Shout Box

Who's Online
2 registered (2 invisible), 9 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#16868 - 11/02/05 09:56 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: webmaster]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
Quote:

Quote:

Evan, Honestly, the following two bullet points that you site are incredibly trivial and detract from your otherwise valid arguement:

"Dealing with over-crowding, noise and garbage from the multi-use area

Not being able to park at the town's overlook because it's crammed full of climbers"



The point is that they are not trivial to Gardiner residents. So when you find an AMC campground stymied for 8 years, and wonder why there's no good campground in the Gunks after 40 years, look no further than the Multi-Abuse area. It's the problems you're calling trivial that are Gardiner residents main gripes with climbers, and their main motivation for making the area less visitor friendly.

Sam, how can you write a post acknowledging the insights to be had when living in an area and then turn around in the next sentence and say that a local's observations are trivial? Is this an example of "do as I say, not as I do"?

-em




Show me the numbers, Evan.
How many Gardiner residents feel slighted by their inability to park at the turn-out?
How many Gardiner residents feel slighted by the Multi-Use area?
And, furthermore, how many residents of Gardiner believe that these are some of the most important issues facing their town?

When I see the numbers on a percentage basis I'll believe it.

Also, I guess part of the exception I took with those two bullet points as it seemed separate to the other ideas you were talking about. There was one set of ideas associated with manhattanites and their mcmansions and then with parking and the multi-use. They seem different to me and of a very different caliber of issue.

Top
#16869 - 11/02/05 10:06 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: strat]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Out of towners, and in town non-ridgeowners for that matter, can express their desire to preserve open space on the ridge by making land acquistion specific donations to the Open Space Institute and the Mohonk Preserve, thereby empowering these organizations to purchase conservation easements or land at fair market values. Those who wish to preserve open space without making any kind of contribution or sacrifice, while simultaneously asking others to make huge sacrifices, have no moral ground whatever to stand on.

But I just can't help but think that these folks are really pissed off because ultimately, they all intended to develop or benefit from the sale of their land to developers.

Think again Les. Plans vary as much as the people do. A few of us are trying to combine several lots and build one house. Some want to do nothing at all, but still want to have something to negotiate with when dealing with the Mohonk Preserve. But even if someone wants to maximize their investment, why shouldn't they be able to do so? Why should they have to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars of value while the community at large sacrifices nothing but ink and hot air, or in the case of gunks.com, bytes?

For example, one neighbor is 73 and retired. She has precious few savings and we all know that social security doesn't cut it anymore. So even though she lives a very quiet modest life she doesn't have enough money to pay the bills for more than another three or fours years. She does own 31 acres of land though. She hopes to sell it and live off the proceeds for the balance of her days, and leave the remainder to her kids and grandkids. It is the opinion of many that the proposed zoning law will cut the value of her land in half or so. How dare we, as a community, do that to her? She should be able to sell that land for whatever the market will bear. If preserving the land is what we as a community hold to be the greatest good then we should come together and make that happen without financially destroying little old ladies. Mrs. B doesn't even have the strength to attend town meetings, but just the possibillity of this law has made some of her last days very very stressful.

you have to remember the out of towners spend a lot of money in the town of Gardiner/ new platz

John, tourist dollars don't matter one iota to most people who live in Gardiner. So please, if you can't act respectfully toward the people upon whose land you recreate, take your tourist dollars elsewhere. Edited to add Thank you very much John for the PM. Peace out.

You can have a concern about the Shawangunk ridge. You can voice a concern by writing a letter to an editor or showing up at a town meeting and voicing the concern. You can further express your concern by the dollars that you choose to spend. Outside of that, you shouldn't expect any other say in the matter.......

Amen to that.




Edited by Kent (11/03/05 06:19 PM)

Top
#16870 - 11/02/05 10:12 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: strat]
webmaster Offline

veteran

Registered: 01/06/00
Posts: 1273
Loc: New Paltz (Kerhonkson, actuall...
Quote:

When I see the numbers on a percentage basis I'll believe it.

Also, I guess part of the exception I took with those two bullet points as it seemed separate to the other ideas you were talking about. There was one set of ideas associated with manhattanites and their mcmansions and then with parking and the multi-use. They seem different to me and of a very different caliber of issue.

And, while I may not live in Gardiner, I have very strong current ties to the region.




Unfortunately Sam, no one in Gardiner, (including me) is interested in taking time to provide you with numbers. As you pointed out earlier in this thread, your lack of a "stake" in this community (land holding, business, etc) makes any opinions you hold about the situation somewhat moot. If you are interested in what Gardiner residents are saying, go to a town meeting and find out. If you think I'm making this stuff up, give me a motive. What do I have to gain by telling you this?

Let me say one other thing about numbers: It did not take "numbers" of Gardiner residents to stop the AMC campground. From what I've learned about it (off the record), it only took one nearby neighbor who was "chummy" with the Town Supervisor to get the project stopped. Did you happen to also notice that the number of campsites at the Multi Use area has been dwindling?

-em

_________________________
evan marks
webmaster@gunks.com
I wish I could read every post...

Top
#16871 - 11/02/05 10:17 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: webmaster]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
Quote:

Quote:

When I see the numbers on a percentage basis I'll believe it.

Also, I guess part of the exception I took with those two bullet points as it seemed separate to the other ideas you were talking about. There was one set of ideas associated with manhattanites and their mcmansions and then with parking and the multi-use. They seem different to me and of a very different caliber of issue.

And, while I may not live in Gardiner, I have very strong current ties to the region.




Unfortunately Sam, no one in Gardiner, (including me) is interested in taking time to provide you with numbers. As you pointed out earlier in this thread, your lack of a "stake" in this community (land holding, business, etc) makes any opinions you hold about the situation somewhat moot. If you are interested in what Gardiner residents are saying, go to a town meeting and find out. If you think I'm making this stuff up, give me a motive. What do I have to gain by telling you this?
-em





Other than a credibility to base your arguement on, absolutely nothing.

But why bother to share your insights with people who don't matter to begin with?

And while I do not live in Gardiner full time nor do I spend any substantial amount of my time within the town limits, I have very close current ties to the town and they do have a stake.

And I vote in Ulster County, which, I always thought Gardiner is a part of.

Top
#16872 - 11/02/05 10:35 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: strat]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
parking and campsites are a whole different issue than the ridge and zoning get back on topic.

the ridge is what draws the climbers, hikers and all outdoor enthusiasts to the ridge, not the campsites or the overlook parking. yet i can see how residents are not thrilled w/ the camping and parking. But i bet you Gardiner residents are also parking in the overlook.

like i mentioned to Kent on pm hopefully there can be a happy medium for all and at the same time persevering the ridge.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#16873 - 11/02/05 11:49 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: talus]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Two somewhat hypothetical questions.

1) What happens if one neighbor wants to put up some development that is so obnoxiously large that it reduces the value of neighboring properties? Playing with zoning law would seem to be a rational recourse for such neighbors.
2) If every property in town was developed to its maximum possible value, Gardiner would look a lot like New York city, and "local" Gardiner residents would no longer be able to afford their own rent after their property values had been driven up by the influx of McMansion dwellers. How much property value is too much? Where does one draw the line?

I have sympathy for the hypothetical 73-year-old lady who needs to sell off to retire. That sympathy does not necessarily extend to every real estate owner in town.

Top
#16874 - 11/03/05 01:38 AM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: Kent]
learningtolead Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 981
Loc: a wanna be kerhonkson-er
If the Grand Canyon was partially owned by private landowners do you believe that the landowners would/should be free to do whatever they wanted with that land and charge whatever price they wanted for the land? What about for Yosemite? For other parks and lands around the world?

Undeveloped land is absolutely irreplaceable. While we cannot dictate in an absolute fashion what local residents decide, I do not believe that the local residents are the only people who have a stake in the issue. What about renters in the area? People who deeply enjoy and try to protect the area?

I am buying a house in Kerhonkson but I do not believe that my only interest in the area is bounded by the town limits nor do I believe that others who reside in other areas have no interest in the outcomes discussed in this thread.

Top
#16875 - 11/03/05 09:32 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: learningtolead]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
What happens if one neighbor wants to put up some development that is so obnoxiously large that it reduces the value of neighboring properties? Playing with zoning law would seem to be a rational recourse for such neighbors.

If you are referring to the Chaffin Light proposal to build 349 houses on Awosting Reserve, the little talked about fact is the current zoning law, the law in place at the time of application, wouldn't allow it. CL needed many variances and the town was under no legal obligation to grant them.

I have sympathy for the hypothetical 73-year-old lady who needs to sell off to retire.

She is not hypothetical. I have obscured her identity to the degree necessary to protect her privacy. Both she and her pain over this are very very real.

If the Grand Canyon was partially owned by private landowners do you believe that the landowners would/should be free to do whatever they wanted with that land and charge whatever price they wanted for the land? What about for Yosemite?

Of course not. Your question is intellectually dishonest though. You imply to the reader that Gardiner ridgeowners feel they "should be free to do whatever they wanted" and that they should be able to "charge whatever they wanted for the land", presumably in a sale. No landowner has asked for this. The current zoning for the land in question is already the most restrictive in town and it's among the most restrictive zoning in the region. Still, ridgeowners would be willing to accept additional reasonable restrictions. However, if the town wants to preclude all development on 2600 acres of land, effectively confiscating conservation easements from the owners, then landowners should be compensated at fair market value or something near it.

Undeveloped land is absolutely irreplaceable.

Not so Molly. Ecological restoration is a relatively new but rapidly growing and now well developed academic discipline as evidenced by the Society for Ecological Restoration International and by the journal Restoration Ecology .

What about renters in the area? People who deeply enjoy and try to protect the area?

Renters in Gardiner have every right to vote in Gardiner. People who deeply enjoy and want to protect the area, as we all should, have an obligation to work in fair, respectful, and constructive ways with landowners.

I am buying a house in Kerhonkson but I do not believe that my only interest in the area is bounded by the town limits nor do I believe that others who reside in other areas have no interest in the outcomes discussed in this thread.

Congratulations on your house. It's great that you are interested in the outcome of the discussion Molly. However, if you support the use of deceptive and coercive practices to protect land, no matter the harm done to landowners, then I invite you to walk your talk about the value of undeveloped land and the need for a few to make sacrifices for the good of all. The principal ecological issue, with regard to development on the flanks of the ridge, is one of fragmentation. Help defragment the landscape by undeveloping your house, after you close of course. You can find all the help you need for this at the aforementioned links and also by googling both "ecological restoration" and "landscape restoration". Though this is a new field, some environmental consultants are hanging out their ecological restoration shingles already, and I'm sure they'd be happy to help you.




Top
#16876 - 11/04/05 08:15 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: learningtolead]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ

Quote:

If the Grand Canyon was partially owned by private landowners do you believe that the landowners would/should be free to do whatever they wanted




Oh yeah? Check out -

this link

Top
#16877 - 11/04/05 08:31 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: pda]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
What's next, n Flags Over the Grand Canyon?
_________________________

Top
Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored