Just an observation on the supposed "Shawangunk Biodiversity Partnership" referenced on the front page of gunks.com today. This is still really the Mohonk Preserve and the Nature Conservancy invoking the names of other organizations, supposed members of the "partnership", to lend credibility to all that the partnership does. But there is no partnership. There is no phone number or address listed for the partnership anywhere, including the New York Secretary of States Office. Contact links on gunksfireplan.org, the web site listed for the prescribed burns, are for Nature Conservancy and Mohonk Preserve employees. The brochure for the parthership is up on the Preserve's website. The domain name gunksfireplan.org is registered to The Nature Conservancy.

This is the building of an identity for an organization that doesn't exist, for the purpose of influencing the local political processes of master planning and zoning in favor of the Mohonk Preserve and the Nature Concervancy, and at the expense of smaller landowners on the ridge.

Kent,

When I climb I climb with a partner!
The fact that we don't have a partnership website or phone number does not mean we are not partners!
Today you sound as paranoid as I do sometimes.

If you have problem with the fires please tell us what it is.

In your hypothetical climbing partner scenario, were you to spend $50,000 the day after you were climbing and claim it was from your partnership, when all of the money came from you, it would be deceitful. So too, when the Mohonk Preserve gives Peter Fairweather $50,000 for work on the Green Assets Program of the partnership, it is deceitful. The money doesn't come from members of the partnership, it comes from the Mohonk Preserve.

I don't have any probem with the prescribed burns. I have a problem with the Mohonk Preserve giving money to Peter Fairweather, ostensibly for the Green Assets Program of the Shawangunk Biodiversity Partnership. Peter Fairweather is the same planner writing master plans for towns around the Preserve.

Ok, as you describe it , this sounds like a conflict of interest.
But, it also sounds like a a town planning problem not a Preserve problem.

Ok, as you describe it , this sounds like a conflict of interest.

This conflict of interest is the subject of an Article 78 challenge to the Town Of Gardiner's Master Plan.

But, it also sounds like a a town planning problem not a Preserve problem.

It's a problem for the Preserve in that some Preserve neighbors, myself included, regard the Preserve's payment to Peter Fairweather, under the guise of the Shawangunk Biodiversity "Partnership", as a betrayal of trust.

What's that old adage about politics and sausage making?

Many have the luxury of not watching. Others among us are in the meat grinder.

I fail to see the devious nature of this. The organizations listed all favor preservation of the ridge for ecological and related purposes. There does not appear to be anything hidden or sinister about their motives. Of course the rich 'members' fund and direct the work of the partnership. In most organizations, 10% of the people do 99 % of the work.

From what you say, it sounds like the question of the planners conflict of interest will be resolved via due process.

"I fail to see the devious nature of this. The organizations listed all favor preservation of the ridge for ecological and related purposes. There does not appear to be anything hidden or sinister about their motives. Of course the rich 'members' fund and direct the work of the partnership. In most organizations, 10% of the people do 99 % of the work."


One example of the Nature Conservancy's skullduggery was the purchase of a farm and surrounding land in Martha's Vineyard (64 million for 215 acres of land). Part of the campaign to "Save the Earth's Last Great Places" . Supposed to preserve the space for the commoners and all that. Except that the NC allowed half of the land to be sold to David Latterman and several others (Goldman Sachs and Oracle developers) to purchase parcels for their private use and development. NC officials tout the move as a way to preserve 1/2 the parcel and limit development on the other.

I found that distasteful as well. I guess all that money had to come from somewhere, though. If the alternative was 100% development, they may have had to make the devils bargain.

Do you have any word that is what is happening here on the ridge?

===========
Backgrounder on the MV deal:

The skirmishes regarding the fate of Edgartown’s Herring Creek Farm started more than a decade ago. Local furor greeted the initial proposal to transform a 215-acre cattle farm, owned by Neil and Monte Wallace, into buildable lots for 54 houses. Former MV Commission member Leonard Jason Jr. reportedly complained, “It’s another farm that’s getting whacked up into little pieces. The great Pond is there, the farmland is going to be gone - that’s not my idea of Martha’s Vineyard.”

Lawsuits later, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission passed a revised plan for a 33-lot subdivision for houses. Meanwhile a small conglomerate, including late-night talk show host David Letterman, The Nature Conservancy, the three dreamers plus a business plan, arranged to purchase the land for $64 million to establish the F.A.R.M Institute and eight priceless house lots. To complete the transaction, a quick succession of sales rock practitioners of leisurely “Vineyard time” into a New York frenzy. While nervous neighbors still needed mollification, in the end the parties involved toasted the completion of this highly complex landmark deal.

“It was a long process, but certainly the results are truly remarkable,” admits John Curelli.