Here is the situation with property ownership in the Near Trapps. You can see that, according to this data from Ulster County GIS, parcels in the center of this section of cliffs are privately owned beyond the top of the cliffs themselves. This section would therefore be affected by Gardiner zoning issues or possible easement corridor considerations. Climbers may be interested in what happens with this issue as it may affect future access.

Interesting. What's the URL of this map series?

There are 4 parcels with ownership issues along the Near Trapps. The land in the image below that is present to the west of the red dashed line is on talus and is steep. As such, it would be very difficult to develop it.

Suppose some entity (OSI, TNC, MP, NYS, GCC, town) were to purchase this portion of each parcel. I very much doubt the value of each parcel would be dramatically affected; you can't build there anyway. Thus the assessed value would not change much, and neither would the taxes. However, the owners of each parcel would get some value (price to be negotiated). The only "use" of this land would be a trail near the upper (western) edge of the parcel; the rest of the land would be unused. Therefore, the adjacent owner would not have to suffer any apparent loss in 'isolation value' of his property, and could even freely access the portion he sold.

Other than coming up with the purchaser and the cash, what is the problem with this scenario? Who would be the loser in this deal? I guess we would utlimately want MP ownership to secure climbing access.

Note that the line in the previous map happens to nearly conincide with the SP-2/SP-3 line on the new Gardiner Zoning map, which was a coincidence, but probably based on roughly the same ground information. I suppose as a sweetener in my hypothetical, the owners of the new abbreviated parcels would get permanent open space credits under the town zoning law for this transaction.



Source: http://www.townofgardiner.org/Pages/GardinerNY_Webdocs/map.pdf

Read Thomas Sowell's editorial today. It is topical. An excerpt:
"Soviet communism is now history but people who talk equality and practice elitism, who wrap their own selfishness in the mantle of idealism, and who sacrifice others on the altar to their own vision without a moment's hesitation are not only still with us but have become the norm on the left.
They don't have nearly the power that the Soviet dictatorship had. But they use whatever power they do have in the same spirit. The green ideology of today, like the red ideology of the past, takes it for granted that other people do not have the same rights as the new nomenklatura.
Where the new nomenklatura enjoy a particular lifestyle in a particular community, then the power of government is used to preserve that lifestyle and freeze that community where it is, even if that means freezing out other people who may not have the same money or the same lifestyle preferences."

It appears Kent was right after all, the land on the ridge is private property, let's just leave it that way.

Perhaps I'm dense Alice, but do you favor or disfavor Kent's position?

Are "conservation easements" required (under the proposed new zoning) for a single lot? I thought it was only for developments of 5 lots/houses or more. If that interpretation, which is based on my cursory and incomplete reading of the Gardiner rules, is correct, then anyone who's upset about their land being taken away is in reality a closet developer. Right?

Either a closet developer, or one who wants his land valued as though it could be sold to a developer.

I am not in favor of cheating anyone out of their investment. It would be great if they could get their money out of the extra piece now (which they can't really develop anyway) and invest it any way they'd like. That way, any widows or retirees could continue to live there and keep what they have in terms of improvements. That's why, IMO, purchase of these pieces would be even better than just zoning this into existence. Plus, with MP ownership (vs individuals) climbing access could be assured.

A win-win provided the cash can be obtained.

If I read Kent right, I am in favor of his position as a property owner and respect all rights that go with that ownership. Develop the property or not, allowing climbing or not, whatever, I think it is Kent's prerogative as property owner to steward his own land; his preference, his privelege, his privaate property. I am offended when third parties speak of the benefits to all while infringing on the private property rights of others. New London vs Kelo anyone?