Apparently, the evil Mohonk Preserve has acquired another
innocent neighbors land (this time near Bonticou Crag)
as part of their nefarious plan to create a Shawangunk
empire:

See this linked article on theuberfall.com

It is truly a shame that this parcel could not be developed
to maximize the ROI for the owner.

But as long as the worst has happened, doesn't this
possibly reopen access to the AI Wall?

Apparently, the evil Mohonk Preserve has acquired another innocent neighbors land (this time near Bonticou Crag) as part of their nefarious plan to create a Shawangunk empire

The Preserve, in buying the land, did a good thing here. If they were to always negotiate with landowners and buy the land they want, they would undoubtedly have good relationships with all of their neighbors, not just some.

What's interesting about this though is that the MP's purchase of 5 acres warranted a press release which resulted in a newspaper article. Their untold payments to Peter Fairweather of Fairweather Consulting along with their significant role in the adoption of a local a zoning law that confiscates the development rights on some 2600 acres of land, on the other hand, are somehow unworthy of a similar press release and article.

It is truly a shame that this parcel could not be developed to maximize the ROI for the owner.

No one has advocated developing to maximize the ROI for owners. Although I do realize that characterizing ridge landowners, who have objected to the zoning law, as villains of some sort may help you rationalize, and thereby feel better about, the screwing of retirees, widows, and widowers, some of whom are living on fixed incomes.
But as long as the worst has happened, doesn't this possibly reopen access to the AI Wall?

Nope. But you could always collaborate with socialist1 to organize a protest. After all, in these politically and environmentally troubled times, a protest to demand climbing access on private property, seems most appropriate. As the middle east burns, as 50 million Americans (more every day) go without health insurance, as the Bush Whitehouse negates the balance of powers in the constitution, and as the Bush administration also refuses to engage in any talks about reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country, let's by all means organize to protest the closed status of Skytop and the AI Wall.

How could the same Preserve that claims the likes of
Darth Fairweather among its ranks have done anything
you could characterize as "good"? No, with
Lord Fairweather advising them, I am sure this is a
plan which must serve some greater evil purpose.

No doubt he is plotting even now to throw widows out of
their homes and starve the children of the ridge,
unless they sign over their souls in blood to the evil
Mohonk empire...

May the force be with you.


Lord Fairweather Plots . . .

On several occasions I have said the Preserve does good things. That doesn't mean everything they do is good. That the Preserve, in an open and respectful way, negotiated for and purchased five acres of land on Cragswood Road doesn't nullify their skulduggerous use of quit claim deeds in Clove Valley or the Nears, nor does it compensate for their role in the adoption of the zoning law which has and continues to hurt land owners along the ridge.

For some the Preserve is either all good or all bad. The all good view, and blind support of the Preserve, must make it easier to justify the otherwise unjustifiable position of supporting the screwing of those in the community too few, too old, and too weak to wield any political clout or defend themselves.

The devious nature of the Preserve is revealed.

They have co-opted the democratic process and forced
their pro-zoning proposal candidates to be elected by an
open vote of the people. Using the secret Fairweather
mind-ray system, they are controlling the majority of
voters in the Township to essentially negate their own
best intersts.

Scoundrels, I say.

Of course if a politcal candidate promises to "rob Peter to pay Paul" they will get the vote of Paul. That doesn't make it ethical or moral or just.

And pda, while you might not think their behavior is worthy of the term scoundrel, a lot of people do. Also, I thank you for again drawing attention to the Mohonk Preserve, their quiet payments to the Town of Gardiner's envrionmental consultant, and their role in the writing of both the town's master plan and ridge zoning law that benefit them so greatly at the expense of their abutting downslope neighbors.

You misunderstand me - I'm on your side here.

It is only through drawing more attention to these conspirators that we can hope to thwart their
evil plan, which is now exposed as nothing less than the protection of the ridge from further development so it can be enjoyed by future generations.

Sarcasm can be funny, if done well.

Of course it would be great to prevent development on the ridge for future generations. The question is how to apportion the burden of doing so. Is it best for all to share that burden or is it best for the many to disproportionately burden the few? The latter divides communities and leads to political counter measures, that are sometimes very extreme.

Are you willing to share the burden pda? How much have you contributed to open space preservation? Please tell us you are willing to contribute more than just hot air. Otherwise your words have no meaning, and you no credibility.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Or maybe its all about saving a few tax dollars, as described in this letter ?

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.

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.

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

With due respect Marc, it doesn't seem obvious that was a detail worked out.

Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner, 47 N.Y.2d 476
In this 1979 case, Mohonk Trust (hereafter "Mohonk") commenced proceedings against the Town of Gardiner (hereafter "Gardiner"), New York to seek tax-exempt status pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law art. 7

So I'll ask the logical question: what happened in the years between 65 and 79? IOW, what precipitated this action?

Well, for one thing, state law was changed in 1971:

"... the statute was amended in 1971 to provide that property may be exempt if its owner is organized or conducted exclusively for exempt purposes (L.1971, c.414, §2). In the case of Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Gardiner, 47 N.Y.2d 476, 392 N.E.2d 876, 418 N.Y.S.2d 763, the Court held this amendment to mean that "The determination of an organization's primary purpose may turn upon the extent to which it pursues the various purposes for which it was created, and is not necessarily dependent solely upon the language of the document pursuant to which the organization operates." Thus, a corporation may qualify for exemption although it is authorized to conduct nonexempt activities by its certificate of incorporation and by-laws if the corporation does not actually perform such activities."

http://www.orps.state.ny.us/legal/opinions/v6/87.htm

My beef regarding the Preserve not paying property taxes in Gardiner is not one of legality but rather commitment. To make the establishment of the Preserve politically palatable in the beginning, they made a public commitment to the contiunance of property tax revenue for the town. At a later date, when that commitment was no longer politcally necessary, they reneged.

"Read our lips. We will continue to pay local property taxes. Not."

I think the point was that in 1965, the Trust probably did not qualify as tax exempt, so their story was that they were not going to avoid paying taxes (and they weren't). When the state law was`changed in 1971, the situation obviously changed; now the Trust was qualified for an exemption. Presumably, the legislators saw value in this type of arrangement, and the Trust (later Preserve) took advantage of it. I'm not trying to say that's the whole story, but it is a part of the story at least.

The only consistency in this world is that things change.

It would be much more straight forward to say they broke their promise to the community. Because the law allows it doesn't make it any more honorable.

It would be useful rhetoric to some to say that, certainly, but disingenuous at best.

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

Its true - in 1965 they did not plan to ask for exemption. The fact that they eventualy did so later on does not a priori refute the truth of that statement.

Its true - in 1965 they did not plan to ask for exemption. The fact that they eventualy did so later on does not a priori refute the truth of that statement.

Of course not. It just means their mores shift like sand.

zzzzZZZZZzzzzzzz..........

C'mon Kent, we know ya aren't a member of the Preserve's Fan Club, but to expect any person or organization that can legally take advantage of reduced (or eliminated) property taxes, to not avail themselves of that option, is ridiculous and naive.


IF Gardiner passed some sort of legislation next year that stipulated that "all whiners named Kent could stop paying property taxes" , would you keep mailing in your check?
Of course not.

I disagree with you Murph. History is full of corporations and Momand Pop endeavors that did the right thing, even though it cost them money. Let's take your average volunteer firefighter. They will give up on avergae 2 nights a week for training, spend money on equipment that town fire taxes can not afford to buy, and spend countless hours going to calls. Why do they do this? It is obviously a huge burden ont hem and their families, yet they still do it. The answer, at least in my eyes, is community commitment. Some people feel a sense of community when they do things like that. Organizations and business CAN adopt the same attitude. If I got a letter in the mail and it said: Dear Town landowner, we are happy to tell you that because of some obsure oversight, you no longer have to pay town or school taxes. Heck yeah it would save me a ton of money. But knowing that everyone else in my town now had to take up the slack for me not paying would make me feel like shit. I think that is Kents point.

RR

But knowing that everyone else in my town now had to take up the slack for me not paying would make me feel like shit. I think that is Kents point.


Was Kent a Gardiner landowner prior to 1971?

If so, then *maybe* he has a beef (35 years too late , but whatever).

If not, then I think he's a little late for the pity party.




Your volunteer firefighter analogy is totally inapplicable.
(besides, my brother is a volunteer firefighter, and I KNOW the only reason he does it is to hang out and drink beer w/ the other firefighters at the firehouse )

Wonderful that those folks *choose* to do those things.
Others might coach Little League, or volunteer at the Library, or whatever. Or not.

Has ZERO to do with paying your legally mandated property taxes.

So what is the real tax burden of land that Mohonk P owns to the town of Gardiner?

Fire (To some extent such as Visitors Center, yet major forest fires fall under the control of the state DEC)
Road traffic (which would be low considering the major routes in and out of the preserve are state roads)
Other Public services?

I’m under the impression they are paying some tax as of right now. What is the fair amount to cover their burden? The real question that would need to be addressed is: Does the land that Mohonk makes exempt from taxes cause the tax burden to increase on other tax paying people of Gardiner?

Murph, so what you are saying is that if the town or state, or federal government said that you in particular didn't have to pay your share you would just stop paying, and have no remorse or guilty conscience about everyone else paying your share?? If so.....that's pretty sad. I hope you're not the type of guy who would continue to pour beer out of the group pitcher and never buy one.

RR

P.S. the firefighter was directly related to payment of taxes, but it shows willingness to do ones share of the work.

RR:
But knowing that everyone else in my town now had to take up the slack for me not paying would make me feel like shit. I think that is Kents point.

I think Kents point is something to the effect that they went back and “reneged” on prior statements made or something like that. Which makes them demon seeds of Lord Fairweather.

If I was paying full taxes on 6200 acres of land when 99.99% is vacant (ops....natural and undeveloped ) and the town sent me a letter saying I did not have to pay taxes against the undeveloped land, I would be happier then a pig n sh*t, and I would still be able to stop over to your house and drink your beer



Bottom line: If the best interest of the town of Gardiner is to extract the full amount of tax value from all its land, then it would be in the best interest for the preserve to not leave its land undeveloped….nuff said

From Murph: "IF Gardiner passed some sort of legislation next year that stipulated that "all whiners named Kent could stop paying property taxes" , would you keep mailing in your check?"

Please run for town board.

Also from Murph: "Was Kent a Gardiner landowner prior to 1971?
If so, then *maybe* he has a beef (35 years too late , but whatever).
If not, then I think he's a little late for the pity party. "

Who wants pity? F*&! pity! What I want is for the Preserve to have the moxie to walk their talk, even when the law doesn't require them to, even when it requires sacrifice. That would earn them some trust.

From Smike: "If I was paying full taxes on 6200 acres of land when 99.99% is vacant (ops....natural and undeveloped ) and the town sent me a letter saying I did not have to pay taxes against the undeveloped land, I would be happier then a pig n sh*t, and I would still be able to stop over to your house and drink your beer."

Many people in town have undeveloped land. It's taxed at a lower rate than their developed land but still, it generates far more tax revenue for the town than the Preserve's undeveloped land.

Kent -

Back on the OT, do you know how much OSI paid for the 5.3 acre Campbell parcel? I thought I saw that somewhere, but can't find it now.

I believe it was $75,000., or approximately $15K an acre.

Thanks.