Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 14 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#16858 - 10/27/05 05:41 PM The Mugging of Gardiner
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards


In Gardiner the proposed zoning law, and the master plan on which it is based, have been heavily influenced by the Mohonk Preserve and their more extreme members from both near and far. People from Red Hook, High Falls, Shawangunk, New York City, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. have had more say in what is going to happen on the ridge than the people of Gardiner or the people who own the land in question.

The proposed divisive zoning law, if passed by the current Gardiner Town Board or the next, will Balkanize Gardiner by further pitting residents who don’t own the ridge against residents who do. It will likely also yield a bumper crop of lawsuits. The people of Gardiner, rather than out-of-towners or the Mohonk Preserve, will bear all of the social and legal costs that are a consequence of this piracy. The Gardiner Democratic Party Platform calls for bringing this zoning law, this Balkanization of Gardiner, this pitting of resident against resident, this land piracy, to fruition.

It is said republicans become democrats if they go bankrupt and democrats become republicans if they get mugged. So after twenty-five years of voting for democrats and green party candidates, I’ll be voting for republicans Pam O’Dell, John Friedle, and Fred Fischer. They have a strong sense of right and wrong. They have a strong sense of honor. They will work with landowners like me to promote fair and equitable land preservation. Pam, John, and Fred, by their words and deeds, have demonstrated a belief that Gardiner town government should be by, of, and for the people of Gardiner, rather than people from all over the region or country.

To help restore a sense of civility, respect, and local accountability to Gardiner town government, I invite like minded democrats, conservatives, unaffiliated voters, and republicans to join me in voting for republicans Pam O’Dell, John Friedle, and Fred Fischer on Tuesday, November 8th.

Kent Pierce
Gardiner Ridgeowner

Top
#16859 - 11/02/05 05:23 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: Kent]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
so what you're saying people who come from NJ, CT, VT,NH to climb, hike, bike and just take in scenery of a beautiful shwanagunk ridge should have no say in this matter. you have to remember the out of towners spend a lot of money in the town of Gardiner/ new platz and the main attraction is the ridge. maybe if you're lucky they will vote against a zoning law, then you could build a big giant ferris wheel on top of the ridge. this may help offset all money lost from out of towners not coming to visit anymore.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#16860 - 11/02/05 06:24 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: talus]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
The say that someone who doesn't own land in the region should have is exactly what you are weilding. The dollar. Let the local people deal with their own issues. If the environment that they create, in the area that they have to live in, is so objectionable to you that you feel it is not an appealling destination to you anymore, then stop going there and take your money somewhere else. If the almighty tourist dollar is as impactful to them as you are suggesting, over time, it will adjust. The market's not stupid. What is valuable persists and what isn't generally goes away.

last I knew, the middle hudson valley region was pretty self-sustaining in its economy. It doesn't live or die by the tourist dollar as much as some place like Tupper Lake, NY does.

Top
#16861 - 11/02/05 07:37 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: strat]
nerdom Offline
Pooh-Bah *

Registered: 09/07/01
Posts: 2483
Loc: Davis Sq., MA
ah, but strat, how do you value a public good like the ridge, or national forest lands for that matter? it is exceedingly difficult to quantify, and the interests are generally diffuse and hard to organize. Which is why the people who most stand to benefit from despoliation (in the national forest arena anyway) are generally much more focussed and well-financed. They wield inordinate power. What if someone wanted to place an enormous hydroelectric facility atop Niagara Falls, or dam the Colorodo river such that it would fill the Grand Canyon? Extreme examples, I know, but it would be easy to quantify in dollars, what someone would stand to gain, much as developing the ridge would On the other hand, it's just too difficult to do for something as intangible as scenery or solitude.

I don't know what the answer is here, but I would think that in light of the recent Supreme Court case (Kuhn, I think), landowners like Kent have a tough row to hoe if they intend to sue the municipality. Changing their elected officials is probably their best course. 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.


Edited by nerdom (11/02/05 07:38 PM)
_________________________
we're all living proof that nothing lasts

Top
#16862 - 11/02/05 07:53 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: nerdom]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
"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. "


Jeeze, how can you make a blanket statement like that? Assuming that all private property advocates in this arena are solely motivated by monetary gain, to a developer no less, makes you sound like a real estate elitist! What color is the sun in your world where everything is seen so starkly black or white?

Are you referring to the Kehoe case in New London CT?


Edited by alicex4 (11/02/05 07:57 PM)

Top
#16863 - 11/02/05 08:05 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: talus]
webmaster Offline

veteran

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

you have to remember the out of towners spend a lot of money in the town of Gardiner/ new platz and the main attraction is the ridge. maybe if you're lucky they will vote against a zoning law, then you could build a big giant ferris wheel on top of the ridge. this may help offset all money lost from out of towners not coming to visit anymore.




What you, and most weekenders, are missing is that the Town of Gardiner takes in precious little weekend tourist dollars. Due to the simple layout of the roads, all of you come thru the Town of New Paltz, which is quite overjoyed and supportive of all things that keep weekend dollars coming back. Basically, New Paltz is getting all the benefits, and Gardiner gets all the headaches, like:

  • Meager revenue from a Not-for-Profit Preserve occupying a few hundred acres of prime town land
  • 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
  • etc.

So you should realize what you're dealing with before you go thinking the $50 - $200 you spend at Rock & Snow and the Bistro over the weekend is going to keep Gardiner politicians leaning your way. It won't. This is a town of old farmland that has been turned into a semi-suburban world of McMansions filled with re-located or part-time, well-to-do New York City dwellers. Their interest in the ridge is primarily based on it's ability to increase the value of their homes (thereby the strong, effective reaction to the Bradley Development). Climbers, economically are not in the same league as these people, and their opinions do not carry much weight.

If you were to attend a Gardiner town meeting and raised your concerns, I think you'd be ignored, or laughed out of the room.

I think the best option for climbers is to support groups like the GCC, who are on the ground on a daily basis to gently remind the folks in Gardiner to be magnanimous toward our community. That's not to say that the GCC has always done the best it could in these situations, but it's our best shot, IMHO.

-em

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

Top
#16864 - 11/02/05 08:11 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: strat]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
so strat i guess Ron Kauk should not give a hoot about development / expansion in Curry village since he is from San Francisco. hell why don't they just put a whole vegas casino between clouds rest and half dome and have a rollar coster going up half dome instead of the cables. so what i'm saying to you how many yosemite's are out there, how many shwanagunk ridges are there? who's going to speak up? the people of Gardiner. that's just going to be split down the middle then. personally i rather not see development up on or around the ridge.

it's really not about the dollar except for those certain ridge owners. for me the ridge is a place that i love. from sam's point all the way to bonticue.

woodstock = tourists
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#16865 - 11/02/05 08:40 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: webmaster]
GeeVee Offline
Auto Reply

Registered: 11/14/00
Posts: 4403
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
his is a town of old farmland that has been turned into a semi-suburban world of McMansions filled with re-located or part-time, well-to-do New York City dwellers.

That raises a question I'd been wondering about - anyone have a sense how many of the folks who own property on the ridge are full-time residents versus weekend or seasonal ridge-dwellers?
_________________________
So long as you can boogie you ain't too old.

Top
#16866 - 11/02/05 08:41 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: talus]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

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

so strat i guess Ron Kauk should not give a hoot about development / expansion in Curry village since he is from San Francisco. hell why don't they just put a whole vegas casino between clouds rest and half dome and have a rollar coster going up half dome instead of the cables. so what i'm saying to you how many yosemite's are out there, how many shwanagunk ridges are there? who's going to speak up? the people of Gardiner. that's just going to be split down the middle then. personally i rather not see development up on or around the ridge.

it's really not about the dollar except for those certain ridge owners. for me the ridge is a place that i love. from sam's point all the way to bonticue.

woodstock = tourists




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 (like the ability to vote on issues that are specific to Gardiner).

That's all I'm saying.

I think it is exceedingly difficult for someone who spends about 20 hours a week in the area and reads a little bit of what's going on to understand enough of the situation to act in a responsible way. Particularly with very complicated issues like are involved here. Kent is obviously a learned man and yet you see the outrage that follows on this forum from some of his posts. And, when you read alot of that outrage it is clear that the people who are enraged don't clearly understand the issue. How could they? They don't live it the way Kent and Chris M do.

If anyone wants to see the socio-economic disaster that results from people living in wilderness that has intense restrictions- study the Adirondack towns of Tupper Lake, Long Lake, Newcomb, and Keene Valley.

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"

Top
#16867 - 11/02/05 09:52 PM Re: The Mugging of Gardiner [Re: strat]
webmaster Offline

veteran

Registered: 01/06/00
Posts: 1273
Loc: New Paltz (Kerhonkson, actuall...
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
_________________________
evan marks
webmaster@gunks.com
I wish I could read every post...

Top
#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: 5977
Loc: 212 land
What's next, n Flags Over the Grand Canyon?
_________________________

Top
#16878 - 11/06/05 04:05 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kent]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1041
Loc: hamlet\'s hand
Quote:

The principal ecological issue, with regard to development on the flanks of the ridge, is one of fragmentation.





Like the increased fragmentation rendered on the flanks of the ridge by doubling the driveway zoning code to 2500 feet?

With the TfPL/OSI offer accepted Friday, the Awosting deal appears to be close to completion.

Some of us are still interested to see the documentation for PIPC's plan to build extensive parking lots and a bus depot and to increase by a half million a year the number of visitors to the ridge (doubling the Gunks annual visitation) via a proposed Awosting entrance to Minnewaska.
_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.

Top
#16879 - 11/06/05 11:15 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: yorick]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Like the increased fragmentation rendered on the flanks of the ridge by doubling the driveway zoning code to 2500 feet?

There is currently no limit anywhere in Gardiner on driveway length so 2500 feet, although double what is proposed in the law, wouldn't be a doubling but rather a decrease from what is currently allowed. If you want to talk about doubling, let's talk about the double standard in play here. All of the "science" the Preserve offers as "testimony" in support of the proposed zoning law somehow doesn't apply to them or to the Mohonk Mountain House. The impervious surface of the driveways of downslope neighbors must be restricted in accordance with the "science" but not the impervious surface of the extensive parking lots of the Preserve or the Mohonk Mountain House.. Not to mention that the Preserve and Savetheridge never brought up any objections to the new 30,000 square foot spa at the Mohonk Mountain House, which is on top of the ridge.

With the TfPL/OSI offer accepted Friday, the Awosting deal appears to be close to completion.

It would be wise to not count your eggs until they hatch.

Some of us are still interested to see the documentation for PIPC's plan to build extensive parking lots and a bus depot and to increase by a half million a year the number of visitors to the ridge (doubling the Gunks annual visitation) via the proposed Awosting entrance to Minnewaska.

There is no documentation that I've been able to find. There was a plan by the state around 1990 to take Bradley's property by emminent domain, but the funding was to be provided by a state bond that had to pass by referendum. The referendum failed and so the land was never taken. There are many rumors in the neighborhood about the states plans then and now, but no documentation.

What do you think the state will do with the land Chris? The people in that neighborhood are terrified by the thought of the state owning the land. In the absence of a public plan for what will or won't happen, they are justifiably fearful. As you are now a GCC official Chris, and as you seem to support the TPL purchase and the zoning law, has anyone from the GCC talked to people in that neighborhood about how they feel about the prospect of an expansion of Minnewaska State Park and a new park entrance?

This last bit I would haved posted to the GCC forum but the other Chris, Chris Moratz, is the moderator there and in the past he deleted an important post of his and also my response.

Top
#16880 - 11/07/05 03:02 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kent]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Everyone moans the 'developemnt of the riidge' but the Mountain House has robustly embraced their private property rights and developed a new day spa.





All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.

Top
#16881 - 11/07/05 06:11 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: yorick]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1041
Loc: hamlet\'s hand
Kent,

I think you were correct to post in this forum (which will become clear roundabout), though not out of apprehension of being deleted in the GCC forum. I am confident that will not happen again.

In the end, I support the sale of Awosting, but not Gardiner's zoning. Personally, I don't think the zoning goes nearly far enough, anywhere in the region. If we wish to discuss ending fragmentation and saving the ridge, truly minimizing our impact on the region, then to my mind it means saving the entire Shawangunk watershed, top to bottom, from the Wallkill to the Rondout: through zoning, through compensation initiatives like the open space fund in Red Hook, through conservation easements. And I certainly wish that the watershed can be protected by avoiding at all costs the tortuous legal miasma that is wresting Mr. Bradley from his property.

Duplicity from all sides is troubling, and probably unavoidable: from the Preserve, from the Mountain House, from Save the Ridge, from anyone who supports ending ridge fragmentation even as they propose/engage in development. I bought six cords of wood for the winter, and it didn't come from deadfall. We do indeed need to keep an eye on one another, even as we consider the conflicts in our own motives.

Part of what I've been engaged with throughout my work with the GCC - beginning with writing assignments that preceded my joining the GCC - has been speaking with people from differing sides on ridge issues. Part of living anywhere obviously means becoming friends with people representing opposing views and differing sides, and I have found few conflicts as unhinging as those between ridge landowners/managers big and small. Historically, it's a conflict that has its roots in the relationship of Trapps Hamlet residents with the Smileys. I have friends and acquantances listed in the Mohonk Neighbors posts, and listened to their assertions of strong-arm tactics by ridge land managers. I have friends and acquantances who work for ridge land managers, who report chronic, personal harassment by some of the Neighbors. It's been difficult to substantiate claims from either side.

I've listened to the concerns from many sides regarding the fate of Awosting, and while I have a great deal of personal interest in the outcome, ultimately, this is not an issue about climbing, nor do I think, an issue for the GCC (if my maps are correct regarding the cliffline). Personally, I regret that we published early on a statement opposing Mr. Bradley's proposed development that had nothing to do with climbing access, while we searched for footing as an organization.

I think we have focused our objectives since publishing that statement, and the results from the climbers' survey that we conducted this summer helped clarify them further: to protect existing climbing access, to pursue opening new areas for climbing, to work on camping solutions, to support first response teams and squads, and to minimize climbing impact. Some of these objectives conflict with my feelings about fragmentation and the impact of climbing, but I try to balance them in my work pursuing these objectives for the GCC.

Should Awosting be turned over to PIPC and Minnewaska, I am trusting that the rhetoric I've heard from state officials - which so far is nothing if not about minimizing ridge fragmentation - will be their highest priority. And I know whom to speak to and where to write emails/letters, should this prove not to be the case.


_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.

Top
#16882 - 11/07/05 06:20 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: yorick]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Thanks for the thoughtful post Chris. I will offer a thoughtful reply when I have a chance.

Cheers

Top
#16883 - 11/11/05 05:38 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: yorick]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Personally, I don't think the zoning goes nearly far enough, anywhere in the region. If we wish to discuss ending fragmentation and saving the ridge, truly minimizing our impact on the region, then to my mind it means saving the entire Shawangunk watershed, top to bottom, from the Wallkill to the Rondout: through zoning, through compensation initiatives like the open space fund in Red Hook, through conservation easements.

First, that's impossible. A great many people live and recreate and fragment that watershed already. To truly minmize our impact would require stopping and reversing development, and also greatly reducing recreation. This idea is, of course, anathema to those living and recreating within the watershed. The notion of keeping others from making use of their land is a variant of NIMBY that some of us call 'not after me" or NAM. Now that they are here, they love the place so much, all others must be stopped from making use of it. It's exceedingly hypocritical.

The idea of truly protecting the watershed from the Walkill to the Roundout would affect so many people that it would be politically unpalatable. The idea of confiscating the property rights of a few to benefit the many, no matter the harm done to the few, is much more politically palatable as evidenced by the recent election

Duplicity from all sides is troubling:...............from anyone who supports ending ridge fragmentation even as they propose/engage in development.

This, I asume, refers to me. Nothing I've said is duplicitous. My remarks to Molly suggesting she undevelop her house to help defragment the ridge were clearly facetious. It would not be right for any of us to expect Molly to give up her new home and contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote an unfragmented landscape, while others contribute nothing, just as it is not right for the community to expect that of me. As for my particular project, my land was offered to the Preserve/OSI, a few years ago and before I built my driveway, at fair market value. They declined to make an offer as is their right. The only reason there is a driveway at all on my land now is to protect the buildability of my lot. Without the prospect of the zoning law, my land would be as yet untouched and still subject to a negotiated purchase by one of the land preservation organizations.

I have friends and acquantances listed in the Mohonk Neighbors posts, and listened to their assertions of strong-arm tactics by ridge land managers. I have friends and acquantances who work for ridge land managers, who report chronic, personal harassment by some of the Neighbors. It's been difficult to substantiate claims from either side.

The Shawangunk Conservancy's actions against Mike Fink in the Clove, are well substantiated in both court judgements against them and in three substantial newspaper articles. The Preserve's close connections to the Conservancy have been well substantiated in the three newspaper articles as well.

Further, in response to a call for transparency regarding the Shawangunk Biodiversity Partnership, the Preserve has said they are proud of their part in the "partnership", but they haven't denied it's a charade. Nor have they yet fulfilled their obligation to make public the amounts and dates of all payments made to environmental planner Peter Fairweather, either directly or indirectly. Mr. Fairweather, if you recall, has been working with a number of towns around the Preserve, to help update their master plans.

I've listened to the concerns from many sides regarding the fate of Awosting, and while I have a great deal of personal interest in the outcome, ultimately, this is not an issue about climbing, nor do I think, an issue for the GCC (if my maps are correct regarding the cliffline).

But it is an issue for the GCC. If I'm not mistaken, Bradley's property line is up on top of Gertrude's Nose and there is a great deal of very high quality climbing there as well as at other smaller crags high on Bradley's property. As well, virutally all of Millbrook and the middle third of the Nears are on private property. As things were in a state of flux over the summer, it seemed like a good time to promote some innovative ideas for climbing access. Last July, I proposed to The Access Fund and the GCC the idea of a vertical climbing park, managed by The Preserve, that would extend from the Nears to Millbrook to Gertrudes Nose. This would require negotiations with landowners all along the ridge. I suggested a meeting with landowners, the GCC, and the Preserve to discuss the idea. Representatives from the GCC and the Preserve met but no landowners were invited. Subsequently, to my knowledge, no landowners have been contacted.

The GCC seems to support preserving and attaining climber accesss only insofar as that effort doesn't interfere with the larger land acquisition ambitions of the land preservation organizations in the area. In the current situation the interests of climbers have been subverted I believe, by the GCC, to the interests of the land preservation community. In the words of Chris Moratz, GCC Chairman, "we have developed an outstanding relationship with the Mohonk Preserve that we continue to build upon". That's great. The Preserve is clearly the most important climbing venue in the area. But in my view, the GCC should have an independent pro-climber orientation, rather than allowing itself to be co-opted, explicitly or implicitly, by Save The Ridge or The Mohonk Preserve.


Top
#16884 - 11/12/05 11:49 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kent]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1041
Loc: hamlet\'s hand
And thank you, Kent, for the thoughtful reply. I will respond in due course.
_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.

Top
#16885 - 11/14/05 06:36 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kent]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Quote:

Last July, I proposed to The Access Fund and the GCC the idea of a vertical climbing park, managed by The Preserve, that would extend from the Nears to Millbrook to Gertrudes Nose.




Kent, have you stopped to consider whether your idea is actually practical? It's likely such a climbing park would have to be administered by someone other than the Preserve. The Preserve, as an organization, was founded for a specific purpose and must adhere to its bylaws. That purpose, it should be obvious, is to preserve land first, and to allow consistent recreational opportunities second. You are asking the Preserve to violate its own bylaws and acquire a thin strip of land based only upon its recreational value, and not its preservation value.

Can you really fault the GCC for not taking action on an impractical proposal? Do you have a serious proposal waiting in the wings that we're still waiting to hear?

Top
#16886 - 11/14/05 07:40 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: pedestrian]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Quote:

Quote:

Last July, I proposed to The Access Fund and the GCC the idea of a vertical climbing park, managed by The Preserve, that would extend from the Nears to Millbrook to Gertrudes Nose.




Kent, have you stopped to consider whether your idea is actually practical? It's likely such a climbing park would have to be administered by someone other than the Preserve. The Preserve, as an organization, was founded for a specific purpose and must adhere to its bylaws. That purpose, it should be obvious, is to preserve land first, and to allow consistent recreational opportunities second. You are asking the Preserve to violate its own bylaws and acquire a thin strip of land based only upon its recreational value, and not its preservation value.





Why couldn't the GCC "administer" the climbing park?? Now THAT would get folks' attention.

Top
#16887 - 11/14/05 08:28 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Mike Rawdon]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
yeah you're right that would get attention. we could form a commune, drink lots of kool-aid and run the place entirely on unskilled, unpaid volunteer labor. the results would be, ahem, stunning.

climbers could squat on the land, too, just like they used to do on the carriage road. it's brilliant.


Edited by pedestrian (11/14/05 08:39 PM)

Top
#16888 - 11/14/05 10:10 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Mike Rawdon]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1041
Loc: hamlet\'s hand
Why couldn't the GCC "administer" the climbing park?? Now THAT would get folks' attention.





We've floated the idea for other projects. We're just not sure we've got the time, legal werewithal, and bodies to do it, yet.
_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.

Top
#16889 - 11/14/05 10:49 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: yorick]
ScottR Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 99
You must be kidding me. The Southeast Climbers Coalition administers the climbing at Little Rock City, TN, purchased Boat Rock in Atlanta, GA, Jamestown, AL, and is about to lease Castle Rock, TN, and you are trying to say that the climbing community in the the most populated part of the country can't summon up the financial, legal and human resources to adminster a climbing area. That is a sad commentary.

Top
#16890 - 11/14/05 11:23 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: ScottR]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1041
Loc: hamlet\'s hand
Yep, they're our heroes.

You want to volunteer to open and close the gate every day?
_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.

Top
#16891 - 11/15/05 01:29 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: yorick]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Why do climbing parks need gates?

Or Kiosks, permits, tickets, hours of operation, trails, fixed anchors, committees, websites, membership cards, signs, lawyers, by-laws, mission statements etc etc.

Top
#16892 - 11/15/05 10:48 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: pedestrian]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Kent, have you stopped to consider whether your idea is actually practical? It's likely such a climbing park would have to be administered by someone other than the Preserve. The Preserve, as an organization, was founded for a specific purpose and must adhere to its bylaws. That purpose, it should be obvious, is to preserve land first, and to allow consistent recreational opportunities second. You are asking the Preserve to violate its own bylaws and acquire a thin strip of land based only upon its recreational value, and not its preservation value.

Can you really fault the GCC for not taking action on an impractical proposal? Do you have a serious proposal waiting in the wings that we're still waiting to hear?

I've posted a response to this in the GCC Issue thread.

Top
#16893 - 11/15/05 01:28 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Mike Rawdon]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1041
Loc: hamlet\'s hand
Quote:

Why do climbing parks need gates?





To keep out the ATVs...and the lawyers.
_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.

Top
#16894 - 06/06/06 11:18 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: yorick]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
From Yorick

Quote:

Should Awosting be turned over to PIPC and Minnewaska, I am trusting that the rhetoric I've heard from state officials - which so far is nothing if not about minimizing ridge fragmentation - will be their highest priority. And I know whom to speak to and where to write emails/letters, should this prove not to be the case.




Chris S- You might want to ready a draft letter to the state officials you speak of above. Parking is becoming a real problem on Gardiner town roads in the vicinity of Awosting. Reportedly, many complaints have been made to town hall and many parking tickets have been issued. From the Gardiner Town Board''s Agenda for tonight's town meeting:
Quote:

Item 3.1.1 PIPC/Minnewaska State Preserve Representatives Discuss Awosting Reserve access and plans




They are going to have to do something eventually as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of outdoor enthusiasts now know Awosting has become state land. Rather than entering Minnewaska through Sam's Point or the 44/55 entrance, they will keep flowing to Awosting through Gardiner, as the path of least resistance, like the incoming tide.

Top
#16895 - 06/06/06 11:47 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kent]
Kevin Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/17/99
Posts: 201
Kent, do you have actual numbers? From what I have seen there has been very few people actually in the new Awosting Reserve area... Granted I have not been there everyday, but a few times that parking was never a problem when I was going ot leaving.

How many complaints?
How many tickets?

Why only selective enforcement? If Gardiner wanted to rake in some serious money, they should have whoever is enforcing this 'problem' go enforce other problem areas like the overlooks... Or is it that the overlooks are not in 'their' backyards so less of a real concern?

Top
#16896 - 06/07/06 12:05 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kevin]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Kevin, I don't have actual numbers, just reports from a few friends who live down there, so this is all second hand. Though there have been enough complaints for the town board to ask for a presentation from PIPC on how they are going to manage access. The problem seems to be there is simply no funding or plan for access to or rangering at Awosting yet. So people are just wanting to get out and enjoy the land. But there aren't any parking lots or entrances of maps or anything, so people are parking wherever and exploring.

The idea that the state will be able to funnel access through Sam's Point and the Main 44/55 entrance seems very unrealistic. People want to see Awosting Reserve, and both of the aforementioned access points require long walks and descents into AR. People are going to skip what the state wants them to do and find ways to get in where they don't have to walk very far.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, a few town roads and a few residents are going to bear the brunt of traffic, legal or otherwise, into Awosting.

I don't think the selective enforcement is about revenue generation but rather is a result of complaints from affected people. The overlook isn't really in anyone's backyard so no one has complained. Personally though, I think use of the overlook for all day parking, by people of various recreational stripes, is pretty obnoxious.


Edited by Kent (06/07/06 12:59 PM)

Top
#16897 - 06/07/06 12:06 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kevin]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

Registered: 04/06/06
Posts: 75
Loc: NY, CA, Deutschland
Quote:

Kent, do you have actual numbers? From what I have seen there has been very few people actually in the new Awosting Reserve area... Granted I have not been there everyday, but a few times that parking was never a problem when I was going ot leaving.

How many complaints?
How many tickets?

Why only selective enforcement? If Gardiner wanted to rake in some serious money, they should have whoever is enforcing this 'problem' go enforce other problem areas like the overlooks... Or is it that the overlooks are not in 'their' backyards so less of a real concern?





I have some friends in that area who have complained about the traffic and the people crossing their property from Awosting. The season is early though, and it will likely get worse as the days heat up. This will be a new problem and will probably take a season or two to iron out the problems. Selective enforcement comes from minimal resources. How much revenue do you think Gardiner would make from enforcing the overlook?

Top
#16898 - 06/07/06 12:08 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: smokejumper1]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
10-15 cars, 2-3 times a day, on beautiful saturdays and sundays.

Top
#16899 - 06/29/06 08:24 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: smokejumper1]
Pamela Offline
stranger

Registered: 03/05/06
Posts: 17
Loc: Gardiner NY
[quote Selective enforcement comes from minimal resources. How much revenue do you think Gardiner would make from enforcing the overlook?




I live in Gardiner, and my home is on the S Mt. Road bordering Awosting land. The state made a presentation at the June town meeting, given by a Michael Krish, the Minnewaska Park Manger. There are currently no plans to add a formal access, as they admit that the land was suddenly "dumped" in their laps, more than doubling the park size. However, the funding to support the added land has not increased, nor has the personnel to oversee the land.

Gardiner has no police force. We rely on the state police, who's best use of resources is not giving out tickets at the overlook. We have one part time code enforcement officer. We have an all volunteer fire/emergency crew. If the climbers would like to support them, they can go to the Neighborhood Block Party from 6-11PM on Saturday July 1.at teh GFD (Gardiner Fire Department) on 44/55. Donation of $20 includes buffet dinner and raffle.

I dread the summer months coming as more people find out about the Awosting land addition, and who think it will be open as part of the park. I hope they don't want to get there by way of my yard.

PS. I go by the Multiple Abuse Areas every day to and from my job. It's disgusting...especially those people who leave bags of garbage and can't read the "carry in-carry-out" notice. I guess they think the garbage service that Gardiner doesn't have will pick it up for them.

That's all.



Edited by Pamela (06/30/06 01:17 PM)

Top
#16900 - 06/29/06 10:26 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Pamela]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
I know this is sliding off topic, but
Quote:

PS. I go by the Multiple Abuse Areas every day to and from my job. It's disgusting...especially those people who leave bags of garbage and can't read the "carry in-carry-out" notice.





People are slobs. not everyone, but in general. Rather than giving them a clean area with plenty of trash cans where someone might actually feel guilty for leaving a mess; tell those same lazy poeple who will only some times use the trash cans if you provide them, they have to carry out all their trash no matter how much they don't want it in their car.

I have seen quite a few parks do this, and in every case it seems to be the most potent recipe for the most disgusting messes I have been unfortunate enough to come across. I'm not justifiying those messes, simply asking what did the managers expect - it's not any different than anywhere else.

Top
#16901 - 06/30/06 12:27 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: mworking]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Agreed. Carry in-carry out is generally a failure.

Unless I suppose you count it as a success if 95% of the folks take their trash with them (vs probaly close to zero if there are cans available). It comes down to the site operator having to deal with somewhat less garbage.

Top
#16902 - 06/30/06 01:29 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
This was a picture I shot at the early part of this climbing season, at the MUA on the side closer to 45/55.

The stack of trash was there for 3 weekends before it got hauled away, and each weekend, it grew larger.

Each weekend I took the empty cans and bottles and put them in the recyle bos at the deli. Each weekend I engaged people who were eyeing the thing up as if it were the "official" trash dump, in an attempt to make them aware that dumping trash was "not the right way." One guy, I saw toss a soda bottle in it as he walked by. I said "Hey - I know people dumped this crap here, but this area has a policy of carrying out what we bring in." He snarked "It wasn't mine. I saw it in the parking area, and was good enough to put it here."

Anyway - I can say that of all the folks I've ever seen tossing crap, acting obnoxiously, etc., they are not loal, regular-to-the-area people, and they tend not to be climbers, either. I think that those who are regular to the area know the deal and, for the most part, respect it. But people come from far away, on maybe the once a year to the Gunks trip, and they simply don't expect to see the primative set up. And it's not like there are easily identifiable spots to dispose of refuse properly.

While I think the phot above is a glaring example of bad behavior, I think that sometimes, people just don't know what to do, and even though they know it is wrong.....they slink off and add their "just one small bag, what can that hurt" mentality to the pile someone else has already left.

It's not the locals who need the education - it's those valued dollar-spending tourists from other areas...... How do we go about educataing them, and offering a VIABLE solution? You would "think" the Carry In/Carry Out" signage shold be self-explanatory, but clearly - it isn't 100% effective.

What CAN we do????

I wondered what the cost is, of having a trash receptacle with regular cleanup, say from March through November? If it were at even just one of the sides, andat the other, there was a sign explaining about the receptacle at the other location, I think people would use it.

Would it be even be possible to have this ammenity, or is the beurocratic process too cumbersome? What is involved? has there ever BEEN trash receptacles there? If it were possible to happen, we could have a fundraiser to pay for the thing, and also have a "donations" box right next to the trash bin, with signage explaining it's cost.....


Just a thought. I know the MUA is supposed to be "low impact" camping, but which is worse? 3 weeks of rotted garbage, or a recycle/trash bin?
_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#16903 - 06/30/06 02:00 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Terrie]
Pamela Offline
stranger

Registered: 03/05/06
Posts: 17
Loc: Gardiner NY
Terrie: Thanks for this photo, it was exactly the incident I was referring to. Honestly, it made me feel guilty driving by every day, but I was not about to pick it up and haul around garbage in the trunk of my car all day. And, I pay almost $100 a month to Waste Management to take my garbage at my house. The other alternative is to take it to the Gardiner Transfer station, and pay $3 or $4 dollars a bag to have them take it. And, I'm sorry to say that if you put trash recepticles at the MAA's, you would probably have some people from Gardiner using them to rid themselves of their trash for free(free is a relative term, as we all end up paying for it in the end).

Yes, this is off topic. But it shows that the State cannot adequately oversee and manage two small camp areas, so how are they expected to manage and police 6,000 acres in Gardiner. Oh, and the state has erected what they indicated will be solutions to the unauthorized parking on Gardiner roads. On one preserve entrance (off S. Mountain road), they have put up an "Authorized Vehicles Only" sign. At the town meeting they indicated they were putting these up to deter people from parking on the roads. Ha ha.


Top
#16904 - 06/30/06 06:23 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Pamela]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
Quote:

But it shows that the State cannot adequately oversee and manage two small camp areas, so how are they expected to manage and police 6,000 acres in Gardiner.




I don't think the "no trash receptacles" choice for the MUA is relevant to the ability to oversee the new addionm to the preserve. A decision was made - no trash cans at the MUA.

Interesting - and probably true - that people might use MUA trash as a way to reduce their own cost of trash removal, and a point that would need to be considered if they ever did put bins at the MUA. With the new camping area "in the works," I don't think there's much chance trash receptacles will be on any agenda soon though.....

_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#16905 - 06/30/06 10:20 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Terrie]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
I have personally watched someone - presumably a local resident - drive to the back of the Preserve Visitor Center and place several bags of garbage from their car into the dumpster there.

If WM charges upwards of $100/mo, then it's a wonder every road in the whole freakin' town isn't lined with trash.

Top
#16906 - 08/30/06 06:12 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Pamela Offline
stranger

Registered: 03/05/06
Posts: 17
Loc: Gardiner NY
Sorry, I did write $100/month....it's actually for a quarter - 3 month period. However, the town does have transfer station charges to bring garbage there...off of Steve's Lane in Gardiner. That's if you don't have it picked up by a private hauler like WM.

I'm not so much annoyed at the people who camp at the MAA, I just wish Mohonk Preserve would use some of their precious land to put camgrounds in, and maybe some bathrooms. They boast of 1 million visitors a year, where do they expect these people to sleep and poop?

Top
#16907 - 08/30/06 08:19 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Pamela]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3765
Loc: Ulster County, NY
Pamela, now you're talking crazy talk!!!

RR

Top
#16908 - 09/02/06 02:25 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: RangerRob]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
Kent Wrote:
Quote:

They are going to have to do something eventually as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of outdoor enthusiasts now know Awosting has become state land. Rather than entering Minnewaska through Sam's Point or the 44/55 entrance, they will keep flowing to Awosting through Gardiner, as the path of least resistance, like the incoming tide.




Regarding access and Awosting, respectfully I believe yours and others fears are being pushed out of proportion especially if you look at other recent examples regarding access.

Over on my our side of the ridge the PIPC did acquire a few years ago the land near Stony Kill Falls that now allows a short easy ½ mile walk from the nearest road to access the highest falls on the Shawangunk ridge. (This previously required a several mile hike decent from the parking area at the main entrance. To date they have put zero improvements as to parking or access. Yes people come and park at the end of the one way dirt road, but the frequency and numbers are very, very low. This is a much more of an attractive and easily accessible feature then Awosting IMHO. In fact the only people that use this access are mostly all locals, not the out of towers. There are a number of other access points all over the ridge that are not publish or made official on PIPC, Mohonk Preserve and Hotel lands. A safe bet would be that 99% of users of these access points are locals. If the park leaves access as it is today, you will see a general decline of people attempting access, not an increase.

Top
#16909 - 09/06/06 12:28 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Smike]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
From RangerRob in another thread: "...how in the heck are they going to build a huge access point for buses??"
and
"....they can't make changes like that unless it is firmly stated in the master plan."


If I'm not mistaken the Minnewaska master plan was for a specific piece of land and does not necessarily apply to any subsequent additions. I'm not a New York State history buff, but I believe they also sometimes do things despite public opposition and sometimes spend large sums of money despite seemingly having no budget.

That said, I like Smike's observation below.

From Smike: "Over on my our side of the ridge the PIPC did acquire a few years ago the land near Stony Kill Falls that now allows a short easy ½ mile walk from the nearest road to access the highest falls on the Shawangunk ridge. (This previously required a several mile hike decent from the parking area at the main entrance. To date they have put zero improvements as to parking or access. Yes people come and park at the end of the one way dirt road, but the frequency and numbers are very, very low. This is a much more of an attractive and easily accessible feature then Awosting IMHO. In fact the only people that use this access are mostly all locals, not the out of towers. There are a number of other access points all over the ridge that are not publish or made official on PIPC, Mohonk Preserve and Hotel lands. A safe bet would be that 99% of users of these access points are locals. If the park leaves access as it is today, you will see a general decline of people attempting access, not an increase."

This is a good point. If the state doesn't advertise the Awosting point of access then I would be cautiously optimistic about the impact of car traffic in that neighborhood, and such traffic might be a wash with or even less than any traffic that would have resulted from Bradley's proposed development. In hindsight, and taken on the whole, in my view the whole traffic thing at Awosting, is a non-issue, for now.

Top
#57006 - 04/01/11 09:31 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kent]
Advocacy group Offline
addict

Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 653
Loc: New Paltz,Marbletown,Gardiner,...
On 3.29.2011 Kent was interviewed for a half hour on the very topics covered in this thread. Go to mykcr.org to hear the interview. Thanks MPNA
_________________________
The MPNA is an advocacy group for adjacent neighbors of the Mohonk Preserve. In the event of a dispute with the Mohonk Preserve, we can offer assistance in obtaining experts in the following areas; Surveying, Lawyers, Title, expert witnesses, ancient document research, and Maps.

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


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored