Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 12 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#23792 - 09/11/06 07:43 PM Re: Near Trapps Ownership [Re: alicex4]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
Under the Gardiner zoning plan, it would be difficult for anyone to fully develop their land in SP-3 areas. For the four properties which are the subject of this thread, building in the subject portions of the land would not be feasible in any event (it is talus and cliff).

What I am advocating is not eminent domain, nor confiscation. I am proposing a hypothetical purchase of a portion of each of these parcels at negotiated market value. Can you get more capitalistic than that? Plus, my proposal would give owners cash allowing them to stay put, and would not be denying them the benefit of adjacent vacant land they currently enjoy.

This is so far from the situation in New London vs Kelo that I'm wondering if you understand the issues in that case?

Top
#23793 - 09/12/06 01:45 AM Re: Near Trapps Ownership [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
From Mike:"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?"

I wish you were right. Even on single lots, as a contingency for the issuance of a required special use permit to build in SP-3, the landowner must give up some of their land in a permanent conservation easement. This is something of a moot point though as other restrictions in the law effectively confiscate all development rights in SP-3. For example, the law states that if a building lot has land in both SP-2 and SP-3, then a building permit will not be allowed in SP-3. Most of the lots that reach into SP-3, like the lots highlighted in this thread, are fairly linear and so they pass through SP-2. As well, the law requires an applicant to build at the lowest possible elevation. Again, as most of the lots go from low to high, the lowest possible elevations are never in SP-3. The law requires an applicant to build at the first available building site, again precluding anything in SP-3. To be clear, these restrictions apply to SP-2 and SP-3, not SP-1. SP-1 is land near the road and special use permits are not required.

Do you really think I'm a closet developer Mike? I've talked with pretty much everyone about my goal from the start, which was to aggregate three lots, sub two houses off the front, and build one house in the back on forty acres and live their 'til my days are done. That plan has now run amok of course, courtesy of the MP and the Gardiner Town Board.

Top
#23794 - 09/12/06 02:03 AM Re: Near Trapps Ownership [Re: pda]
Kent Offline
old hand

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

and

"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."


This is a great idea that pretty much represents the status quo prior to recent passage of the new zoning law. The only missing ingredient was an organization willing to step up to the plate and offer something near market value. Instead, some of the above organizations offered ridiculously low numbers for the land (four years ago $1500-$2000 an acre). Owners were uninspired, to put it mildly. The source of controversy in all of this came in when some of the above mentioned organizations, most notably the Preserve, used their considerable political influence to "work the levers of local government" which then effectively confiscated conservation easements on the land in question.


Edited by Kent (09/12/06 02:19 AM)

Top
#23795 - 09/12/06 02:22 AM Re: Near Trapps Ownership [Re: alicex4]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
From Alice: Read Thomas Sowell's editorial today. It is topical. An excerpt:
"Soviet communism is now history but .........


Great quote Alice. Has this guy been attending Gardiner Town Board Meetings?

Top
#23796 - 09/12/06 12:17 PM Re: Near Trapps Ownership [Re: Kent]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
This is a great idea that pretty much . . .

Agreed - you and I are on the same page here. As affordable as I want this to be for the purpose of achieving the preservation (and access) goals, using the zoning law only as a way to lower the price before acquisition is not right.

BTW - how much per acre do you think is reasonable for the unbuildable portions of the Near Trapps parcels?

Top
#23797 - 09/13/06 01:54 AM Re: Near Trapps Ownership [Re: pda]
Kent Offline
old hand

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

As for the value of the undevelopable land in the Nears, I'm not sure. Four years ago the Preserve/OSI was offering $1500-$2000 an acre for similarly undevelopable land. But no one along my stretch of the ridge was selling for such a paltry sum. I have been told the Preserve/OSI number has moved up a bit in the ensuing years.

If the Preserve/OSI were to offer $15,000 an acre, as they did for the Campbell parcel on Cragswood Road, they would get the attention of some. Others are angry enough with the MP (post quit claim deeds, Shawangunk Ridge Biodiversity Partnership Bullshit, MP lobbying in support of the ridge zoning law) that they don't want to sell to the Preserve at any price.

Either way, if a deal couldn't be negotiated between one of the land preservation agencies and a given landowner, my default position is as stated by Alice.
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 privilege, his private property.


Edited by Kent (09/13/06 12:17 PM)

Top
#23798 - 09/14/06 11:07 AM Re: Near Trapps Ownership [Re: Kent]
noone Offline
stranger

Registered: 05/13/06
Posts: 1
I agree 100% with Alice but Kent lets be realistic. You put in a driveway that cost $70,000, that sounds pretty long. That would have put your house at the top of your property, which is pretty high up. Your house would have been a visible eyesore from 299 driving up to the cliff. Nobody wants to see your Mc Mansion. I 've heard you say "i want to build the ultimate climbers pad" What climbers have a 4-5000 sqft pad? This might be fine in some areas. Do you think changing the view of the ridge for all to suit your needs is justified? Your house would have definatley broken the tree line. I really hate the drama you have created here. So in closing STFU

Top
#23799 - 09/14/06 03:11 PM Re: Near Trapps Ownership [Re: noone]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
My new driveway is pretty long, about twice as long as it would have been had I been left alone. But as long as it is, it doesn't go anywhere near the top of my land. The building site doesn't break the tree line, nor is it visible from anywhere in the valley. Beyond that, it's also not visible from the top of the ridge, even when standing on the nearest Millbrook Ridge Trail promontory, which also happens to be on my land.

And McMansion? No one who knows me would ever suggest I would build a McMansion.

As for the drama here, I didn't create it. The source is the idea that private land becomes a community resource whenever the community decides they want it. And that idea isn't just creating a tempest in a teapot here on gunks.com. The realization of that idea has real consequences for not just landowners along the eastern escarpment, but now also for landowners throughout town. As a direct result of the "private land as community resource" idea Gardiner has become a deeply and bitterly divided community. The town of Rochester is going through the same process with the same cast of characters and so they too are now becoming deeply and bitterly divided. To get a taste of this, try attending a town board meeting in either town. Or drive down Rt 209 in Rochester and read the mostly hand painted protest signs.

Perhaps by "the drama here" you mean my willingness to point out the Preserve's involvement in the bitter divisions within these towns. Well, I don't expect to be winning any popularity contests for that. I think it was William Sloan Coffin who said "nobody loves you for being the enemy of their illusions".

Regarding the extent to which I've posted about this, which Strat characterized as "grandstanding", I'm pretty tired of talking about it too. If you'll notice, I haven't started a post about this since the beginning of June. I've only responded when people have made wonderbread statements about a certain large landowner or when people have made gross misstatements about landowners in general, or specific individual landowners, including me.

In closing, if you are going to hurl a cowardly anonymous and impotently ineloquent STFU, you might at least try to be slightly artful about it with something like this maybe or even this.

That said, noone, if you want to step up, be real, and have a beer, I'd be happy to show you my land, driveway, building site, and house plans.

Cheers.

Top
#23800 - 09/14/06 04:16 PM Re: Near Trapps Ownership [Re: Kent]
ScottR Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 99
Just start a timber operation on your land. That should make a whole lot of people happy. If they don't like it f*** 'em.

Top
#23801 - 09/14/06 08:39 PM Re: Near Trapps Ownership [Re: ScottR]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3764
Loc: Ulster County, NY
What's wrong with a timber stand management program?? You say that as if it is sarcastic. Actually it's a pretty good idea. There's some nice oak them there woods.

RR


Edited by RangerRob (09/14/06 08:40 PM)

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored