Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 12 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#21191 - 06/07/06 02:49 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: phlan]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

That does not contradict what I said. I see all of you have done your homework and I commend you all for doing such a good job. I am so glad we are all in agreement on so many things.

I do stick to the facts in that the Preserve does own and manage the lions share of the significant rock climbing resources of the Gunks. If you'd like to kid around, go ahead I have a good sense of humor.

You're barking up the wrong tree however. Land acquisition is not handled by Glenn Hoagland or the Preserve. If you've got all these issues with land acquisition, why don't you talk to OSI. Putting these things on an internet forum is not going to get you any response.

OSI is the 900 pound gorilla of land acquisition in the Gunks for public use. Their web site and contact information is public. www.osiny.com. Talk to them.

As Museumdork pointed out, it's no wonder Mr. Hoagland does not respond to you. I would certainly not if I were him. As you know I'm not going to get in the middle of this feud. Just a little piece of advice for my doggy friends.

Chris




Nice post. Some land acquisition projects are indeed handled by Glen Hoagland. I have seen his signature on a few.......He's the executive director, he is totally involved in the process. What makes you say that he does not handle any land acquisition projects? If Hoagland chooses not to respond here, he will be made to respond in other venues. Nothing that I have written is false, that is why Hoagland has not responded. He can't respond, the facts are against him. I hope people decide to do the research themselves, they will find some really ugly stuff about the preserve. I hope people stop supporting the MP while they continue their unacceptable land acquisition practices and poor neighborly relations. This will make them change, when they get hit financially. As I have said before, the MP is a great idea that should be supported by all, just not under the current circumstances. It blows my mind how seemingly intelligent people turn a blind eye so they can climb.

Tschus Hund

Top
#21192 - 06/07/06 02:59 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
phlan Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 02/11/00
Posts: 2778
Loc: Gardiner, NY
Fair 'nuff, mein freund.

I have yet to see anything posted here to make me change my mind and I doubt that I ever will.

5 stars to all. No - I give 10 stars to Glenn Hoagland, my favorite fish.

Tshuess und gute Nacht!
_________________________
Support Your Local Farmer!

Top
#21193 - 06/08/06 01:59 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: phlan]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Blue words are quotes of Phlan

I have a good sense of humor.

Chris, it's nice to see you have found your sense of humor again. Perhaps soon you will also find your sense of right and wrong.

OSI is the 900 pound gorilla of land acquisition in the Gunks for public use.

Thanks for making this point. It would be more accurate though to say The Preserve, OSI, and The Nature Conservancy collaborate. And with assets over 100 million dollars OSI is certainly the 900 pound gorilla but I guess that would make TNC the 36,000 pound gorilla with assets of 4 billion. The Preserve gets the brunt of the criticism here because they have used quit claim deeds against their neighbors, set up the charade of the Shawangunk Ridge Biodiversity Partnership to lobby local regulatory bodies, and openly called for the passage of the Gardiner zoning law that strips conservation easements away from Preserve neighbors without any compensation.

it's no wonder Mr. Hoagland does not respond to you. I would certainly not if I were him.

Glen Hoagland and his minions respond to letters written to the local weekly paper with the usual prevarications. But the weekly paper doesn't allow for an immediate response or any kind of real dialog. They don't respond here because the prevarications they offer will be challenged with the immediacy this forum allows. They don't respond here because their behavior is indefensible.

As a climber, I choose to support them and most climbers that I know support them as well.

Chris, as chair of the GCC and as the local representative of the Access Fund, one would think it would be wise for you to maintain good relationships with all landowners along the cliff. Instead you have articulated support of the zoning law as a means to coerce landowners to sell and at a lower price. You have steadfastly refused to talk to independent landowners along the cliff. You have identified yourself as a "poodle for the preserve and proud of it". You have stated your unwavering support for the Preserve despite solid evidence they have engaged in behavior that is very damaging to their neighbors.

Your words Chris Moratz, Chair of the Gunks Climbers Coalition, Regional Coordinator for the Access Fund, more than the words of any other, have made the closure of independently owned land along the cliff more a question of when than if.

WUFF


Edited by Kent (06/08/06 09:44 PM)

Top
#21194 - 06/08/06 03:28 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
phlan Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 02/11/00
Posts: 2778
Loc: Gardiner, NY
Hello my good friend Mr. Kent Pierce,

I do care about this issue and have been pursuing it. In fact here is what I have done since our meeting last year. I have identified one of our volunteers who lives on North Mountain Road to help us with this issue. Currently he is involved with work for FEMA, but I think if we got a list of all the names and phone numbers of the "Mohonk Neighbors" from you, Mr. Pierce, we can start to pursue contacting and interviewing the neighbors and hear their concerns. You had given us a partial list of these neighbors in a meeting last year. This is of course a very big and time consuming project for which I personally do not have time, but I have identified someone who has indicated would be willing to help with this important project.

I've compiled a bulletin for all of our other projects which will be posted on our forum very shortly!

Thanks for your time.
Your humble servant,

Chris Moratz
Regional Coordinator Access Fund
GCC Chair


PS: I think some of my comments about land values and acquisitions have been unfortunately taken out of context. Land prices go up and down all the time and are controlled by market forces beyond anyone's control, not just zoning laws. any landowner knows that?
_________________________
Support Your Local Farmer!

Top
#21195 - 06/08/06 03:47 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: phlan]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5981
Loc: 212 land
I do care about this issue and have been pursuing it. In fact here is what I have done since our meeting last year. I have identified one of our volunteers who lives on North Mountain Road to help us with this issue. Currently he is involved with work for FEMA, but I think if we got a list of all the names and phone numbers of the "Mohonk Neighbors" from you, Mr. Pierce, we can start to pursue contacting and interviewing the neighbors and hear their concerns. You had given us a partial list of these neighbors in a meeting last year. This is of course a very big and time consuming project for which I personally do not have time, but I have identified someone who has indicated would be willing to help with this important project.

Does this mean that the thread and its issue can be laid to rest until the above project is completed and a report written?
_________________________

Top
#21196 - 06/08/06 09:31 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: phlan]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Phlan aka Chris Moratz's words

PS: I think some of my comments about land values and acquisitions have been unfortunately taken out of context. Land prices go up and down all the time and are controlled by market forces beyond anyone's control, not just zoning laws. any landowner knows that?

Of course land prices go up and down due to market forces. In this case though, the town, with the help of Steal The Ridge and the Mohonk Pre$erve, ganged up on a few dozen landowners to confiscate conservation easements from them. It had nothing to do with market forces. It had everything to do with greed.

And your comments haven't been taken out of context Chris. In the context of a discussion here on gunks.com about closing independently owned land in response to the zoning law, you articulated to your constituents that you supported the law because it might motivate landowners to sell their land and at a lower price. In that same context you said "we" will sue to retain access to closed land, presumably with a claim of prescriptive easement (which would be ludicrous I might add). At the same time, in a PM to me you shared your "Ă„merica, love it or leave it" sentiment when you wrote "if you don't like the zoning, why don't you move out of Gardiner".

Your incendiary statements and viewpoints have been presented entirely in context.



Edited by Kent (06/09/06 01:16 AM)

Top
#21197 - 06/08/06 09:33 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: oenophore]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Does this mean that the thread and its issue can be laid to rest until the above project is completed and a report written?

The original point of this thread was to challenge Glen Hoagland to respectfully and truthfully answer the Preserve's critics. As yet he has failed to do so.

Top
#21198 - 06/08/06 11:12 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
So uh,

Real estate in Gardiner is still pretty much a seller's market right?

And that's unchanged by the zoning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.



The town of Gardiner has expressed its will that it doesn't want development along the ridge. Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the existing lots (only 9 or so along the nears) weren't really subdividable anyway -- " the geography imposes its own limits" on where to build.

Were any of these owners really individually shafted, i.e., they would have been able to subdivide under the old zoning but now can't? There were no plans in the works for a developer to buy up, say, all 9 lots and put in condos, and the town would have been within its rights to block such an action.

If possible subdivision rights were taken away some of these owners probably have standing to sue. And that's fine. They should go ahead. Maybe there's some compensation they can reap and are entitled to -- the town of Gardiner seems to think that there isn't aren't any "hardship cases" here that are worthy of compensation. They wouldn't have taken the zoning step if they weren't prepared to face the possibility of legal action and didn't think that legal action was a worthy price to pay to stop development.

mountain? molehill?

I don't know who is more comical with their extreme statements, Kent or Chris. Both of you win a prize for religious fervor. 5 stars all around. smokejumper gets 5, too, by the way.


Edited by pedestrian (06/08/06 11:15 PM)

Top
#21199 - 06/09/06 12:32 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: pedestrian]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

So uh,

Real estate in Gardiner is still pretty much a seller's market right?

And that's unchanged by the zoning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.



The town of Gardiner has expressed its will that it doesn't want development along the ridge. Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the existing lots (only 9 or so along the nears) weren't really subdividable anyway -- " the geography imposes its own limits" on where to build.

Were any of these owners really individually shafted, i.e., they would have been able to subdivide under the old zoning but now can't? There were no plans in the works for a developer to buy up, say, all 9 lots and put in condos, and the town would have been within its rights to block such an action.

If possible subdivision rights were taken away some of these owners probably have standing to sue. And that's fine. They should go ahead. Maybe there's some compensation they can reap and are entitled to -- the town of Gardiner seems to think that there isn't aren't any "hardship cases" here that are worthy of compensation. They wouldn't have taken the zoning step if they weren't prepared to face the possibility of legal action and didn't think that legal action was a worthy price to pay to stop development.

mountain? molehill?

I don't know who is more comical with their extreme statements, Kent or Chris. Both of you win a prize for religious fervor. 5 stars all around. smokejumper gets 5, too, by the way.




Thanks, but am I your favorite fish?

Top
#21200 - 06/09/06 12:40 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: phlan]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

Hello my good friend Mr. Kent Pierce,

I do care about this issue and have been pursuing it. In fact here is what I have done since our meeting last year. I have identified one of our volunteers who lives on North Mountain Road to help us with this issue. Currently he is involved with work for FEMA, but I think if we got a list of all the names and phone numbers of the "Mohonk Neighbors" from you, Mr. Pierce, we can start to pursue contacting and interviewing the neighbors and hear their concerns. You had given us a partial list of these neighbors in a meeting last year. This is of course a very big and time consuming project for which I personally do not have time, but I have identified someone who has indicated would be willing to help with this important project.

I've compiled a bulletin for all of our other projects which will be posted on our forum very shortly!

Thanks for your time.
Your humble servant,

Chris Moratz
Regional Coordinator Access Fund
GCC Chair


PS: I think some of my comments about land values and acquisitions have been unfortunately taken out of context. Land prices go up and down all the time and are controlled by market forces beyond anyone's control, not just zoning laws. any landowner knows that?





Are you saying that zoning laws don't affect land prices? If you own a 20 acre parcel that is able to be subdivided, and then the law changes the status of your property so that it can't, the value will drop (so will your assessment, I would hope). And how have your comments been taken out of context? Your view seems pretty clear to me.........

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


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored