Shout Box

Who's Online
2 registered (2 invisible), 2 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 3 of 14 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 13 14 >
Topic Options
#43988 - 04/08/09 05:45 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: empicard]
tallgirlnyc Offline
member

Registered: 05/12/08
Posts: 194
Loc: Cold Spring NY
I have heard rumblings about this for a long time and it truly is a sad day but not an unexpected one. Forgive me if I don't know the whole story about how things have come to this point but I hear the frustration and bitterness on both sides. It does seem to me that as the cliffs attract more and more climbers - LEAVE NO TRACE principles have been neglected.
However we are all still a community and maybe we should start acting like one.
Kent-what exactly is upsetting you? The impact-i.e. chalk on the cliffs, noise, trash, pounded out trail, all of the above?
Or is it seeing the people from your back yard working their way up the cliff face.
If impact is your problem, I would be more than happy to organize some sort of monthly clean up of the private land with some of my fellow climbers in order to use that part of the cliff as one idea.
You haven't said so (or I haven't read it) but are you looking for some sort of permit scenario that would allow people on that part of the land?
It would be great to start finding workable solutions to this conflict rather than putting up barriers and fueling resentment that ultimately no one can feel good about.

Dana

Top
#43989 - 04/08/09 05:49 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: tallgirlnyc]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Hi Dana. How's the Chelsea Piers?

If I've been reading this right for the past few years, this is entirely (say 99%) an outgrowth of the ridge zoning law. Bradley set something in motion... you can thank him for it.

Top
#43991 - 04/08/09 05:58 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: pedestrian]
tallgirlnyc Offline
member

Registered: 05/12/08
Posts: 194
Loc: Cold Spring NY
Thanks for the info...

The Chelsea Piers are still full of beautiful people wrapping their well manicured hands around grimy, greasy plastic. And now a few out of work bankers wondering if they should buy hang boards.

Top
#43992 - 04/08/09 06:02 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: chip]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
Quanto: not sure where your friend is getting his information. The only recreational use statute in NY that I'm aware of is N.Y. General Obligations Law section 9-103.

The list of protected activities (i.e., those for which a property owner allowing free, unmodified use cannot be sued) is "hunting, fishing, organized gleaning ... canoeing, boating, trapping, hiking, cross-country skiing, and tobogganing, sledding, speleological activities, horseback riding, bicycle riding, hang gliding, motorized vehicle operation for recreational purposes, snowmobile operation, cutting or gathering of wood for non-commercial purposes or training of dogs."

Even the worst chimney in the Gunks doesn't really qualify as "speleological activities."

Top
#43993 - 04/08/09 06:05 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: tallgirlnyc]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: tallgirlnyc
Kent-what exactly is upsetting you? The impact-i.e. chalk on the cliffs, noise, trash, pounded out trail, all of the above?
Or is it seeing the people from your back yard working their way up the cliff face.
If impact is your problem, I would be more than happy to organize some sort of monthly clean up of the private land with some of my fellow climbers in order to use that part of the cliff as one idea.

This has nothing to do with impact or use. Kent and fellow landowners are very upset with a relatively recent change in the Gardiner zoning laws. They see the Preserve as being complicit at minimum, if not outright helping orchestrate the zoning change. They are also upset at the land acquisition methods used by the Preserve. Kent et al are using the cudgel of access to coerce climbers into supporting their cause against Gardiner. Thus, climbers are being used as nothing but pawns in a small-town feud. As someone earlier (or on rc.com) suggested, the sole driving force behind all this is money and greed, cloaked in the verbiage of landowner rights.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#43994 - 04/08/09 06:11 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: MarcC]
tallgirlnyc Offline
member

Registered: 05/12/08
Posts: 194
Loc: Cold Spring NY
Silly me...and here I thought it had to do with impact and preservation. Yikes!

Top
#43995 - 04/08/09 06:13 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: MarcC]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Originally Posted By: MarcC
They are also upset at the land acquisition methods used by the Preserve.


Those methods are still, I think, uncertain. All the talk about these dirty methods stems from just one case, the Fink and Pardini lawsuit. I haven't heard an adequate summary of the full history, but it is clear that the Preserve's lawsuit actually dated back to an earlier case, against the Fink/Pardini property's prior owners, which they unequivocally won but subsequently failed to proactively enforce and subsequent actions failed based on a statute of limitations of sorts. Kent and company's silence about the full history of the case, while continuing to use it as attack fodder, is curious.

Local public opinion seems to be squarely on the side of Fink and Pardini, so I suppose that may be the way it goes but, haven't heard the whole story so keeping my mind open. ~n


Edited by pedestrian (04/08/09 06:15 PM)
Edit Reason: grammar

Top
#43996 - 04/08/09 06:13 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: MarcC]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
A further note: the fact that the recreational use statute would almost certainly not apply so as to immunize the homeowner does not mean that the property owner would be likely to be held liable, just because some trespasser fell off a cliff while on the owner's land. The law generally does not require a property owner to protect people coming onto the land (whether trespassing or not) from natural, obvious hazards, and it's hard to imagine a clearer or more obvious natural hazard than falling from a cliff.

But the fact that the statute would not apply does mean that the owner might not be able to get out of the lawsuit as quickly and cheaply as he could if the injury arose from a covered activity.

Top
#43997 - 04/08/09 06:17 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: retr2327]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
Originally Posted By: retr2327
Quanto: not sure where your friend is getting his information. The only recreational use statute in NY that I'm aware of is N.Y. General Obligations Law section 9-103.

The list of protected activities (i.e., those for which a property owner allowing free, unmodified use cannot be sued) is "hunting, fishing, organized gleaning ... canoeing, boating, trapping, hiking, cross-country skiing, and tobogganing, sledding, speleological activities, horseback riding, bicycle riding, hang gliding, motorized vehicle operation for recreational purposes, snowmobile operation, cutting or gathering of wood for non-commercial purposes or training of dogs."

Even the worst chimney in the Gunks doesn't really qualify as "speleological activities."


True... but hiking IS allowed, so one could hike through to the other side of the 150' and climb on preserve land...
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#43998 - 04/08/09 06:19 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Dillbag]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2675
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
Good point, Dillbag.

Top
Page 3 of 14 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 13 14 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored