|
number7
May 2, 2003, 2:37 PM
Post #1 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 175
|
This may have been posted before, but I want to urge all of you who cherish this place to follow this link http://www.savethegunks.com/petition.htm and sign the petition to keep the Gunks from being "developed" by money hungry A-holes.
Peace,
M
|
|
|
|
|
reborne
Jun 9, 2003, 5:36 PM
Post #2 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2003
Posts: 190
|
i dont know if im buying this page it seems like a scam or a near buy area trying to drum up intrest in there petition by ussing the gunks caus im pretty sure the original family that set up the preserve did so to protect it permanently so i dont see how this could be
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Jun 12, 2003, 5:10 PM
Post #3 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
i don't think this site is a scam. haven't you seen all the save the ridge signs in new paltz.
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Jun 12, 2003, 5:21 PM
Post #4 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
In reply to: i dont know if im buying this page it seems like a scam or a near buy area trying to drum up intrest in there petition by ussing the gunks caus im pretty sure the original family that set up the preserve did so to protect it permanently so i dont see how this could be
Not a scam. There is a major subdivision of 349 lots proposed for property on the Shawangunk Ridge adjacent Mohonk Preserve property.
For background info go to www.gunks.com. Use the search feature
(climb--->discussion----->search) and look for "Save the Ridge".
TS
|
|
|
|
|
bishop
Jun 12, 2003, 6:14 PM
Post #5 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2001
Posts: 192
|
BUMP!!!
I just came back from the Gunks... what a place. It was my first time there and I want to go back soon. There is alot of "Save the ridge" attention there.... lets help save this beautiful area.
|
|
|
|
|
grigriese
Jun 12, 2003, 7:22 PM
Post #6 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 292
|
So sad that the process has gotten far enough to even start the planning phase. I'm sure there is so much money invested to this point that the developers will probably do whatever it takes to see this project to completion.
|
|
|
|
|
hooker
Jun 13, 2003, 4:47 PM
Post #7 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 173
|
Bs...
It is not NEXT to the Preserve.
It is 10 miles away. It is near the Awosting Preserve.
People spewing here about have no real clue what is actually going on.
The Gunks doesn't need saving from anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 13, 2003, 4:59 PM
Post #8 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Before anyone flames me for my opinion here, I would like to state that I love the Gunks. I have done hundreds of climbs there over the last 25 years--and the Gunks is my favorite climbing area in the United states.
Having said that, I just can't get too excited over this particular development. As accurately stated by hooker, this land is not adjacent to the Mohonk Preserve--it is adjacent to Minnewaska State Park--well to the south of the Preserve.
Also, 350 homes on over 500 acres, surrounded by over 2,000 acres of undeveloped woodland just doesn't sound to me like overdevelopment. I was quite happy that the Marriott development got killed years ago, but I just don't see any parallel here.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
data118
Jun 13, 2003, 5:09 PM
Post #9 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2002
Posts: 845
|
SAVE THE GUNKS!
from all this freakin rain! :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
hooker
Jun 13, 2003, 5:18 PM
Post #10 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 173
|
Curt,
correct.
There is no parallel.
This is a nice development. The only issue really, is whether or not the water table can handle an 18 hole golf course.
Also, the planned developement is actually smaller than what the developer has proposed. As always, they are floating more than they want. This way, when the get shot-down and scaled back, they still get to go forward.
Most of these people spewing have no clue.
As a land owner in the area, and long time Gunkie, I find it interesting that most of the people spewing are
NOT landowners, nor residents. They are weekend hosers that use the Gunks for their own purposes. As long as they get what they need, they don't mind stepping on someone else's toes.
If all you sh&t's are against developement, stop going up there in the first place. Where do you think all those houses that are already there came from? Did they spring out of the ground? or did someone develope them?
Let's hear from some more land owners. Not just from a bunch of whiny liberal Nimbys.....
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Jun 13, 2003, 5:35 PM
Post #11 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
In reply to: They are weekend hosers that use the Gunks for their own purposes. As long as they get what they need, they don't mind stepping on someone else's toes. *SNIP* Not just from a bunch of whiny liberal Nimbys.....
I agree that the largest impact on most recreational use areas is by "weekend hosers" and not residents. But the issue here might be how LAND OWNERS do not necessarily have the same interests as residents and "weekend hosers." But as a RESIDENT perhaps you should be concerned with how a large developement and golf course will affect your beloved area.
You wrote about the area in a manner that leads me to believe that you enjoy its resources. Why don't you want to protect them? The watershed, ecosystem, sightlines, recreational use, tax rates, schools, traffic infrastructure - these things will all be more negatively impacted by an influx of new high-end residents than they will be by the weekend influxes of climbers and naturalists.
The conservative golden rule of "it's my land, i can do what i damned well please with it" is short sighted, to say the least. Sale of the land to developers will affect others greatly.
You are far better of with weekend hosers bringing in money and respecting the area than you are with a bunch of new neighbors living the high life up on the hill. Think about it, it affects you RESIDENTS much more than us WEEKEND HOSERS.
Sincerely,
a "whiny liberal Nimby"
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jun 13, 2003, 5:36 PM
Post #12 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
In reply to: So sad that the process has gotten far enough to even start the planning phase. I'm sure there is so much money invested to this point that the developers will probably do whatever it takes to see this project to completion.
Hey nitz, when you hand back your home to the aboriginal people of this continent, I'll do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jun 13, 2003, 5:43 PM
Post #13 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
In reply to: In reply to: They are weekend hosers that use the Gunks for their own purposes. As long as they get what they need, they don't mind stepping on someone else's toes. *SNIP* Not just from a bunch of whiny liberal Nimbys..... I agree that the largest impact on most recreational use areas is by "weekend hosers" and not residents. But the issue here might be how LAND OWNERS do not necessarily have the same interests as residents and "weekend hosers." But as a RESIDENT perhaps you should be concerned with how a large developement and golf course will affect your beloved area. You wrote about the area in a manner that leads me to believe that you enjoy its resources. Why don't you want to protect them? The watershed, ecosystem, sightlines, recreational use, tax rates, schools, traffic infrastructure - these things will all be more negatively impacted by an influx of new high-end residents than they will be by the weekend influxes of climbers and naturalists. The conservative golden rule of "it's my land, i can do what i damned well please with it" is short sighted, to say the least. Sale of the land to developers will affect others greatly. You are far better of with weekend hosers bringing in money and respecting the area than you are with a bunch of new neighbors living the high life up on the hill. Think about it, it affects you RESIDENTS much more than us WEEKEND HOSERS. Sincerely, a "whiny liberal Nimby"
Disagree.
I want the development. I know all about it. Good for the area, and the poeple that LIVE there. As for the weekenders, I don't need their money, nor their BS, and their attitudes.....
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Jun 13, 2003, 5:47 PM
Post #14 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
In reply to: Bs... It is not NEXT to the Preserve. It is 10 miles away. It is near the Awosting Preserve. People spewing here about have no real clue what is actually going on. The Gunks doesn't need saving from anyone.
Oops, sorry about that brain fart. I was not taking a side though, just pointing to the discussion and that the issue is real, not a scam.
TS
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 13, 2003, 5:53 PM
Post #15 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: They are weekend hosers that use the Gunks for their own purposes. As long as they get what they need, they don't mind stepping on someone else's toes. *SNIP* Not just from a bunch of whiny liberal Nimbys..... I agree that the largest impact on most recreational use areas is by "weekend hosers" and not residents. But the issue here might be how LAND OWNERS do not necessarily have the same interests as residents and "weekend hosers." But as a RESIDENT perhaps you should be concerned with how a large developement and golf course will affect your beloved area. You wrote about the area in a manner that leads me to believe that you enjoy its resources. Why don't you want to protect them? The watershed, ecosystem, sightlines, recreational use, tax rates, schools, traffic infrastructure - these things will all be more negatively impacted by an influx of new high-end residents than they will be by the weekend influxes of climbers and naturalists. The conservative golden rule of "it's my land, i can do what i damned well please with it" is short sighted, to say the least. Sale of the land to developers will affect others greatly. You are far better of with weekend hosers bringing in money and respecting the area than you are with a bunch of new neighbors living the high life up on the hill. Think about it, it affects you RESIDENTS much more than us WEEKEND HOSERS. Sincerely, a "whiny liberal Nimby"
orangekayak,
This is simply a difference of opinion as to what constitutes overdevelopment. If there were strip-mining or an industrial park planned for that site--or even high density housing--I would be on the same side you are.
I simply don't think this plan is that bad. The opponents really want no development whatsoever, which is unrealistic.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jun 13, 2003, 5:53 PM
Post #16 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
troutboy,
here is the real issue:
the land owner wants to develop private land for an already allowable use......
that is one of the rights inherent in the "bundle of rights" he purchased.
You want me to tell you how to use your land? And if you do, you are either a liar, an idiot, or a liar AND an idiot.
Chances are, you don't own land! It is apparent from your posts.....
|
|
|
|
|
raindog
Jun 13, 2003, 6:13 PM
Post #17 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2003
Posts: 200
|
In reply to: Bs... The Gunks doesn't need saving from anyone.
What the Gunks, and every other rural area in upstate New York doesn't need is a bunch of rich folk from the city moving into a forest and putting a golf course in to "get away from it all" and "live the country life."
I come from a small town in Upstate New York and if anybody proposed to build such a development 90% of the Town would be against it. I can't see how it will benefit anyone living in that part of the state.
-JR
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Jun 13, 2003, 6:50 PM
Post #18 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
In reply to: troutboy, here is the real issue: the land owner wants to develop private land for an already allowable use...... that is one of the rights inherent in the "bundle of rights" he purchased. You want me to tell you how to use your land? And if you do, you are either a liar, an idiot, or a liar AND an idiot......
I am neither a liar nor an idiot...
Read my posts again. I'm not sure which ones you are referring to. Perhaps you're confused.
Once again,
I did not express an opinion one way or the other, I simply pointed to another discussion. I am aware there are 2 sides to every issue, I do not live in the area, and I do not have all the facts. That's is exactly why I have not expressed an opinion, nor have I signed a petition or sent any letters!
Granted, I typed Mohonk Preserve instead of Awosting, but I'm getting old. :)
For the record, in my previous job I designed exactly these types of subdivisions. I am aware of all impacts.
In reply to: Chances are, you don't own land! It is apparent from your posts.....
You certainly could not tell one way or the other from my 2 posts on this topic, but yes, I do own land.
T
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jun 13, 2003, 7:32 PM
Post #19 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
troutboy,
then I publically and sincerely apolodize.....
however, you did state an opinion. Posting, in itself, is stating an opinion.
It means, if nothing else, that the topic is relevant to you.
Also, I did say: IF you wanted me to control your land THEN you were an idiot or a lyer. Never said you were one, just stating an If/then hypothosis..... and I stand by the stement, that if you want to let me dictate how you can use your land then you are an idiot, a liar, or both. No apologies for that statement. It's true.
Again, my bad for misunderstanding your points.
peace
|
|
|
|
|
mim
Jun 13, 2003, 9:46 PM
Post #20 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 6
|
Correction:
The development is less than a mile from Mohonk Preserve land. It is also adjacent to Minnewaska State Park.
The Shawangunk Ridge is home to a wonderful biodiversity, which includes four rare natural habitats and 27 rare plant and animal species. It is also a destination of thousands of tourists and residents who like to hike, bike and rock-climb on and around the cliffs. One may need a degree in ecology to comprehend the impact such a development will have on the biodiversity of the ridge. Like a local resident pointed out during a presentation by the developers, "The 50' corridors planned for wildlife are adequate, hmmm, for squirrels."
The 'Awosting Reserve', AKA Gated Community, is 4 miles LONG (from Gertrudes Nose to beyond Mud Pond) and 2 miles WIDE (from Minnewaska State Park to Tillson Lake). If you are clueless as to what area I am taking about, get a map. This project is HUGE. It will scar the Ridge FOREVER.
Of the 349 houses, over 200 will be 'Retreats' - basically 4500 sq.ft. mansions. The others, 'Cabins' (2400 sq.ft) and 'Cottages' (3500 sq. ft.) make my house look like, well, an 'Outhouse'.
It will take up to a decade for the completion of this project. If this doesn't give you an idea of its scale, then I don't know what will.
The one road leading to the Gated Community is presently getting ONE care per hour at peak time. The developers' study indicates there will be 180 cars PER HOUR at peak time.
MANY FULL TIME RESIDENTS OPPOSE THIS PROJECT and others who come to enjoy the beauty of the ridge on weekends, whether they are part-time residents or not.
It is vital, before you make a judgment on those opposing this development, that you carefully educate yourself on the ramification this development will have in the area.
I think many of you who are making pro-development comments on this forum have yet to set foot along the proposed area and get a glimpse of the scale of this project...
Mim
Gunks resident
|
|
|
|
|
scottcody
Jun 13, 2003, 9:56 PM
Post #21 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 577
|
18 hole golf course... 10 mile from Gunks...
Saweet!!!
Can someone post a link to where we can advance purchase a home!
Any chance that they will putting in paved path to the crags? I'd pay extra for that.
|
|
|
|
|
johnpeterson
Jun 14, 2003, 12:51 AM
Post #22 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Posts: 10
|
If you're a regular at the Gunks you'll know that the entire ridge is a special place. There are a lot of good reasons to preserve the ridge intact for everyone to use. This property is immediately adjacent to the state park and development would have a profound effect on the area. This isn't an issue of stealing someone's private property - this is an issue of the community deciding what the best use of the land is. Many people (including me) feel that the best use for this particular piece of land is to preserve it for everyone else. Ultimately I believe the people of Gardiner will decide that they are better off having that particular piece of land set aside for everyone instead of turned into a private playground for the super rich. There are plenty of places to build luxury housing but this parcel of land is a special place that evertone should be able to enjoy.
When Boulder decided to ring itself with a greenbelt and mountain parks a lot of people made similar noises about restricting development and property rights. But now the people there have high property values as well as open space and parks that contribute to everyone's quality of life. I hope Gardiner makes a similar decision.
John
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 14, 2003, 2:20 AM
Post #23 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
Lovely green golf courses always bring along pesticides to run off into ground water. I hear that's always great for the ecosystem. :evil:
Leave it to the rich folks to put their poppin-fresh-houses or condos in all the beautiful places. :roll: Those are really gorgeous to look at!
I have family in the gunks, so call me a 'weekend hoser', but since I'm not a land owner I can't be a 'whiny NIMBY'. NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard. If we all lived wisely and conscientiously, we would not have to defend anyone's back yard.
|
|
|
|
|
number7
Jun 14, 2003, 3:06 AM
Post #24 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 175
|
There is a crag in Northeast Pennsylvania called tillburry. It is a beautiful cliff with wonderful rock. Its access issues are sensative not because it belongs to someone (from what I hear, it belongs to the state or something [thank]), but because it has a development right next to it and the non-climbing "homeowners" don't like cars parked on "their" street.
Whenever my fiance and I climb there (one of our loved places), she always comments on the lack of peacefulness the lawnmowers (which can always be heard as if they where moving the base of the crag) create. There are often times when you can hear the homeowners very clearly talking about what there stocks were that week, or how they got a great deal on some plastic Jesus lawn ornaments down at Walmart.
I fear that this very thing will someday happen to the peaceful place called the Gunks. Actually, I'm surprized it hasn't happened yet. For those of you who are "for" this proposed development to the the Gunks, you are either dumb, or just too busy buying plastic Jesus lawn ornaments. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about free will and open markets and private property; but something as sacred as the Gunks (like our National Parks) should be recognized as something irreplaceable. You can't get it back when it's gone. Also, it is only a matter of time before someone decides that a highway is needed to save all of the influxed yuppies an extra 5 minutes from there commute. Oh, and while they are at it, they just might decide that an Exon gas station will be a perfect addition to the overlook, because it will be conveniently located right off of the "EXPRESSWAY" exit. You wait, let this development happen, and you will see.
For those of you against this development (thank you mim for clearing it up for the misinformed), keep fighting. Your children will be proud.
M
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 14, 2003, 3:20 AM
Post #25 of 46
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
number7,
In reply to: I fear that this very thing will someday happen to the peaceful place called the Gunks. Actually, I'm surprized it hasn't happened yet. For those of you who are "for" this proposed development to the the Gunks, you are either dumb, or just too busy buying plastic Jesus lawn ornaments. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about free will and open markets and private property; but something as sacred as the Gunks (like our National Parks) should be recognized as something irreplaceable.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
