and tax maps can be hazy in mountainous woodland where owners are cavalier about boundaries. The location of the Kelder-Hagen claim is so uncertain that Mr. Van Valkenburgh believes the conservancy can use it to assert ownership of 136 acres of Pardini-Fink land.
Mr. Van Valkenburgh believes that the Kelder-Hagen land is actually the next parcel to the south. Yet, he maintains, the conservancy can claim the land the outdoorsmen lived on by a legal principle known as adverse possession, which entitles an occupant to ownership of someone else's land if after many years there are no protests.
In March, Justice Vincent P. Bradley of State Supreme Court in Ulster County rejected the conservancy's deed for the Hagen-Kelder parcel as worthlessly vague and its deed for the Pardini-Fink land as exploiting an obvious clerical error.
Ms. Pardini and Mr. Fink are not celebrating the judge's ruling. They have spent $36,000 on legal fees and fear that in the appeals process, the conservancy may have the resources to wear them down. Twelve years after buying their land, they still live in a house in Kingston, 10 miles away, because the money and time spent on the dispute have stalled plans to make the barn habitable. Mr. Fink and Ms. Pardini have been told they could get $2 million for their land. But they say they will not sell.
''What could you buy with the money that could replace this?'' Ms. Pardini asked, gazing out over her land.
Photo: Karen Pardini and Michael Fink on their land in High Falls, N.Y. A judge has ruled in their favor in a claim by a land preservation group to some of their property. (Chris Maynard for The New York Times) Map showing the 136 acres claimed by the Shawangunk Conservancy and the lands of Pardini and Fink: The property interrupts a chain of preserved Shawangunk ridgeland. (pg. B7)
< PREVIOUS PAGE 1 2
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 8:02 PM
Post #36 of 194
(8253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
The previous two articles are from the New York Times and Chronogram. These have been posted for historical puposes and to get the reader familiar with the names involved in these cases. When we post recent docs please look out for these names.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 3, 2010, 8:45 PM
Post #37 of 194
(8217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
so lets see. you're trying to get climbers stop supporting the landowners and group that *Allow* them to climb. Thus support the groups who help close sections of cliffs so we can't climb on them.
perhaps you're talking to the wrong crowd.... 
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 3, 2010, 8:57 PM
Post #38 of 194
(8204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
mr_rogers wrote: The property owners have closed access to the Nears in order to deliberately hurt, annoy, or offend the climbing community,
When something is done out of spite it is done with no other goal or objective other than to be unpleasant. An example would your posts on this subject matter.
mr_rogers wrote: 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),
This isn't spite, this is coercion.
mr_rogers wrote: so that the property owners can sell their land for greater value.
That's speculation as you have no idea what the property owners actually want to do with the land. Even so it’s their land and they can do with it as they please.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 9:07 PM
Post #39 of 194
(8192 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 3, 2010, 9:14 PM
Post #40 of 194
(8182 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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.
more like spamming multiple boards and threads with copy and pasted things written by other people.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 3, 2010, 9:15 PM
Post #41 of 194
(8182 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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.
Bullshit. You're trying to do more than that.
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. |
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Aug 3, 2010, 9:31 PM
Post #42 of 194
(8174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
I'll agree that you are doing better this time than in the past. But by acting ahead of the court decisions which you are lamenting and without a concrete and definable plan you are hurting your cause. You'll note that everyone here is, yet again, standing against you.
Further, you are VERY unlikely to ever gain enough traction with such a large user group (climbers, hikers, bikers, leaf-peepers, etc.) to put any pressure on the MP. And, besides the fact that their pockets are very deep, the money you are looking to stop is not coming from user fees, its coming from private donors and conservancy groups. The MP is not protecting the Ridge on OUR behalf. They are protecting it for their own 'altruistic' reasons. (and perhaps to protect the MH)
The land owners beef is with the town/ county council and their neighbors. This is your backyard, and we have little to no say over it. If it was my backyard I'd be pissed too. But I wouldn't be posting to an international internet forum over it. I would be activating the locals. You'd be better off standing in front of the gate to the Traps with a sign hanging from your chest and handing out pamphlets that you are posting here. At lest then the MP would see you ire and activism.
Any way, I guess we'll see how yet another thread on this topic develops.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 3, 2010, 9:49 PM
Post #43 of 194
(8161 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Aug 3, 2010, 10:32 PM
Post #44 of 194
(8149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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.
I think you'll find that many people will still pay to use the Preserve for recreational activities.
Hey, if what you posted above is all true then that sucks. It really does, and I feel for you, but that doesn't stop the Preserve from having one of the best climbing areas in the country, let alone the northeast. I suspect the vast majority of people are / will be more satisfied with the prodcut the Preserve has to offer than that of the "disenfranchised" owners, who, as has been noted, have cut climbers off. (i.e. - one is continuing to offer the product while the other, albeit only a previously very vocal few, is taking it away).
|
|
|
|
|
dr_feelgood
Aug 3, 2010, 10:54 PM
Post #45 of 194
(8137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 26060
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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.
Is telling you to go fuck yourself and that property is theft an acceptable strategy if the courts decide to not reward your butthurt posturing?
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 4, 2010, 4:38 AM
Post #46 of 194
(8087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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
It's for the courts to sort out. Wish you well, however, it's hard to sympathize when the Gunks are world class amazing and the protections they have offered have encouraged recreation and preservation and you most likely want the reverse of both. I do not believe property is theft though it would be unfortunate if Yosemite had a coin operated laundromat built in El Cap meadow to profit a single property owner.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 5, 2010, 5:25 PM
Post #47 of 194
(8028 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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. 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. That is not my idea of preservation.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Aug 5, 2010, 5:39 PM
Post #48 of 194
(8024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc.
Aug 5, 2010, 6:00 PM
Post #49 of 194
(8014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2010
Posts: 38
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 5, 2010, 6:30 PM
Post #50 of 194
(7999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
MohonkNeighborsassoc. wrote: 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.
No, your cry was 'if I don't win then I'll get all of my friends to stop the money so you better do what I want or you'll be sorry.'
Actually it is more like 'look at me, I want to look like I have friends who will stop the money if I don't get my way so listen to me'
|
|
|
|
|
|
