|
happiegrrrl
Oct 15, 2012, 3:22 PM
Post #1 of 31
(6737 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
I have been told by a local from Gardiner who is involved with their politics that the new campground is going to be discussed at the Gardiner Planning Board meeting tomorrow evening - Tuesday, October 16th, 2012. The topic is Item Number 7 on the Agenda linked here: http://www.townofgardiner.org/PBAgenda.cfm As can be guessed, there is expected to be vocal opposition to the campground. Locals: Please do your best to attend this meeting and voice your opinions. Non-Locals who care about the Gunks: Please help in getting the word out to your network which includes local Gunkies. This is very short notice, so we need to work quickly. Meeting Time:7:30PM Gardiner Town Hall Location: 2340 Rt. 44/55, Mail: P.O. Box 1, Gardiner, NY 12525
(This post was edited by happiegrrrl on Oct 15, 2012, 3:23 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 15, 2012, 4:44 PM
Post #2 of 31
(6712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
happiegrrrl wrote: I have been told by a local from Gardiner who is involved with their politics that the new campground is going to be discussed at the Gardiner Planning Board meeting tomorrow evening - Tuesday, October 16th, 2012. The topic is Item Number 7 on the Agenda linked here: http://www.townofgardiner.org/PBAgenda.cfm As can be guessed, there is expected to be vocal opposition to the campground. Locals: Please do your best to attend this meeting and voice your opinions. Non-Locals who care about the Gunks: Please help in getting the word out to your network which includes local Gunkies. This is very short notice, so we need to work quickly. Meeting Time:7:30PM Gardiner Town Hall Location: 2340 Rt. 44/55, Mail: P.O. Box 1, Gardiner, NY 12525 bump this could possibly eliminate both the MUA and SLIME camping areas.
|
|
|
|
|
EdBustamante
Oct 15, 2012, 5:54 PM
Post #3 of 31
(6693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 6, 2012
Posts: 19
|
Gardiner is a one horse town if the board dont want it it aint going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 16, 2012, 12:30 PM
Post #4 of 31
(6641 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
EdBustamante wrote: Gardiner is a one horse town if the board dont want it it aint going to happen. Without a proper camping area, they will just continue to encourage rogue camping. People ain't gonna stop going to the Gunks. Josh
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 16, 2012, 4:51 PM
Post #5 of 31
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: EdBustamante wrote: Gardiner is a one horse town if the board dont want it it aint going to happen. Without a proper camping area, they will just continue to encourage rogue camping. People ain't gonna stop going to the Gunks. Perspective of a Gardiner resident and former climber: http://gunks.com/...Discussed_#Post66747
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Oct 16, 2012, 8:58 PM
Post #6 of 31
(6557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
and perennial psychopath....
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Oct 17, 2012, 3:04 PM
Post #7 of 31
(6501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
I went to the meeting last night, and there is not a lot to say, other than it does look like, barring unusual circumstances, the campground is actually go to go. To me, this is bittersweet, since when it opens, the MUA and Slime will close(and thus ending free camping here). But - the vast majority of people who climb at the Gunks are not the dirtbag types who are living on scraps with minimal shelter. So, once people get beyond comparing the cost of a managed campground(with showers, convenient and safe parking, and person(s) to handle issues which arise) to their no-fee MUA experience, it will surely be a positive change for the area overall. The C/Ground part in Planning Board meeting was a courtesy one, and not intended to be a formal time to go over/debate details. Pretty much what I gathered was that the MP was hoping to begin asking for bids on the project in the next month or so, with the hopes of work to begin next spring. I saw a note which mentioned the hoped-for date of opening, but I can't recall what it was. I thought it was spring 2014, but someone mentioned fall 2013 to me this morning. Though the meeting was supposed to be informational only, a person did ask to open discussion afterward, and two people spoke about issues they were concerned about. Being a big-mouth, I also spoke, addressing my feelings on one of the issues raised, which was drunken debauchery impinging on the life quality of nearby residents. (I felt that since a manager would be in residence, they would be effective at curbing disorderly conduct, and that the current experiences which sometimes arise at the MUA would be eliminated). So....enjoy your MUA and Slime while you still have them. For those who do use them - please come prepared to take out your own trash, and consider picking up at least some left by others.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 17, 2012, 3:30 PM
Post #8 of 31
(6496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
happiegrrrl wrote: I went to the meeting last night, and there is not a lot to say, other than it does look like, barring unusual circumstances, the campground is actually go to go. To me, this is bittersweet, since when it opens, the MUA and Slime will close(and thus ending free camping here). But - the vast majority of people who climb at the Gunks are not the dirtbag types who are living on scraps with minimal shelter. So, once people get beyond comparing the cost of a managed campground(with showers, convenient and safe parking, and person(s) to handle issues which arise) to their no-fee MUA experience, it will surely be a positive change for the area overall. The C/Ground part in Planning Board meeting was a courtesy one, and not intended to be a formal time to go over/debate details. Pretty much what I gathered was that the MP was hoping to begin asking for bids on the project in the next month or so, with the hopes of work to begin next spring. I saw a note which mentioned the hoped-for date of opening, but I can't recall what it was. I thought it was spring 2014, but someone mentioned fall 2013 to me this morning. Though the meeting was supposed to be informational only, a person did ask to open discussion afterward, and two people spoke about issues they were concerned about. Being a big-mouth, I also spoke, addressing my feelings on one of the issues raised, which was drunken debauchery impinging on the life quality of nearby residents. (I felt that since a manager would be in residence, they would be effective at curbing disorderly conduct, and that the current experiences which sometimes arise at the MUA would be eliminated). So....enjoy your MUA and Slime while you still have them. For those who do use them - please come prepared to take out your own trash, and consider picking up at least some left by others. for me, a sad day. Slime was worth it in so many ways.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 17, 2012, 4:05 PM
Post #9 of 31
(6485 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: for me, a sad day. Slime was worth it in so many ways. Slime was a hole 40 years ago and hasn't improved any. Good riddance.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Oct 17, 2012, 4:09 PM
Post #10 of 31
(6485 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
It will be sad to see the free camping go. It is already a miserable state at the MUA though and is hardly usable these days. There is too little parking to accommodate legal campers as is, and when you toss in those crashing in illegal spots, good luck parking if you actually go out to climb on an October weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Oct 17, 2012, 4:10 PM
Post #11 of 31
(6485 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
agree with Greg (yikes) having a free place to camp that did not involve driving every day is worth much more than showers (which you don't need for a weekend anyway) The parking lots are a shit show, especially on weekends with them filling up pretty early. now everyone has to drive to the parking lot i considered the free camping part of the cost of the daily/year pass. it has lost a lot of it's value now. Other areas are now even more cost effective.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Oct 17, 2012, 4:12 PM
Post #12 of 31
(6481 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
marc801 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: for me, a sad day. Slime was worth it in so many ways. Slime was a hole 40 years ago and hasn't improved any. Good riddance. It is a dirt spot to put your tent... what else do you need? I find it pretty nice actually. where else can you walk from you tent to the crag for free?
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Oct 17, 2012, 4:40 PM
Post #13 of 31
(6471 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
The new campground is not so far away from the cliffs that a person couldn't easily walk to the cliffs. Of course, Slime is SO much closer.... I always liked Slime too. And I didn't see it as not being nice, either. I camped there almost every weekend in season for 3 years straight, rain or shine. Would always want that site on the east which has the rock section on it's edge, and my second choice was the one on the west near the back of ranger house. Third was the west side one behind ranger house. I would be miffed when none of those were open. Never wanted to go all the way to the back, but that was also a nice flat space. Seemed to me that the aura of being crappy was those who were in that front section that was not really clearly delineated into sites. That was the area where, when capacity was reached, people would shove their tent in anyway. Slime I haven't camped in since spring 2006, but I did a trash cleanup there a few years ago and was utterly disgusted that not only someone would abandon their trash, but that others seeing it decided it was okay for them to do the same. I lost a lot of respect for people who claimed the couldn't afford camping, when one of the *trash bags* was one of those couplea dollar priced reusable shopping bags from Whole Foods. I also stopped by the MUA one day earlier this year to use the Porta potty and - was appalled. And I am not easily appalled by restrooms.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 17, 2012, 11:51 PM
Post #14 of 31
(6424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
marc801 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: for me, a sad day. Slime was worth it in so many ways. Slime was a hole 40 years ago and hasn't improved any. Good riddance. what jake said above. it was a climber's campground where if anyone was making noise after 10pm, a quick "shut the hell up" would quite the place down (sans trucks, of course). you got up and were on the rock by 8am. no having to deal with the damn parking lot. i don't want amenities when i camp for climbing the vast majority of the time, especially for a weekend. I want to get up and climb and crash - that's it. Slime was great for that.
|
|
|
|
|
r0x0r.wolfo
Oct 28, 2012, 12:59 AM
Post #15 of 31
(6292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2012
Posts: 8
|
Are you kidding me? No way are they shutting camp slime down! I stayed there coming all the way from England in the summer. While in new York we stayed 4 star but while climbing I'm climbing. You have the swimming hole for showers. I am actually a bit shocked. We did the gunks via public transport, bus to newpaltz and a taxi up to the campsite with all our groceries. Was a 5 minute walk to the climbing and was PERFECT. Why get rid of it?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 28, 2012, 12:33 PM
Post #16 of 31
(6259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
r0x0r.wolfo wrote: Are you kidding me? No way are they shutting camp slime down! I stayed there coming all the way from England in the summer. While in new York we stayed 4 star but while climbing I'm climbing. You have the swimming hole for showers. I am actually a bit shocked. We did the gunks via public transport, bus to newpaltz and a taxi up to the campsite with all our groceries. Was a 5 minute walk to the climbing and was PERFECT. Why get rid of it? That's part of the deal with the new campground. The MUA and Slime will be closed when the new one opens. The new one will be a pay site, so to have competing free ones, especially one the size of and as close to the climbing as Slime is, would probably make Slime uncontrollably busy.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Oct 29, 2012, 4:44 PM
Post #17 of 31
(6165 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
happiegrrrl wrote: But - the vast majority of people who climb at the Gunks are not the dirtbag types who are living on scraps with minimal shelter. So, once people get beyond comparing the cost of a managed campground(with showers, convenient and safe parking, and person(s) to handle issues which arise) to their no-fee MUA experience, it will surely be a positive change for the area overall. I'm afraid that I have to disagree. One of the things that kept the $17 (!!!) dollar day pass from being totally outrageous what that camping was included at Slime.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 29, 2012, 7:24 PM
Post #18 of 31
(6132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
granite_grrl wrote: I'm afraid that I have to disagree. One of the things that kept the $17 (!!!) dollar day pass from being totally outrageous what that camping was included at Slime. And the annual pass breaks even at 5.29 days - IOW, on your third weekend or during your week-long stay. The day fee is a red herring. It just isn't that big a deal as people make it out to be.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Oct 29, 2012, 7:38 PM
Post #19 of 31
(6125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
marc801 wrote: granite_grrl wrote: I'm afraid that I have to disagree. One of the things that kept the $17 (!!!) dollar day pass from being totally outrageous what that camping was included at Slime. And the annual pass breaks even at 5.29 days - IOW, on your third weekend or during your week-long stay. The day fee is a red herring. It just isn't that big a deal as people make it out to be. So you think that the only people who should enjoy the Gunks are those who go often enough to warrent a year's pass? A lot of people don't live close enough for that.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 29, 2012, 8:17 PM
Post #20 of 31
(6116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
granite_grrl wrote: So you think that the only people who should enjoy the Gunks are those who go often enough to warrent a year's pass? A lot of people don't live close enough for that. No. I'm saying that in the overall scheme of travel, climbing gear, food, beer, etc., $17 is nothing, and you're only paying the $17/day if you're there less than 6 days a year.
|
|
|
|
|
robx
Oct 29, 2012, 8:21 PM
Post #21 of 31
(6113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2011
Posts: 108
|
Paying to climb feels weird to me every time I go up there, but I've kind of been ablet o reason that I'm not paying to camp up there, so the costs evened out (compared to most climbing on the east coast where you pay to camp but not climb)
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 29, 2012, 8:30 PM
Post #22 of 31
(6111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
RIP Camp Slime. Lots of good memories, and if it were not for slime, there is no way I could have taken two of the best climbing trips of my life.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 29, 2012, 8:42 PM
Post #23 of 31
(6103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
robx wrote: Paying to climb feels weird to me every time I go up there, but I've kind of been ablet o reason that I'm not paying to camp up there, so the costs evened out (compared to most climbing on the east coast where you pay to camp but not climb) That's because most climbing on the east coast - certainly the major destination areas - like the rest of the country, is on public/park land. The Gunks is unique in that it's a privately owned land preserve held in public trust (meaning the public has a right to use it if they pay the current land use fee). Do you consider paying an entry fee to any of the national parks or monuments or the state parks (eg: Eldorado Canyon in CO or Snow Canyon in UT) as paying to climb?
|
|
|
|
|
robx
Oct 29, 2012, 8:51 PM
Post #24 of 31
(6099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2011
Posts: 108
|
marc801 wrote: robx wrote: Paying to climb feels weird to me every time I go up there, but I've kind of been ablet o reason that I'm not paying to camp up there, so the costs evened out (compared to most climbing on the east coast where you pay to camp but not climb) That's because most climbing on the east coast - certainly the major destination areas - like the rest of the country, is on public/park land. The Gunks is unique in that it's a privately owned land preserve held in public trust (meaning the public has a right to use it if they pay the current land use fee). Do you consider paying an entry fee to any of the national parks or monuments or the state parks (eg: Eldorado Canyon in CO or Snow Canyon in UT) as paying to climb? I absolutely view it as paying to climb. I also don't have a problem paying to climb the gunks, and understand why the fee exists, it's just that in my brain, when I'm trying to rationalize spending what little money I have, it's easier to think about it if I consider the total costs compared to climbing other places I've been. I have to say, while $17 "isn't that much", it definitely is enough to keep me from climbing quite as much. I have to rent a car or catch a ride if I want to end up climbing, and pretty regularly am without enough money to afford trips. $17 is food money for a few days and there are definitely weeks when I need the food more than I need a trip to the gunks.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Oct 30, 2012, 11:47 AM
Post #25 of 31
(6063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
marc801 wrote: granite_grrl wrote: So you think that the only people who should enjoy the Gunks are those who go often enough to warrent a year's pass? A lot of people don't live close enough for that. No. I'm saying that in the overall scheme of travel, climbing gear, food, beer, etc., $17 is nothing, and you're only paying the $17/day if you're there less than 6 days a year. In the grand scheme of things $17 a day on a 3 day trip is half the cost of the trip ($35 to fill my car x3, the divide by two wih my partner). It's really a moot point though. You obviously have more money (or don't count your pennies as closely) than other people in this thread. Obviously you can justify the cost, but just looking at this thread you can see that a lot of people think about this the same way I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|