Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 12 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#21171 - 05/23/06 10:31 PM Dear Glen Hoagland
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

Registered: 04/06/06
Posts: 75
Loc: NY, CA, Deutschland
Dear Glen Hoagland,

In a recent post on Gunks.com entitled "an open letter to the Mohonk Preserve" you state that the Mohonk Preserve has friendly relations with over 200 of your neighbors. How many of those 200 neighbors would call the Mohonk Preserve a friend? I note this because you only have 13 families on the post entitled "preserve neighbors speak up". If you are so friendly with the others, why such a short list? Have you had contact with all 200+ neighbors to attest to this friendship? Was the letter by Mrs. Boice Wick a fluke, or are there others that you wrongly spoke for. The "Preserve neighbors speak up" post was also under the Mohonk Preserve username which begs the question, did you have to solicit those names? Or were these "friendly" neighbors that you speak of, writting on their own behalf? I found Bob Anderberg's signature quite interesting. As the executive director, it would seem like a good idea to see why some of your neighbors are angry with You and the Mohonk Preserve. But the problem is, You just deny everything, fail to respond, or lie. An example of this can be seen in your response at the end of the Susan Boice Wick letter.

Glenn Hoagland, Executive Director of the Mohonk Preserve, responds to Susan Wick’s letter: “Having had a lengthy, amicable meeting with you several years ago, we are surprised that you have waited until now to air your concerns- and in the press, rather than to the Preserve directly. If you would like to discuss and resolve these issues directly, please contact me directly. The Preserve policy is to work one-on-one with our neighbors to reach agreements, rather than misdirecting such communications via the press. We look forward to hearing from you”.

You appear surprised that she is so angry, I guess you thought you were friends..... Well Glen, wake up! How many of the people on the "preserve neighbors speak up post" have you contacted, after this post was submitted, to try and remedy the problem? People are pissed Glen, and your 200+ friendly neighbors speech is as tiring as Bush's Iraq speech. Even your response to Susan Boice Wick is full of contradictions. For example you wrote in the above statement "The Preserve policy is to work one-on-one with our neighbors to reach agreements, rather than misdirecting such communications via the press." Yet you use the press in the same way that the Mohonk Neighbors did. As the executive director of the Mohonk Preserve an explaination to the above questions is requested. Thanks.

I look forward to your response.

Top
#21172 - 05/25/06 02:37 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
drkodos Offline
addict

Registered: 05/02/04
Posts: 674
Loc: Chattanooga, TN
Holding you breath? hehehe


There will be no response. And if there is, it will be a vague, non-commital, non-denial denial that tells us nothing but attempts to spin the facts and make covert their warts.


Bureaucracies cannot afford to get into pissing contests because they could actually lose.





_________________________

Top
#21173 - 05/25/06 02:51 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: drkodos]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

Holding you breath? hehehe


There will be no response. And if there is, it will be a vague, non-commital, non-denial denial that tells us nothing but attempts to spin the facts and make covert their warts.


Bureaucracies cannot afford to get into pissing contests because they could actually lose.











I am willing to hear their spin on it.............Bueller.........Bueller........anyone.......Hoagland......

Top
#21174 - 05/27/06 07:46 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
drkodos Offline
addict

Registered: 05/02/04
Posts: 674
Loc: Chattanooga, TN
Still waiting.

















_________________________

Top
#21175 - 05/30/06 12:07 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: drkodos]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

Still waiting.



Well Dr K. It's only been a week.......... Maybe Glen is on vacation, had a family emergency, or is contemplating a well thought out response. I'm sure he'll get around to it soon, I mean, saving the land for life is a big job.





















Top
#21176 - 05/30/06 01:22 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
museumdork Offline
Site Supporter

Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 110
Loc: new paltz
Quote:

But the problem is, You just deny everything, fail to respond, or lie.




part of the difficulty in Web communication seems to be that irony is lost, so I can't tell if you truly expect a reply from Glen.

Me? I wouldn't even bother responding to someone who wrote the above. But that's just me.

Or perhaps Glen is suspicious of anonymous diatribes. Kodos (Richard) and certainly Kent put their names to their words. Why not sign your post so he can know who's talking to him?

Of course, if you were being ironic, well then just forget everything I said.

Dell

Top
#21177 - 06/05/06 04:15 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: museumdork]
drkodos Offline
addict

Registered: 05/02/04
Posts: 674
Loc: Chattanooga, TN
Well, my family membership has expired and The Preserve will never get anymore money from me.



Of course, that is what they really want anyway. I am not their type of people. Nor are they mine.


I hope one day the enitre house of cards collapses and the land is available for private purchase. That's the only time when I would be willing to spend any of my money again on the ridge. I support private development and do not support any of these self-serving, lying and vaccuous bureaucracies that have their own survival and growth as their main objective.

Save the ridge?

Nikkah, please. You want to save it? Stop climbing there and allowing hundred of idiots to crawl along it every weekend. Until I see that happening, The Preserve remains in my eyes merely a front for private enterprise to masquerade as a filter to only allow those special people to develop along the ridge. Like that idiotic white elephant visitor center built right into the talus slope.

When they come to their sense and move that stupid pit toilet from the Uberfall I might reconsider, but I doubt it. Nothing is as telling as to what they really think of climbers, and how the Access Fund feels as well, for putting that stinky sh*t hole in the most crowded part of the ridge so that everyone can smell it on hot days in the summer.



You people that enjoy looking at the naked emperor and his dangling genitalia go right ahead and keep doing so.



I'm out.


Later.










_________________________

Top
#21178 - 06/05/06 01:06 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: drkodos]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
So, let me get this straight. You're not going to climb at the gunks anymore?

Top
#21179 - 06/06/06 02:19 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: strat]
drkodos Offline
addict

Registered: 05/02/04
Posts: 674
Loc: Chattanooga, TN
Quote:

So, let me get this straight. You're not going to climb at the gunks anymore?





When did I state that?


I don't ever remember needing a membership to climb at the Bank since that is not Preserve property anyway. Neither is most of the Near Trapps.

F the Preserve. They can eat my bragiole.

I have pumped enough of my resources into that area in the past 25 years. I will climb on my friends passes if need be.


Either way, no more dinero from DeCredico. Comprende?

_________________________

Top
#21180 - 06/06/06 06:02 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: drkodos]
drkodos Offline
addict

Registered: 05/02/04
Posts: 674
Loc: Chattanooga, TN
Currently in the process of returning-to-sender all the propaganda they pump out and send me.

Although, I am thinking fondly of saving it all and dumping it on their doorsteps. Let them deal with the waste disposal issue they have created. I get some piece of crap mailed to me every month begging for money and I have asked many times in both writing and verbally to be removed.

They don't seem to get the message. Now, it is time for Phase II.

_________________________

Top
#21181 - 06/06/06 07:48 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: drkodos]
phlan Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 02/11/00
Posts: 2778
Loc: Gardiner, NY
I don't know if you care and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

However, these are the facts.

The Preserve owns and manages all of Millbrook climbing north of Westward Ha.

They also own and manage almost all of the Nears. This makes them, like it or not, the manager of resources of the lion's share of climbing in the Gunks. As a boulderer*, I choose to support them and most climbers that I know support them as well.

Ok, commence with the devil horns salutes everyone.
666!!!

*I'm not a climber anymore. Yes, I am a boulderer now. Sometimes I still tie in to a rope, get a little higher off the deck and have gear dangling from my waist, but this poodle is not a climber. Not any more. Ha!


Edited by phlan (06/07/06 02:24 AM)
_________________________
Support Your Local Farmer!

Top
#21182 - 06/06/06 08:37 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: phlan]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

I don't know if you care and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

However, these are the facts.

The Preserve owns and manages all of Millbrook climbing north of Westward Ha.

They also own and manage almost all of the Nears. This makes them, like it or not, the manager of resources of the lion's share of climbing in the Gunks. As a climber, I choose to support them and most climbers that I know support them as well.

Ok, commence with the devil horns salutes everyone.
666!!!




No Soul.

Top
#21183 - 06/06/06 09:01 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: phlan]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
More accurately Chris, the Preserve owns roughly half of Millbrook, and roughly two-thirds of the Nears. There are nine pieces of land between the beginning of the Nears and the no mans land of the Bayards that are independently owned and go to the top of the ridge.

Your support of the Preserve, no matter their conduct, echoes supporters of President Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War effort at the height of the anti-war protests in the late sixties and early seventies, when they loudly proclaimed, "My Country, Right or Wrong".


Edited by Kent (06/06/06 09:19 PM)

Top
#21184 - 06/06/06 09:11 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: phlan]
drkodos Offline
addict

Registered: 05/02/04
Posts: 674
Loc: Chattanooga, TN
Quote:

I don't know if you care and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

However, these are the facts.

The Preserve owns and manages all of Millbrook climbing north of Westward Ha.

They also own and manage almost all of the Nears. This makes them, like it or not, the manager of resources of the lion's share of climbing in the Gunks. As a climber, I choose to support them and most climbers that I know support them as well.

Ok, commence with the devil horns salutes everyone.
666!!!




So what.

I will climb in the Trapps whenever I want to and I will not pay a penny.

MOST climbers do not support the Gunks. Maybe most of the ones you know, then I suggest you meet more people. I have supported the preserve for 25 years and I will not do so anymore because I am sick of their politics, their manuevering, and their lying.

I do not support closing the cliff for filthy rotten birds.
I do not want to pay for them to buy more land.
I do not ever use the visitor center.


There is not one thing that the preserve does that I feel the need to support. Not one. They are a bullsh*t organization that is intent on one thing: getting bigger and more bureaucratic. If all climbing along the ridge was lost I would not be upset in the least. There are thousands of other places to climb, and even if all of them were eliminated, I would still not care that much.

Climbing is a selfish pursuit. Period.

The day they start to support me and my own missions, I will reconsider.

Without the preserve, the rocks are still climbable.

I know that MANY (not all and maybe not you) people like yourself need these little orgs to feel like their lives have some value. So have at it. I never told you or anyone else to not support it, did I? I am not lobbying anyone else, just stating my own position that there will be glaciers in Las Vegas before the Mohonk Preserve ever gets another penny from me.



PS: I have never been approached for a membership in the over 250 times I have climbed at the Bank.







_________________________

Top
#21185 - 06/06/06 09:28 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: phlan]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
And for anyone wanting to put Phlan's (aka Chris Moratz, chair of the Gunk's Climbers Coalition) comments into further perspective, according to his gunks.com bio he is now a self-described "poodle for the Preserve, and proud of it". His perspective and enthusiastically blind support of the Preserve are exactly why he, the GCC, and the GCC climbers Chris represents are no friends to independent landowners in the Nears and at Millbrook.


Edited by Kent (06/07/06 02:08 AM)

Top
#21186 - 06/06/06 09:36 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
"Your support of the Preserve, no matter their conduct, echoes supporters of President Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War effort at the height of the anti-war protests in the late sixties and early seventies, when they loudly proclaimed, "My Country, Right or Wrong". "


Nixon ended the Vietnam War.


PS Kodos, there are 20 some acres for sale in Bayards



“At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that a true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love.”


Edited by alicex4 (06/06/06 09:39 PM)

Top
#21187 - 06/06/06 09:51 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: alicex4]
Kent Offline
old hand

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

Nixon ended the Vietnam War.




Nixon also invaded Cambodia with ground forces on April 25th, 1970, after a year of bombing, as part of the prosecution of the Vietnam War. The Kent State Massacre occurred during anti-war protests nine days later. At the same time, in demonstrations of support for the war, supporters were chanting "My Country, Right or Wrong" as well as the equally idiotic "America, Love it or Leave It". I remember these things quite clearly, or as clearly as can be reasonably expected through the fog of 36 years.


Quote:

PS Kodos, there are 20 some acres for sale in Bayards




The acreage is 16.2 to be exact. Edited to add Alicex4 might be referring to a second piece in the Bayards I had forgotten about that is 20 some acres as she suggests.


Edited by Kent (06/06/06 11:53 PM)

Top
#21188 - 06/06/06 10:13 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

Quote:

Nixon ended the Vietnam War.




Nixon also invaded Cambodia with ground forces on April 25th, 1970, after a year of bombing, as part of the prosecution of the Vietnam War. The Kent State Massacre occurred during anti-war protests nine days later. At the same time, in demonstrations of support for the war, supporters were chanting "My Country, Right or Wrong" as well as the equally idiotic "America, Love it or Leave It". I remember these things quite clearly, or as clearly as can be reasonably expected through the fog of 36 years


Quote:

PS Kodos, there are 20 some acres for sale in Bayards




The acreage is 16.2 to be exact.





The Preserve was trying to quit claim the other 3.8 acres to alicex4

Top
#21189 - 06/07/06 01:08 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

More accurately Chris, the Preserve owns roughly half of Millbrook, and roughly two-thirds of the Nears. There are nine pieces of land between the beginning of the Nears and the no mans land of the Bayards that are independently owned and go to the top of the ridge.

Your support of the Preserve, no matter their conduct, echoes supporters of President Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War effort at the height of the anti-war protests in the late sixties and early seventies, when they loudly proclaimed, "My Country, Right or Wrong".





It looks like the Mohonk Preserve has a well trained poodle. They brainwashed that poor dog into thinking they own most of the ridge. Bad Fido Bad Fido.

Top
#21190 - 06/07/06 02:10 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
phlan Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 02/11/00
Posts: 2778
Loc: Gardiner, NY
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
_________________________
Support Your Local Farmer!

Top
#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: 5972
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 "Ämerica, 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
#21201 - 06/09/06 09:35 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: pedestrian]
Kent Offline
old hand

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


Nate, as was the case in the Clove Valley, you are ill informed. If you want to know the impact of the law, study it. It goes way beyond subdivision and way beyond the limits the geography imposes. After studying the law, you might want to talk to some of the individual landowners and look at their properties to see how it impacts them. As for owners suing, with the exception of John Bradley, landowners don't have any recourse in court due to language in a US Supreme Court ruling called Lucas vs. South Carolina. But just because something is constitutional, doesn't mean it's fair or ethical or moral as was evidenced by the almost universally denounced Kelo vs. New London decision.

Clearly the ridge deserves protection. If the town and the land preservation community wanted to do that in a fair and ethical and moral way they would have rallied the community and the landowners to share the burden of protecting it. Instead the town, with the help of the land preservation community, mostly the Preserve, just took what they wanted from independent landowners because it was the cheapest thing for them to do, and because the Lucas vs South Carolina decision allowed them to do so. They effectively externalized their costs by placing the burden entirely on the peope who own the land. That some of the people siginifigantly harmed by this constitutional but immoral taking are widows, widowers, retirees, and living on fixed incomes, is an inconvenient truth.

And they took all of development rights for about 2600 acres, much of it outside of Awosting Reserve, and much of it well below the ridge. I don't know about you, but I call that more of a mountain than a mole hill.



Edited by Kent (06/09/06 02:47 PM)

Top
#21202 - 06/09/06 01:19 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Kent, it's you that are ill informed, a five minute Google query turned up some references that undeniably proved your legal opinion wrong...

The US Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision that Lucas was not entitled to compensation:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=1003

The property was bought by the state as compensation to Lucas. They turned around and sold it to a developer(!) and now it's got a house on it. What the property looks like today:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/lucasupdate.html


All thanks to our property-rights loving friends in the Supreme Court.

Top
#21203 - 06/09/06 02:40 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: pedestrian]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Nate, read all of the Lucas vs. South Carolina decision and parse the details. It says if the state takes 100% of the value, then they have to compensate 100% to the landowners. South Carolina took 100% of the value of the Lucas land so they had to compensate him 100%. Lucas vs. South Carolina also says, and herein lies the rub, that if they leave any economic value at all, as they have in Gardiner, then they don't have to compensate the landowners a dime.

a five minute Google query turned up some references that undeniably proved your legal opinion wrong...

Five minute Google queries might not provide you with the understanding you seem to want.

Top
#21204 - 06/09/06 03:07 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Are you a lawyer, Kent?

Top
#21205 - 06/09/06 03:23 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: pedestrian]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Fortunately no, but it would be fair to say I'm well counseled on the matter at hand.


Top
#21206 - 06/09/06 03:25 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
d-elvis Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/26/00
Posts: 3650
Loc: Central PA
Supreme Court of the United States
David H. LUCAS, Petitioner,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL.

No. 91-453.

Argued March 2, 1992.
Decided June 29, 1992.


Owner of beachfront property brought action alleging that application of South Carolina Beachfront Management Act to his property constituted a taking without just compensation. The Common Pleas Court of Charleston County, Larry R. Patterson, Special Judge, awarded landowner damages and appeal was taken.

The South Carolina Supreme Court, Toal, J., reversed, 304 S.C. 376, 404 S.E.2d 895.

Certiorari was granted, 112 S.Ct. 436, and the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia held that: (1) property owner's claim was ripe for review, and (2) South Carolina Supreme Court erred in applying “harmful or noxious uses” principle to decide case.
Reversed and remanded.
Justice Kennedy, filed opinion concurring in the judgment.
Justices Blackmun and Stevens filed separate dissenting opinions.
Justice Souter filed separate statement.
_________________________
"Marriage Survivor"

Top
#21207 - 06/09/06 03:49 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: d-elvis]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

Registered: 04/06/06
Posts: 75
Loc: NY, CA, Deutschland
Ped, way to delete that post as I was responding.

Top
#21208 - 06/09/06 03:52 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

Registered: 04/06/06
Posts: 75
Loc: NY, CA, Deutschland
Sounds to me like we need an expert to read into all this liar, I mean lawyer speak. I nominate DrKodos. And by the way, this thread could have ended much quicker if Glen Hoagland(AKA caca de pollo) would have just responded to my post. Me thinks he is not going to respond. Time for plan B.

Top
#21209 - 06/09/06 04:12 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

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

Ped, way to delete that post as I was responding.




Yea well you know upon reconsideration, and all that...

One thing seems fairly clear to me, Kent apparently is holding an undeveloped single-house lot (right, Kent?) and he will probably win in an open-and-shut case if the town tries to block him from building anything.

It's less clear to me what will happen to other property owners who already have some not-very-dense development.

Wonder how long it'll take the lawyers to argue over that one.

Top
#21210 - 06/09/06 04:25 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
Kevin Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/17/99
Posts: 201
And the quoted text shows why he probably did not, would not, and will not respond...
Quote:

And by the way, this thread could have ended much quicker if Glen Hoagland(AKA caca de pollo) would have just responded to my post. Me thinks he is not going to respond. Time for plan B.




I hope that 'Plan B' means you actually discuss things without calling someone cheeky names to think you are funny... Why not send an actual letter, maybe even registered with signature required to him at the Preserve. I am sure that would earn you a little more credit in his book for a response instead of being anonymous on an internet website. Then you can call him out in a very public setting, maybe with your actual name attached, in something like the local paper, and not a climbers website.


Top
#21211 - 06/09/06 04:33 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kevin]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

And the quoted text shows why he probably did not, would not, and will not respond...
Quote:

And by the way, this thread could have ended much quicker if Glen Hoagland(AKA caca de pollo) would have just responded to my post. Me thinks he is not going to respond. Time for plan B.




I hope that 'Plan B' means you actually discuss things without calling someone cheeky names to think you are funny... Why not send an actual letter, maybe even registered with signature required to him at the Preserve. I am sure that would earn you a little more credit in his book for a response instead of being anonymous on an internet website. Then you can call him out in a very public setting, maybe with your actual name attached, in something like the local paper, and not a climbers website.







Thanks Dad....

Top
#21212 - 06/09/06 04:39 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

Registered: 04/06/06
Posts: 75
Loc: NY, CA, Deutschland
Is Kevin the resident humorless ass around here? I'm sorry I offended you kev.

Top
#21213 - 06/09/06 04:45 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
Kevin Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/17/99
Posts: 201
WOW.. you are really the smart one... Now we know what level of child we are dealing with.

Top
#21214 - 06/09/06 04:48 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kevin]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

WOW.. you are really the smart one... Now we know what level of child we are dealing with.





Kev, time for you to take a nice long climb and release some of that pent up anger.

Top
#21215 - 06/09/06 04:55 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
Kevin Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/17/99
Posts: 201
Maybe you should learn to take criticism as well... And you wonder why someone in a position of authority from the Preserve will not repsond to you on this site...

Top
#21216 - 06/09/06 05:06 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kevin]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

Maybe you should learn to take criticism as well... And you wonder why someone in a position of authority from the Preserve will not repsond to you on this site...





Nice try Kev, In my original letter, there are no false statements, and Hoagland has not responded because he knows that. My original letter was clearly written and non offensive (except to MuseumDork ). So if you're offended by my caca de pollo remark, sorry, it was poking fun at Hoagland's lack of response. If you read into it more than that, you are this site's true humorless ass. Now go decompress.

Top
#21217 - 06/09/06 06:32 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Quote:

My original letter was clearly written and non offensive




But the problem is, You just deny everything, fail to respond, or lie.

If you believed you were doing something in good faith, and someone made that remark to you, you wouldn't be offended? And would such a remark make you more or less likely to engage in a dialogue with that person?

If someone tells me that I deny everything or lie, why should I bother responding when I know I won't be believed anyway?

Top
#21218 - 06/09/06 07:25 PM is Glen Hoagland a climber? [Re: smokejumper1]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
???

Top
#21219 - 06/09/06 07:26 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Daniel]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

Quote:

My original letter was clearly written and non offensive




But the problem is, You just deny everything, fail to respond, or lie.

If you believed you were doing something in good faith, and someone made that remark to you, you wouldn't be offended? And would such a remark make you more or less likely to engage in a dialogue with that person?

If someone tells me that I deny everything or lie, why should I bother responding when I know I won't be believed anyway?





Look at Mr Hoagland's response to the Susan Boice Wick letter, that is the type of response that Glen offers. Totally in denial. I have simply pointed this out in my letter. If the truth hurts, too bad. Fix it, don't cry and say, oh so and so was offended. If someone has a problem with my corporation, I deal with it, Bad press is the last thing any business wants. Especially when it's just. Look at the response to the Mohonk Neighbors letter, the Preserve played a tit for tat game and presented a short list of neighbors (bob anderberg included which is so lame in and of itself)who are happy with the preserve. Imagine you bought a product from a company and something is wrong with it, you bring it to the companies attention and they present you with a list of people who have not had a problem with their product. You would probably go ape sh*t . This is what the preserve has done. Glen is a has zero PR skills, and he has demonstrated that over and over again.

Top
#21220 - 06/09/06 07:27 PM Re: is Glen Hoagland a climber? [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5972
Loc: 212 land
Is that relevant to this thread?
_________________________

Top
#21221 - 06/09/06 07:38 PM Re: is Glen Hoagland a climber? [Re: oenophore]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

Is that relevant to this thread?





You mean you don't see the connection? too much wein?

Top
#21222 - 06/09/06 08:57 PM Re: is Glen Hoagland a climber? [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Quote:

Is that relevant to this thread?




If you are referring to my post yes it is. Someone is acting as though Glen Hoagland ought to respond here. If he is not a climber I doubt he bothers to read this site. and of course will never respond here.

Top
#21223 - 06/09/06 09:49 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Imagine you bought a product from a company and something is wrong with it, you bring it to the companies attention and they present you with a list of people who have not had a problem with their product. You would probably go ape sh*t .

Maybe, but I wouldn't expect going ape sh*t to get me any better treatment or solve my problem. Instead, I think the customer service folk would say "We don't need this kind of abuse" and ignore me. That's my instinct when someone gets in my grill, and I think it's a pretty common reaction.

If you think someone Mr. Hoagland is in denial, feel free to point it out. But I don't think doing so in an accusatory, abrasive way will induce him to respond. Venting can be a fine exercise and can inform the rest of us, but it's aimed mainly at the rest of the community here instead of actually getting a response from the person addressed.

Top
#21224 - 06/09/06 09:57 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Daniel]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

Imagine you bought a product from a company and something is wrong with it, you bring it to the companies attention and they present you with a list of people who have not had a problem with their product. You would probably go ape sh*t .

Maybe, but I wouldn't expect going ape sh*t to get me any better treatment or solve my problem. Instead, I think the customer service folk would say "We don't need this kind of abuse" and ignore me. That's my instinct when someone gets in my grill, and I think it's a pretty common reaction.

If you think someone Mr. Hoagland is in denial, feel free to point it out. But I don't think doing so in an accusatory, abrasive way will induce him to respond. Venting can be a fine exercise and can inform the rest of us, but it's aimed mainly at the rest of the community here instead of actually getting a response from the person addressed.





Daniel, Try not to be so thin skinned. My post was not abrasive, it pointed out the facts. Try not to get your panties in a bunch about me using the word lie. It was not that harsh of a word.

Top
#21225 - 06/10/06 12:11 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
Daniel Online   content
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I don't have my panties in a bunch--which is another example of how to turn people off from listening to you. And it's not about being thin skinned. It's about how a respectful approach is more likely to get a response than a disrespectful one, even if the latter is more deserved. That's all.

Maybe you're an exception, but which approach would you react better to: one that accuses you of being consistently evasive and/or deceiful, or one that says "I don't think you've really addressed my questions, here are my examples, so could you please provide more detail or be more on point concerning x, y, and z"? There's no way to make someone address certain issues if he insists on avoiding them, but the latter seems much more promising to me than the former. And if you adopt the former, I don't think you should really expect a response, though it's fine for venting if that's what you really want to do. I vent every once in a while; I just realize that that's what I'm doing and that it's not going to get anyone to behave differently or get my issues addressed.

Top
#21226 - 06/10/06 12:49 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Daniel]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
Daniel, I think you are being naive to think that Smokejumper1 actually believes that writing what she/he is writing is actually about addressing the issue.

By smokejumper1's posts it is clear that she/he is not stupid and does not live in some lala land. She/he knew when the thread was initiated that Glenn Hoagland would not respond here. Him responding to an anonymous person on an internet forum is about one of the least professional things that he could do.

No, this thread is not about getting an actual response from Glenn Hoagland, as much as it is for smokejumper1 to have an audience of climbers to bash on her/his enemy in front of. It's actually a pretty clever pr campaign for the non-friends of the Mohonk Preserve considering what a high percentage of the Preserve's revenue comes from climbers...

Top
#21227 - 06/12/06 05:25 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: strat]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

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

Daniel, I think you are being naive to think that Smokejumper1 actually believes that writing what she/he is writing is actually about addressing the issue.

By smokejumper1's posts it is clear that she/he is not stupid and does not live in some lala land. She/he knew when the thread was initiated that Glenn Hoagland would not respond here. Him responding to an anonymous person on an internet forum is about one of the least professional things that he could do.

No, this thread is not about getting an actual response from Glenn Hoagland, as much as it is for smokejumper1 to have an audience of climbers to bash on her/his enemy in front of. It's actually a pretty clever pr campaign for the non-friends of the Mohonk Preserve considering what a high percentage of the Preserve's revenue comes from climbers...




Strat, Nice post, but I'd like to clarify a few things. I would not classify myself as a "non friend of the Mohonk Preserve" no more than I would classify myself as a "non friend to America" I am just really unhappy with the current administrations. Bush especially, but Hoagland is a close second. As I have said before, the Mohonk Preserve is a great idea, but one that I refuse to support while they engage in their current land aqusition practices, the multitude of unfriendly neighborly relations and their bullsh@t tax exempt status, to name a few. I would also say that I am not interested in bashing but more into discussing and resolving. That is what a forum is for. I like to hear all sides of the story, unfortunatly, some posters (phlan included) will enter into a discussion without an open mind. This is too bad, I would like nothing more than to be shown why I should give my money to the Preserve. So far I see too many reasons to donate elsewhere.

Top
#21228 - 06/12/06 05:31 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
<< I would also say that I am not interested in bashing but more into discussing and resolving. >>

I'm sorry, but, these words are not those of someone who is into discussing and resolving.

"Glen Hoagland(AKA caca de pollo)

Thanks Dad....

Is Kevin the resident humorless ass around here? I'm sorry I offended you kev.

If you read into it more than that, you are this site's true humorless ass. Now go decompress "

Top
#21229 - 06/12/06 06:04 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: strat]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
That’s the greatest thing about a 'forum' ala internet. Written words and statements tend not to fade.

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


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored