Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 5 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#22623 - 08/09/06 04:09 PM Re: Campbell Parcel [Re: Kent]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
Not purchasing property along the ridge and instead residing in an already highly developed area is probably the best way of supporting open space preservation. Anyone who disagrees with this logic probably cannot be considered credible.

Can I sign you up?

Top
#22624 - 08/09/06 04:38 PM Re: Campbell Parcel [Re: pda]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1036
Loc: The Bayards
Not purchasing property along the ridge and instead residing in an already highly developed area is probably the best way of supporting open space preservation.

How does that support the preservation of open space? It does nothing to take land off the market or keep it from being developed. It's just your way of saying "I'm more environmental than people who own land along the ridge because I live in a densely developed area and they might have one house on oh...say....30 acres. That's terrible". No matter that you drive from Jersey to sometimes recreate on the land of those you look down your nose at.

Top
#22625 - 08/09/06 05:04 PM Re: Campbell Parcel [Re: Kent]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
It works pretty much the same way that conservation works elsewhere in the marketplace. True, if I consume less gasoline (perhaps by buying the smaller fishing boat), I have done nothing to 'take it off the market.' It does, however, incrementally reduce overall present demands, which can reduce price increases and can preserve the supply a bit longer.

You are fooling yourself if you do not think that 'development pressure' is fueled in any way by the willingness of buyers to purchase the land. More willing buyers = more development pressure = more development. New Jersey is the test case for this formula.

Unless society is prepared to voluntarily reduce its impact on the ridge (for example, deciding based on principles not to purchase ridge property for development), the only sure way to limit development would be to impose specific restrictions on development, or buy the land outright. But we have then come full circle, since you seem opposed to reasonable plans to implement either of these.

Top
#22626 - 08/09/06 06:29 PM Re: Campbell Parcel [Re: pda]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1036
Loc: The Bayards
You are fooling yourself if you do not think that 'development pressure' is fueled in any way by the willingness of buyers to purchase the land. More willing buyers = more development pressure = more development. New Jersey is the test case for this formula. Unless society is prepared to voluntarily reduce its impact on the ridge (for example, deciding based on principles not to purchase ridge property for development), ......

The problem is there are more people all the time. There were rougly 200 million people in this country in 1970 and there are now roughly 300 million. The development pressure is there whether or not you participate. Your argument logically leads to the idea that if we would all just agree to not buy any cool land near the preserve, then it wouldn't have any value, and no one would ever buy it or build on it. This is very naive. Have you heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma?

the only sure way to limit development would be to impose specific restrictions on development, or buy the land outright. But we have then come full circle, since you seem opposed to reasonable plans to implement either of these.

You are wrong. As stated many times, I have advocated the outright purchase of land by land preservation organizations all along. Several pieces of land along the eastern escarpment went on the open market in the years before passage of the zoning law. The preserve chose not to buy them at market prices. Instead they chose to pursue the chicanery of using the Shawnagunk Ridge Biodiversity Partnership to influence the local political processes of land use planning and zoning.

And plans for reasonable zoning would be fine. Again, as I have said before, the zoning in place along the ridge, before the new zoning law, was the most restrictive in town. Nonetheless many ridge landowners would have willingly accepted additional reasonable restrictions. There isn't anything reasonable about what we've been dealt though.

If you disagree, and would like to debate the reasonableness of the law, I'm ready. I would suggest you study the law first and then visit with some of the landowners to see how it is affecting them.

Top
#22627 - 08/16/06 07:26 PM Re: Campbell Parcel [Re: Kent]
Pamela Offline
stranger

Registered: 03/05/06
Posts: 17
Loc: Gardiner NY
I attended a Gardiner Planning board meeting last Night (well, much of it), and it was interesting to see several of the ridge landowners there, tryIng to get approvals through for even the slightest of improvements to their property. These were not McMansions that were being proposed, but simple structures like replacing a garage that had fallen into disrepair with a new one. Really heady stuff. However, several of the current administration appointed planning board members did their best to make sure the property owners twisted dutifully at the end of the zoning hook.

Most property owners wouldn't purposely harm or destroy their own property, as it lowers the value and makes it less desireable not only for others, but for them. They value reasonable zoning laws, as it protects the properties around theirs as well as theirs. However, much of the zoning relulation in place is simply there not to protect (what are we protecting it from?), but to prevent people from using or living on the land, and possibly offending or botherIng any of the chosen landowners who happened toget there first ( or last, in many cases).

Here's an interesting snippet of information. Lew Eisenberg, the chairman of Gardiner's Open Space Committee and it's open space spin doctor, recently said in a newspaper interview that to "Pave paradise and put up a parking lot" was something that all peoPle who loved Gardiner didn't want to do. However, Palisades Park Commission and Minnewaska State Park Plan on doing exactly that at the top of Aumick Road in Gardiner, to create a long desired alternate entrance/bus parking area for the multitudes of vistors. A case of unintended consequences...and the best part is that the buses will go by my house, but also Patty Lee Parmalee's (Save the Ridgefounder) house. It almost makes it bearable.

Top
#22628 - 08/25/06 07:23 PM Re: Campbell Parcel [Re: Pamela]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
Or maybe its all about saving a few tax dollars, as described in this letter ?

Top
#22629 - 08/30/06 06:01 PM Re: Campbell Parcel [Re: pda]
Pamela Offline
stranger

Registered: 03/05/06
Posts: 17
Loc: Gardiner NY
Thank you for publishing my letter. "Saving a few tax dollars" is a relative thing. It may seem trite to you, but my husband and I both work full time. We have a modest home and 2.5 acres. However, our taxes have gone up almost 50% in the last two years. I've been scrimping each month to put money away in order to be assured to be able to pay my school taxes next month. Maybe if the Mohonk Preserve, instead of offering me the free residents pass for one month, decided to pay taxes on their land, the rest of the people in Gardiner wouldn't have to pick up their slack.

If Mohonk Preserve paid full taxes on their property and stayed out of neighbors hair, we'd all be happier campers in Gardiner.

Top
#22630 - 08/30/06 08:31 PM Re: Campbell Parcel [Re: Pamela]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Quote:

Maybe if the Mohonk Preserve, instead of offering me the free residents pass for one month, decided to pay taxes on their land, the rest of the people in Gardiner wouldn't have to pick up their slack.

If Mohonk Preserve paid full taxes on their property and stayed out of neighbors hair, we'd all be happier campers in Gardiner.



But isn't that the entire point of the conservation easement that Gardiner signed with the then Mohonk Trust? In fact, wasn't that the entire reason the Trust/Preserve came into existence? A public, not private, trust no less, to preserve and protect undeveloped land and maintain open space for the public good. The Trust forever gives up development on its land and in exchange gets a lower tax rate.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#22631 - 08/30/06 09:01 PM Re: Campbell Parcel [Re: MarcC]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1036
Loc: The Bayards
September 15, 1965

The Trustees of The Trust do not plan to ask for exemption from land taxes.

Quoted from this Marist Library online documentation of what I believe is one of the first Mohonk Trust press releases.

Top
#22632 - 08/30/06 09:18 PM Re: Campbell Parcel [Re: Kent]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Quote:

September 15, 1965
The Trustees of The Trust do not plan to ask for exemption from land taxes.




Splitting semantic hairs, a reduced tax rate is not necessarily the same as an exemption. At the end of the referenced article is this passage:

It was emphasized during the meeting that the proposed uses of the magnificent lands to be owned by The Trust offers an opportunity for profitable enjoyment which must be developed with the utmost skill and care, so that over-use does not produce abuse. Speakers pointed out that every precailtion must be taken to ensure that what will amount to "semi-public" ownership leaves the lands unspoiled as a heritage from one generation to another.

Further meetings are to beheld to work out details of the conservation operation of The Trust. Experts .;In the fields of conservation, land-management, taxation, and many other aspects of the new role of The Mohonk Trust property are to be invited to address meetings, all available means are to be used to keep the public informed of developments.


Obviously one of those details that was worked out was the conservation easement and lower rate.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored