Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 2 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 ... 13 14 >
Topic Options
#43967 - 04/08/09 01:14 PM Cliff Closure
Kent Offline
old hand

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

Top
#43968 - 04/08/09 01:37 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
Kent, I'm sure this has been done to death, but can you please clarify the consequences for those of us who haven't been following this unfortunate development? The post mentions Eeenie Meanie. How much of the rest of the Nears is now off limits?

Top
#43969 - 04/08/09 01:53 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ianmanger]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Hi Ian,

It's a relatively short piece of cliff from Eenie Meenie extending down the cliff for about 150'. The best way to get to the end of the Nears now is to walk out the Millbrook Ridge Trail to the descent route at the end of the Nears. The rest of the climbing currently closed is in the Bayards where few are inclined to venture anyway.

K

Top
#43970 - 04/08/09 02:03 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
Thanks. Could you give an approximate location, climb-wise for the other end of the closure? Am I correct from your note that access along the cliff base through the closed section is no longer possible. To get the Eastertime area, for example, do I have to go all the way to the end?

Top
#43972 - 04/08/09 02:10 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ianmanger]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Quote:
Thanks. Could you give an approximate location, climb-wise for the other end of the closure?

I don't have a climb name. It's clearly marked though.

Quote:
Am I correct from your note that access along the cliff base through the closed section is no longer possible.

That is correct.

Quote:
To get the Eastertime area, for example, do I have to go all the way to the end?

I'm afraid so. Either that or rap in from above.

Top
#43973 - 04/08/09 02:11 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
Originally Posted By: Kent
The best way to get to the end of the Nears now is to walk out the Millbrook Ridge Trail to the descent route at the end of the Nears.
K


No, that would be the *legal* way to get to the end of the Nears, not necessarily the "best" way.


Edited by quanto_the_mad (04/08/09 02:13 PM)
_________________________


Top
#43974 - 04/08/09 02:14 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
Thanks for the clarification. Too bad.

Top
#43975 - 04/08/09 02:15 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: quanto_the_mad]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Quant, that's precisely the attitude that has precipitated the closure.

Top
#43976 - 04/08/09 02:20 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
And your attitude isn't any better, assuming I was advocating trespass.

I think the "best" way is to rent a plane and parachute in.
_________________________


Top
#43977 - 04/08/09 02:21 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
redtag Offline
journeyman

Registered: 06/26/07
Posts: 98
for the record kent - i'd have a lot more respect for your opinion if you dropped all of the transparent bullshit about rights and principles and just came out and told everyone what this is really about - MONEY

you want MONEY - maybe not now, but you want more MONEY for your property somewhere down the line...

i'll grant you that you allude to this, but you always couch it in terms of some sort of grander pretense...i call bullshit

you're greedy, the preserve is greedy, climbers are greedy...we all want what we cant have - in your case its grown more and more obvious that this is money in the form of property value...the preserve could have licked your feet and bought you candy, moratz and the gcc could have wined and dined, but in the end this isnt about anything other than good ole dollar signs

also for the record i'll tell you that i'm also not much of a fan of the gcc and i too have been suspect of the preserves methods from time time...but none of it makes your actions any less distasteful

access is generally hard to come by, and once its lost its harder to get back - you do all climbers everywhere a disservice with all of this...

be honest - its about money - so just put up a donations box on a tree near your land and the land of the other supposedly disenchanted landowners and call it done...you've made your point...

you're process is no more the high road than the preserves

sad days when climbers are f*#king other climbers in the ass over a few bucks

steve schwortz - west coast gunks irregulars

Top
#43978 - 04/08/09 02:24 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: redtag]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Steve, more later. I have to rock out of here for now.

Top
#43979 - 04/08/09 03:53 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2957
Loc: LI, NY
steve-how many log ins do you need?
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#43980 - 04/08/09 03:55 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Is it any coincidence that Eenie Meenie happens to be, if I am not mistaken, EXACTLY the boundary of the "here there be dragons" "choss zone" that is alluded to in the Swain guide? Hmm. Perhaps this potential issue was known, and kept quiet, as far back as the 90s when that was written.

Well, time to figure out and establish where the best rap line is, just beyond the closed zone.


Edited by pedestrian (04/08/09 03:56 PM)
Edit Reason: grammar

Top
#43981 - 04/08/09 04:32 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: pedestrian]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2677
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
Pretty sad all around. I am not much of a legaleeze guy and think I can see both sides. What I don't see is how there is any property damage taking place by use of a long standing right of way through this area, especially in light of the protection to property owners now afforded under NYS law when others engage in recreational persuits on un-improved property. This is just squeezing the climbers in an attempt to change local law, not because they are a significant problem or concern. The owners may have that leal right but it still hurts the wrong folks and I can't believe there would be any real benefit ever to the owners.

Top
#43982 - 04/08/09 04:35 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: chip]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2957
Loc: LI, NY
what is the bottom-cliff boundary of the private property? is the cliff face private? can we traverse over the private property?
how far south? i see it starts at eenie meenie, when does legal climbing begin again?
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#43983 - 04/08/09 04:54 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: empicard]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: empicard
what is the bottom-cliff boundary of the private property? is the cliff face private? can we traverse over the private property?

Kent answered all this up-thread: there is no bottom-cliff boundary; the cliff face is private, all the way to the top. No, you cannot traverse over the private property.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#43984 - 04/08/09 05:02 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: empicard]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
Kent says 150' past Eenie, which would put the other end down by ... Gold Rush? I think ETToo would be beyond the closed section.

As for rapping down, can you rap anywhere around there in a single rap with doubles? I don't remember anything good around there until you hit the Williams wall, at which point it's probably quicker to walk around.

Chip- didn't the recreational pursuits specifically not include climbing?

Ped- in the intro Swain says it's chossy from Grease Gun to Ground Control... which is considerably bigger area. But then again, it's all privately owned, so you could be right.


Edited by quanto_the_mad (04/08/09 05:05 PM)
_________________________


Top
#43985 - 04/08/09 05:17 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: quanto_the_mad]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2957
Loc: LI, NY
MarcC, he never specifically mentions the cliff face.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#43986 - 04/08/09 05:30 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: empicard]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2677
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
Quanto, my friend who is a big whoop in the recreation field says climbing was specificly included in the law, unless the property has been modified to make it more suitable or convenient for the activity.

Top
#43987 - 04/08/09 05:39 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: empicard]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: empicard
MarcC, he never specifically mentions the cliff face.

Thanks to his starting a thread on rc.com,it's getting confusing, esp. when he references this thread over there regarding answers. Yeah, here he said you can't walk along the base - over there he said the private land includes the cliff face.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#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: 2677
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
Good point, Dillbag.

Top
#43999 - 04/08/09 06:23 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: chip]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
That's of course if the landowner is allowing access...
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#44002 - 04/08/09 07:32 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
Dana Offline
addict

Registered: 07/13/00
Posts: 619
Kent,

What is it we have done in that section of the Near Trapps that has upset the landowners? I am sure that local climbing community would make every effort to correct any misbehavior that is affecting the people who own the property.

Dana

Top
#44003 - 04/08/09 07:33 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Dillbag]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
Well no, not really. You need to understand what the recreational use statute does -- and does not -- do.

What the statute does do is protect property owners who decide to hold their land open for protected uses (as long as they don't charge for the use).

It does not, however, mean that a landowner has to open his lands to anyone, for any purpose. So hiking across posted lands is still trespassing. Sorry.

Top
#44004 - 04/08/09 07:36 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Dana]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: Dana
What is it we have done in that section of the Near Trapps that has upset the landowners? I am sure that local climbing community would make every effort to correct any misbehavior that is affecting the people who own the property.

Read my post up-thread a little. The only thing climbers have done that has upset Kent et al is not side with the landowners against Gardiner and The Preserve.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#44005 - 04/08/09 08:04 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: MarcC]
phil Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/12/01
Posts: 2627
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
Originally Posted By: MarcC
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.


WOW!!! I think that pretty much sums this crap up... shocked

Top
#44006 - 04/08/09 08:42 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: retr2327]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
Originally Posted By: retr2327
Well no, not really. You need to understand what the recreational use statute does -- and does not -- do.

What the statute does do is protect property owners who decide to hold their land open for protected uses (as long as they don't charge for the use).

It does not, however, mean that a landowner has to open his lands to anyone, for any purpose. So hiking across posted lands is still trespassing. Sorry.


...read my posts again, but more carefully wink
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#44007 - 04/08/09 09:07 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Dillbag]
phil Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/12/01
Posts: 2627
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
Kent,

This is a quote from the thread from the link that you posted
Originally Posted By: Kent


Originally Posted By: Gmburns2000
From where I stand right now, I'm thinking you're a bit of a cry baby who has to intentionally hurt others in order to get attention. Sorry dude, but until I see more evidence that you're doing something more than trying to win a zoning battle, I'm rooting for the other team.


You helped me out big time when I took my decker... I dont have anying against you, but I gotta tell you straight out.

You are making a big mistake by doing this, you will be blamed and labled a d**k. No matter how much in the right you think you are or no matter how much you feel you have been wronged. No one will care.

Phil

Top
#44008 - 04/08/09 09:08 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: phil]
Jeff D. Offline
journeyman

Registered: 06/10/05
Posts: 75
Loc: NY, NJ
Originally Posted By: MarcC
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.


I don't agree with the way landowners are going about promoting their cause, nor the manner in which they have decided to represent themselves.

But...

The above statement is rediculous and absurd. Our entire system of government is predicated on the protection of private property rights. I can easily see how a landholder might find the same satisfaction and belonging to the cliffs that I do and as such have a significant portion of their net worth invested in property there. As much as it may be a noble cause to prevent further development of lands adjacent to the preserve, that should not occur at the detriment of the few.

That being said, I don't think its the climbers responsibility to advocate for those who made/held investments that have had significant political risk. This should have been evident considering the immediate presence of large interest groups with a sole focus on preservation. In my honest opinion, I think the Mohonk Preserve, if given the choice, would have gladly given up easy access to the far end of the Near Trapps to advance their preservation agenda. But then again, WTF do I know...

Its an unfortunate situation


Edited by Jeff D. (04/08/09 09:18 PM)

Top
#44009 - 04/08/09 09:15 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Jeff D.]
NYZoo Offline
journeyman

Registered: 07/06/08
Posts: 59
Loc: Gunks
I find it unbelievable that a fellow climber would use climbing access to other climbers as a tool for his own issues with the preserve and local zoning laws. CapedCrusader - Is this how you see yourself?? Actions like this will only alienate you further from the very community you think you're a part of.. I give you a vote for the biggest douche in the universe award...


Edited by NYZoo (04/08/09 09:32 PM)

Top
#44010 - 04/08/09 09:28 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Jeff D.]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
Jeff, I agree completely.

GO

Top
#44011 - 04/08/09 09:51 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Gunks.com is being a bit buggy, see cross post on rockclimbing.com



Edited by Kent (04/08/09 10:05 PM)

Top
#44014 - 04/08/09 10:24 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
tallgirlnyc Offline
member

Registered: 05/12/08
Posts: 194
Loc: Cold Spring NY

Top
#44015 - 04/08/09 10:26 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land
Kent, you're the victim of truncation of posts which are all or in part copied and pasted from Web pages. The post preview will not show the truncation. The truncation takes place at one of several punctuation marks. The only way to fix it is to see where the truncation is, cut and paste the text from that webpage once more, replacing the punctuation mark with one from your keyboard. This may be an iterative process since there may be several potential truncation points in the text. This makes cut-and-paste text posting quite a pain in the ass and challenges your zeal in making that post.
_________________________

Top
#44016 - 04/08/09 10:30 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: oenophore]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: oenophore
This makes cut-and-paste text posting quite a pain in the ass and challenges your zeal in making that post.

The other challenge is having three on-going threads on three different sites. tired
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#44017 - 04/09/09 02:06 AM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: MarcC]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1041
Loc: hamlet\'s hand
"In addition, for years the GCC has steadfastly refused to establish any relationship with individual private landowners at three Gunks crags in Gardiner: the Near Trapps, the Bayards, and Millbrook. More than any other single party, today's Near Trapps cliff closure is for the GCC."

Kent,

As detailed last year on this forum, I attempted to discuss landowner claims with you, when you purported to be the representative for them.

Your first parley had nothing to do with the landowners. Before you would speak about landowner issues, you first asked me to solicit an apology from the Mohonk Preserve regarding a personal matter between you and them. One I knew nothing about, one that the GCC had no business intervening in. Your request had nothing to do with climbing or zoning; it was about your personal grievance with the Preserve that preceded issues of zoning.

I refused your request, and I wasn't about to attempt to reach the landowners by then going around their representative.

_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.

Top
#44018 - 04/09/09 02:26 AM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: yorick]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Hi Chris,

We keep going 'round in circles on this. After the exchange of emails you and I had some years ago now, on multiple occasions I requested that the GCC speak directly with landowners. On each of these occasions Chris said that he or someone else would do so.

It is curious to me now that, yet again Chris Moratz does not speak up. Instead, although you have previously told us you are done with the GCC, here you are. I welcome your participation but it doesn't account for nor excuse the inaction of the GCC.

And Chris, as long as you're here, why doesn't the GCC follow any of the Access Fund's guidelines on how to interact with landowners?




Edited by Kent (04/09/09 02:47 AM)

Top
#44019 - 04/09/09 04:14 AM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
jasonhighxposure Offline
stranger

Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 3
Hi Kent. Being both a Gardiner land owner, and an individual who uses the cliffs for both recreation and as a profession. What is it we can do as a climbing community to appease the landowners involved and reopen these cliffs. It is truly sad that things had to come to this. We already have natural cliff closures. What can we do. Or are there only a few people involved that can do anything. Please whoever the people that Kent and the land owners wish to speak to, agree upon something because I can only see this getting worse, before it gets better.

Top
#44020 - 04/09/09 04:48 AM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
I have sympathy for both sides in this sad encounter. The landowners were caught in the backlash to the Bradley outrage, which made it clear that owners could do terrible things to the ridge. Once a danger leaves the realm of the hypothetical and becomes clear and present, it is easy to see how a forceful reaction might get out of hand.

In spite of the validity of some of the grievances, and strictly as a matter of strategy, I wonder if the landowners are really doing themselves a favor. Since climbers have not been a problem to the Near Trapps owners, the only point in the closure that I can grasp is to mobilize climber outrage as a force to mediate Preserve policy and/or the Gardiner zoning process. (I guess a far more petty "a few of you spoke out in favor of zoning so now all you will be punished" is possible, but I prefer to think there is more to it than that.)

If indeed this is a strategic move rather than an eruption of frustration, I think it will be of questionable value (well, either way its value is questionable). The vast majority of climbers are probably unaware of Preserve land policies and Gardiner zoning issues. They are most likely to change from a position of ignorance and indifference to one of hostility to the landowners, rather than applying any kind of pressure to the Preserve or to Gardiner. A strategy that creates many more enemies without any offsetting benefits isn't going to be good in the long run.

Secondly, and I am not a lawyer, so I beg anyone legal expertise to correct anything said below, it is not clear to me that the landowners are on solid ground in trying to ban climbing in the Near Trapps (Bayards is a different issue). People have been climbing in the Near Trapps continually for at least 67 years now (Gelsa was climbed in 1942). I myself have been climbing there for 46 or 47 years. I believe, from my most decidedly non-expert reading of NYS law, that something called a Prescriptive Easement applies (this is not the same as Adverse Possession, by the way). There are conditions for this, which one could argue been met by the climbing community. Of course, this would have to be decided by a court, and the case would have to be brought soon. If this were to happen and the landowners lost, their land would be saddled with this easement as a legal entity, which would certainly not be to their advantage in terms of property value (although the presence of climbers may already have brought about an equivalent discount).

It may be that the strategy behind the closing is in fact to establish conditions necessary for the denial of a Prescriptive Easement, and I suppose this could work if the closings are not challenged in court in a timely fashion. That being the case, appropriate climber strategy would be to mount a legal challenge. It would then seem, in view of such a challenge, that climbers ought to ignore the closures as part of an assertion of an already-existing easement dating back to 1942. This seems to me to be a plausible clash of strategies, to no one's ultimate benefit. For one thing, a legal decision in favor of climber use would apply to all the Near Trapps landowners, not just the one (I assume we are speaking of a single owner at the moment) who has closed their land. But again, I am not a lawyer.

Although the details are unclear to outsiders, it seems clear that the GCC and Kent have failed as negotiating partners, with each blaming the other as is, unfortunately, almost always the case in such collapses. This appears to leave climbers with the option of either doing nothing as climbs they have enjoyed for nearly seven decades are threatened, or else turning to the courts for relief, with all the uncertainty and finality of outcome that that route presents.

Top
#44023 - 04/09/09 11:32 AM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: rg@ofmc]
Aya Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 754
Loc: Climbing somewhere
My first reaction as a climber, was to wonder what the heck, the Nears have been open for years - why are they suddenly being taken away? I then come to find, as I look into it a little further, that it wasn't anything that I, as a climber did, and there's absolutely nothing that I, as a climber, can do as far as the landowners are concerned, to get access back on the table.
Sure, logically thinking about it I have sympathy for the landowners. But this closure is making it really really hard for me to want to do anything for them.
_________________________
Gunks T-Shirts!

Top
#44024 - 04/09/09 12:12 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: rg@ofmc]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Hi Rich,

As always, a thoughtful and well written post. A successful claim of right of way is possible I suppose but not likely. A claim of prescriptive easement to climb on private land as a right is not possible.

In other words, climbers may in fact be able to get a court to order a right of way through land (then again they may not) but landowners will still be able to prohibit climbing. Before pursuing that course of action though, litigation minded climbers might pause to consider there is a whole lot of climbing out there on private land that could yet be closed.

I also wonder what effect suing landowners here for a right of way will have on the perceptions landowners throughout the region and across the country have of climbers.

This brings up the underlying dynamic. The more entitlements people claim to private land, the more aggrieved landowners become, and in the end more access is lost. The access being lost now is a consequence of the communities expression of entitlement to our land in the form of the new and horrendously restrictive zoning law which greatly commpromises the financial security of landowners down the ridge.

Access lost next could well be a consequence of an expression of entitlement in the form of a lawsuit against landowners. We landowners find the prospect of being sued by climbers or other recreationists pretty ridiculous. Climbers have taken our private land entirely for granted for years, never even once saying thank you. Now that some landowners want to close their land, the same people who used their land without ever even saying thank you will sue to retain access.

This is uniquely New York as far as I can tell. Climbers easy access to climbing on private land is more important than the financial security of elderly people on the ridge. It's extraordinarily selfish.

Top
#44025 - 04/09/09 12:53 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: rg@ofmc]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Also Rich, on the breakdown of communications between the GCC and I. I tried, repeatedly. Just this last November, here on gunks.com I openly invited Chris M. to contact me. He never did.

As I've mentioned several times, the GCC has never contacted any landowner in the Nears, Bayards, or at Millbrook to my knowledge. One has to ask, why?

I surmise it's because the Chair and Co Chair are deeply entrenched with the FOS crowd which is incredibly anti-landowner. They seem to endorse the strategy of getting the land by any means necessary, by hook or by crook if need be, because then they can recreate on it.

Top
#44026 - 04/09/09 01:01 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
Not a lawyer, and I also agree that Rich's post was interesting and a potential, if somewhat aggressive solution, although not beneficial to you, Kent. If the Preserve as the owner of the surrounding land (and not an ad hoc group of lawyered-up climbers) was to take this action to preserve at least foot traffic through the affected land, it would be on behalf of a much-wider group of potential users than just climbers. Sure, this is unlikely.

As many people have said, the vast majority of users, climbers and myself included, have had no clue that they were trespassing on your land or being 'disrespectful.' Causes like "Save the Ridge!" have an obvious emotive ring and draw kneejerk support from folks like me who descend from miles away on the weekend and have no grasp of the local issues. I pay my $100 to the Preserve to manage all that stuff for me, to work with and not against the local community in the same way I support the Access Fund. I'll respect your rights even though I have to respectfully disagree with the outcome.

As some other poster requested, it would be really helpful if you could get past your spat with GCC and lay out the consequences of the zoning law to those that you are speaking for, including the cat food guy. Just so I know what I'm in the middle of.

Top
#44027 - 04/09/09 02:03 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ianmanger]
Aya Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 754
Loc: Climbing somewhere
Kent,

You say that your goal is "increased awareness" by climbers of the issues at hand.

I still do not understand how this increased awareness furthers your goal of property value protection.

Could you please explain?
_________________________
Gunks T-Shirts!

Top
#44028 - 04/09/09 02:17 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Aya]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Kent, I will again pose the question you threw a lot of words at, but refused to directly answer, last round:

***** What, specifically, do you want from us climbers, in quid pro quo for climbing access? *****

I don't have the time or energy to chase you down on three separate fora to re-ask this simple, narrow question again and again. So in advance of that, I will note that I fully expect a verbose but non-responsive answer from you, and I repeat my question:

***** What, specifically, do you want from us climbers in quid pro quo for climbing access?? *****

Top
#44029 - 04/09/09 02:23 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Julie]
Aya Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 754
Loc: Climbing somewhere
Julie, he would like climbers to respect the property closures. That is all.

I cannot understand how that helps him to preserve his property value, but he has stated that that is all he wants from climbers.

He has also stated that there is absolutely nothing that climbers can do to get access back on the table.

So there you go.
_________________________
Gunks T-Shirts!

Top
#44030 - 04/09/09 02:25 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Julie]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Julie,
Perhaps there is nothing that Kent wants that you or any climber has or can provide. Perhaps the land owners are just at the end of their rope so to speak, and the final answer is closure. Sometimes, no really does mean no.

Top
#44031 - 04/09/09 02:28 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: alicex4]
Aya Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 754
Loc: Climbing somewhere
Answer to what is closure?
_________________________
Gunks T-Shirts!

Top
#44032 - 04/09/09 02:42 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: alicex4]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: alicex4
Perhaps there is nothing that Kent wants that you or any climber has or can provide. Perhaps the land owners are just at the end of their rope so to speak, and the final answer is closure.

So either it goes back to trying to coerce climbers to support their (his) cause or it's just petty and vindictive lashing out at the only group they can, pissed off because a number of people in the Preserve and on the FoS board are climbers.

Regarding Kent's comment of climbers never thanking the landowners for the access - talk about a specious argument. I climbed in the Gunks from 1972 till 2000. Other than perhaps a tiny handful of locals, I and 99.99% of all the other climbers had no idea that we were ever occasionally on private property.

As someone suggested, why was there never an attempt to inform and educate the larger climbing community about the issues and possibly garner support? Things like information meetings, flyers, petitions, posters, out-reach, etc. Instead all we got were some frothing rants from Kent on gunks.com (so you reached maybe 50 climbers), a childish personal feud with the GCC, and a punitive closure. Seems kinda like the lazy approach.I suspect Kent and the landowners will have the satisfaction of "raising awareness" and making their point, but loose a lot of potential support via their antagonistic tactics.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#44034 - 04/09/09 03:05 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Dillbag]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
Your second post -- but not your first -- suggests you understand the issue well enough. OTOH, I figured I'd leave the post anyway for those who got the wrong impression from your first post.

Top
#44036 - 04/09/09 03:46 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: MarcC]
Timbo Offline
addict

Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 696
Loc: Delaware
Originally Posted By: MarcC
I climbed in the Gunks from 1972 till 2000. Other than perhaps a tiny handful of locals, I and 99.99% of all the other climbers had no idea that we were ever occasionally on private property.


I agree. Although I had heard there was some discord over where property boundaries began and ended, I assumed that since there had never been any "formal" type announcment from any official source, the dispute had been resolved and the Preserve owned the cliff.

I stopped visiting the end of the Nears as soon as it was obvious to me the Preserve did not own the cliff, nor the trail at the base, for a certain section of the Nears. I do not visit private land without expressed permission (leftover ethic from my days as a country boy in Kentucky).

But punishing all climbers for something we had nothing to do with, nor would have likely been able to influence, only makes me tend to the other side.

Julie has a valid point: Kent has never presented concrete requests to the climbing community before the recent closure threats and carry out of said threats.

I would have been more than happy to help a landowner fix a barn, mow a field, put up hay, etc had they asked. I would have been happy to lend my expertise as a geologist had that been needed. I would have been happy to spend a day or 2 of my weekend to help any nearby landowner in exchange for access, HAD THEY JUST ASKED !. I do it all the time on land where I have permission to hunt, mountain bike, or go caving. I suspect a lot of climbers would have done the same.

But what we got were rants against the GCC, the FOS, and the Mohonk Preserve and threats of access closure. So be it. Now climbers will establish new access to the end of Nears, we have a sour taste regarding local landowners, for whom Kent claims to speak, and there will be new animosity among a much larger group of people than there ever was before.

I would truly like to hear from other local landowners; I doubt we can lump them all together as being of the same ilk in the same way not all climbers can be lumped together in the same group as those who trespassed on Eddie's land, shat on Gunkies property, or those who seek to use potentially onerous legal means to obtain land.

Tim S.


Edited by Timbo (04/09/09 03:47 PM)
_________________________

Top
#44037 - 04/09/09 04:13 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Timbo]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
I have no sour grapes toward any land owners. I don't even have sour grapes against Kent. But I do think Kent presents this argument in emotional, sensationalistic terms and has ignored repeated requests for quantitative information. Information requested so we could actually understand the situation and form an educated opinion. Instead we are asked to take his rants at face value and follow along as if he were the Pied Piper of the Trapps Hamlet.

Ummm, no.
_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#44038 - 04/09/09 04:14 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: alicex4]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
Originally Posted By: alicex4
Julie,
Perhaps there is nothing that Kent wants that you or any climber has or can provide. Perhaps the land owners are just at the end of their rope so to speak, and the final answer is closure. Sometimes, no really does mean no.


Julie, Aya, and AliceAliceAliceAlice:

Kent answered this question on Supertopo in a very forthright and honest way. I'll quote him here:

Quote:
It's my opinion that fair minded climbers, aware of all of the facts, will recognize the Preserve's conduct as predatory. They will recognize what the Town of Gardiner has done with the zoning law as punitive and confiscatory. They will recognize that respecting property rights is the best way to establish a productive relationship with landowners.

As such, climbers who vote in Gardiner, and there are many, may start to vote for people who promote community through mutual respect.

Even if climbers embrace only the third item, the idea that respecting property rights, including land closures, is the best way to relate to landowners, that alone will go a long way toward a more productive relationship between landowners and climbers. A relationhsip that could transcend the differences landowners have with the Preserve and the Town of Gardiner.

On the other hand, if climbers reject the idea that respecting property rights is the optimal way to relate to landowners, and instead pursue entitlements then that will go a long way toward motivating the large number of landowners in Gardiner who are not Mohonk members to say, enough is enough.

So we win either way. If climbers drop the sense of entitlement then we can all begin to move toward a future where climbers and landowners can happily coexist. If climbers push for entitlments then that will inspire many folks in town to give the more predatory folks on the town board, who are effectively proxies for the Preserve, the boot. A new board will start the process toward a new and better zoning law.

The zoning law as written is so unfair that, with or without my involvement, this town and this ridge will be in turmoil in one way or another until the law is either repealed or fixed.


GO

Top
#44039 - 04/09/09 05:21 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: GOclimb]
Leemouse2 Offline
addict

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 459
Loc: Rosendale, NY
I've still not seen the summary of the zoning laws, so I went to read them on my own. Here's what I gather, in general, corrections or additions most welcome:

- The town of Gardiner was split up into various districts based both on usage and location. The district that Kent and other ridge landowners are in is the SP district - or the Shawangunk Ridge Protection District.
- The SP distirct is divided into three subdistricts, based on elevation. Lowest elevation is SP-1, middle is SP-2, and highest is SP-3.
- Generally speaking, the town made the zoning laws for all three SP districts more restrictive than other districts, with larger lot size requirements (5, 10, and 20 acres, respectively), larger setbacks, and smaller footprints allowed for residential development.
- SP-2 and SP3 require special permits for any land use other than agriculture, low impact recreation, or keeping domestic animals.

So, I gather that these new, very restrictive zoning laws mean that if you were a little old lady in SP-3 who held 20 acres of land right at the base of the cliff and had hoped to sell of 10 of it for $1,000,000, or whatever, to fund your retirement, you'd be SOL. If you were in SP-2, there would be a lot fewer things a potential buyer could do with the land, so the value would have dropped substantially.

So what I am GUESSING the landowners would really like is to change the zoning law to remove some of the restrictions to development in the SP district. Makes sense for a landowner - it increases their land value. But my question is, HOW MUCH MORE development access do the landowners want or need to preserve land value, and is that consistent with preserving the larger ecosystem. Kent said (and I paraphrase) that if certain landownders wanted to develop on the ridge they would have done it before the law was passed, but I udnerstood it was just such a development proposal that sent the town, GCC, and others into full on panic mode.

It's clear that in this case what's best for the landowners financially (full development rights with no restrictions would maximize property sale value) is not best for the community at large. It remains to be seen whether the two sides can come to an agreeable middle ground.

Regardless, it's anyone's right to restrict access to their private property for any reason at all, including just being pissed off at the town of Gardiner and the GCC, and people should respect that regardless of whether they agree with the reasons. But, as far as I can tell, the closure really doesn't have much to do with the climbers at all.
_________________________
It's hard to be brave when you're a chicken.

Top
#44040 - 04/09/09 05:24 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: GOclimb]
tallgirlnyc Offline
member

Registered: 05/12/08
Posts: 194
Loc: Cold Spring NY
Who actually owns the land 150' to the left of Eenie Meanie? I suspect it isn't you Kent but I'm not sure.
I'd love the opportunity to open a dialogue with the actual owner so that we can separate out the access issue from the main land owner/preserve cluster/goat shenanigans.

I'm happy to lead this reach out and would welcome the participation of other climbers who feel that through communication and understanding we can come up with a solution for access in the Nears that works for everyone.

Top
#44041 - 04/09/09 05:25 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: GOclimb]
dstrickler Offline
stranger

Registered: 04/26/07
Posts: 23
Kent
In asking this question I am not trying to be rude but am curious what you or any one who owns land at the base of the Nears will do when said "entitled" climber illegly crosses your land on the way to another climb?

Top
#44042 - 04/09/09 05:41 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: GOclimb]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
I'm responding to both GO's quote of Kent here, and to the thread over on Supertaco.

Kent: early in the Supertaco thread, you were asked the following (not by me):

"Caped, get out the facts! What is the current zoning, what density is permitted, and what environmental limitations are there on your property? Now what are the proposed changes and what will be the zoning, density, and environmental limitations on your property then? What are the current taxes and what will be the new taxes?"

You said you didn't have time then to reply, and that the zoning law, at 150 pages, was too long to summarize here. Instead, you've found plenty of time to respond to various other posts (both here and there), all with heated rhetoric about the outrageous invasion of property rights, little old ladies having to eat cat food, and other apocalyptic rants.

If you really hope to do more than just piss climbers off, that's not going to cut it. You seem to have a pretty concrete grievance in mind: spell it out. What is it about this zoning law, specifically, that you view as so unfair and outrageous?

My general experience is that zoning laws are, by definition, highly localized, and enacted by local authorities in response -- usually -- to mostly local pressure. The idea that climbers/access groups have been able to hijack the Garrison board so as to screw the locals who live and vote here seems farfetched, to put it mildly. The idea that having local landowners screw climbers is somehow going to improve that situation is even more farfetched.

I understand that you're pissed off; you may even have good reason to be, although you haven't convinced me yet. But it doesn't seem to me that you're doing anything remotely constructive so far.

It's at least possible that if you made the effort to explain, specifically, just what this zoning law did and why it's so outrageous that you would get a more sympathetic reception, at least from some of us. If you don't, then it seems more likely that many will conclude (fairly or not) that the landowners just want the right to freely develop their land, without reasonable restrictions, to the detriment of an environment that most of us treasure. They certainly have the right to want to make money off their property as best they can, but if that's all this is about, don't expect much sympathy here.

Top
#44045 - 04/09/09 10:00 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: retr2327]
browndog2 Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/24/01
Posts: 767
Loc: livin' on the edge
Kent, now that you have the attention of the GDC community, it would be of value to you to explicitly detail what changes to the zoning ordinace would satisfy the collective cliffside landowners. If were gonna be with you, it would be helpful to know what goal we would all be pushing for.
_________________________
(not that there's anything wrong with that...sorta)

Top
#44047 - 04/09/09 11:41 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: browndog2]
Mark Heyman Offline
old hand

Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 1123
Loc: South Jersey (Pinelands)
I have followed Kents threads for years and though I dont remember many details I still seems I remember more than many here. I think it is fair to say that has at one time or another (long ago) better explained his stance against FOS and the Preserve.

I am pretty sure that Kent has a special interest in swaying climber opinion because he feels that we provide strong financial support the preserves supposed predatory land acquisition practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: Kent
Its my opinion that fair minded climbers, aware of all of the facts, will recognize the Preserves conduct as predatory. They will recognize what the Town of Gardiner has done with the zoning law as punitive and confiscatory. They will recognize that respecting property rights is the best way to establish a productive relationship with landowners.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unless hes changed his ideas, what Kent would like is for us non locals to do, is stop supporting the Preserve and not climb there

Often fair laws are not possible. More often than not when someone gains someone looses, but im not against making laws for the greater good because of it. Plenty of homeowners owned water front property like mine in SJ when the Pinelands Act was passed. I cant subdivide my property or build on the 500ft between home and the river. On the other hand I dont currently have to worry about my neighbors selling out to a developer.

I bet that the landowners losses Kent refers to are not losses at all. How many of the land owners involved paid more for their property than it was worth two or three years ago? I have a feeling its just not as sad a story as he tries to make it sound. More like the stock market now - most of us still have the money we put into it, just not all the growth we expected. Anyway I am sure hed garner more sympathy in helping procure the cat food people a better diet.

I don't have a very high opinion of the general public or even just climbers and I feel Kent has given very poor advice to especially to a single landowner. I live on property with many of the same issues. There are paths on my property that recreational vehicles use. Id prefer they didnt, but I am very sure that a battle with them would place me and my family far far down on the losing end of a battle I have neither the will nor time for. When I was a kid my neighbors did a lot of trespassing in other neighborhoods. Those that tried to stop it were occasionally singled out for special attention. I doubt looking back on it the land owners would feel there actions were worth it in the end. I know they never prevented the trespassing while I was a kid. Kent isn't it correct that you are younger and fitter they the land owner. Perhaps you should offer to police it for him.

Yes I am more jaded than ever. I have good reason to be.

Zoning laws are only temporary! Seems to me your area is lucky to have a group large enough to keep them in check even if for just a while.

----------------------------------------------------------------
More: Quote Kent
So we win either way. If climbers drop the sense of entitlement then we can all begin to move toward a future where climbers and landowners can happily coex
----------------------------------------------------------------

Climbers have nothing to do with this except for your (Kents) linking them. In reality it is your own townsman that you need to deal with. Didnt they pass the zoning laws you would like to see changed or repealed?

If your fears and protestations are correct then the climbing community would certainly be best off hoping things stand as they are so the predatory Preserve can gain the land in their mad scheme. They let us climb on their land for a small fee. If your fears and protestations are not correct, then we need only ignore you.

I am not anti-Ken and I certainly belive property rights issues are valid issues. But, your efforts here are very similar to the pre-election ramblings on this site in that most of the people including myself could have better used their time doing something more tangible to progress our goals. OK Gunks.com is a local site. I would think RC is far less useful to your cause, and ST? Whatever.


Edited by Mark Heyman (04/10/09 04:24 AM)

Top
#44052 - 04/10/09 03:43 AM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Mark Heyman]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2957
Loc: LI, NY
Stop climbing in the gunks? Sure, and I'll stop spending my money in local businesses while I'm at it.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#44053 - 04/10/09 11:26 AM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
DMD Offline
stranger

Registered: 09/25/05
Posts: 16
Loc: Cold Spring, NY
Like Leemouse2 I went and read the zoning code with respect the Nears. I would urge everyone on this thread to do that.
Google Town of Gardiner and click on laws and then see zoning code. Go to SHAWANGUNK RIDGE PROTECTION DISTRICT (SP).

Also check out the zoning map and see the parcels in question with respect the Nears and land contours.

In my opinion this code embraces reality: it isn't appropriate nor really feasible to develop near or on the talus slopes and cliff. It never has been Thats my opinion. The code does allow development at lower elevations nearer the road.

In my opinion the code protects the community against the land owner who doesn't give a shit about anyone but him/her self and would ruin what we all appreciate to gain their own personal vision of paradise. Kent says he and his landowner friends are not this type, but they could certainly sell to this type.

But draw your own conclusions by reading the pertinent code sections yourself.

BTW, minimum lot sizes in the code would not apply to lots that existed before the code was enacted. Those lots are legally non conforming. But the code would restrict subdividing those lots into lots smaller than the code requirements. Fine by me...

I for one would trade access to Kent's and his friends lands for this kind of zoning code.

Top
#44054 - 04/10/09 12:29 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: DMD]
Jim Lawyer Offline
member

Registered: 08/23/00
Posts: 157
Loc: Pompey, NY
Some related thoughts on a totally different area:

Where I built my place in the Adirondacks, the minimum building lot size is 40 acres, and it took 2 years to secure a permit, and cost about $7,000 in legal expenses. I had to get a further permit (an additional year) to cut some trees so that the viewshed was protected. This sucked, but I totally support it; as a result, I can't see any of my neighbors, they can't see me, and hikers can't see me from any trails or summits.

I can imagine a situation where zoning was relaxed. In such a world, there would be trophy homes on the ridge tops and valleys full of condos. Sound familiar? Think North Conway, and the view from Whitehorse Ledge.

I think my property is far more valuable in the more restrictive world.

Top
#44056 - 04/10/09 01:24 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Jim Lawyer]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
From rockclimbing.com thread.
Quote:

In reply to:
CapedCrusader wrote:

jsh, Julie- It's not that I won't answer your questions, it's that you don't like the answer. It's as if you were at someones house and you decided you liked their patio furniture...

Umm, Kent, instead of unnecessary analogies, can you spell this out in the terms that Julie, Aya and others have asked? It appears to be

"There is nothing I want in return for granting access to my property. The closed section is off limits to everyone. Please respect this. Thanks and goodbye."

If you'll just admit this, it would be helpful and we can all get on with our lives.


Quote:
Onyerbike,

Using different words I've said pretty much exactly what you've said. I've been very clear. The land that's closed is closed.



so that's that. everything else just sound and fury...

Top
#44057 - 04/10/09 01:49 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ianmanger]
SnowJunkie Offline
newbie

Registered: 09/14/06
Posts: 27
Loc: NY
Having followed this thread for far too long I have to admit I'm now firmly against helping Kent and his cause due to his actions.

Regardless though I believe the zoning law changes will help keep the ridge the unique area/ecosystem that it is now and into the future. It's a shame that some little old lady won't be able to use her property as a piggy bang by subdividing it but the idea is to preserve the quality of the area for EVERYONE rather then a few who have their own ideas/wishes. As with many posters before me, I never knew that I was on private property when climbing in the Nears and would happily seek permission or offer something in return for access.
_________________________
Do Today What Other's Won't;
So You Can Do Tomorrow What Other's Can't

Top
#44059 - 04/10/09 02:34 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ianmanger]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: ianmanger
From rockclimbing.com thread.
Quote:

In reply to:
CapedCrusader wrote:

jsh, Julie- It's not that I won't answer your questions, it's that you don't like the answer. It's as if you were at someones house and you decided you liked their patio furniture...

Umm, Kent, instead of unnecessary analogies, can you spell this out in the terms that Julie, Aya and others have asked? It appears to be

"There is nothing I want in return for granting access to my property. The closed section is off limits to everyone. Please respect this. Thanks and goodbye."

If you'll just admit this, it would be helpful and we can all get on with our lives.


Quote:
Onyerbike,

Using different words I've said pretty much exactly what you've said. I've been very clear. The land that's closed is closed.



so that's that. everything else just sound and fury...


Yet on supertopo, Kent writes:
Quote:
The local Access Fund Affiliate, the GCC, could have had played a constructive role here. Unfortunately the people running the GCC seem to perceive their role as facilitating climber's participation in the coercive practices of the large land acquisition organizations on the ridge. The idea for them, if I'm not mistaken, is if the Freinds of the Shawangunks or the Mohonk Preserve can wrest the land from the neighbors then climnbers will have access. Of course, this strategy is a primary inspiration for the closures.


So in one post he says "it's closed and there's nothing climbers can do" but in another he says that a climber's organization "could have played a constructive role". So again we have Kent suggesting that something could be (or could have been)worked out, yet alienating a climbing community that might* have been willing to help (had they been educated about the issues) because of his pissing contest with the GCC.

*: Although after seeing the explanation of the zoning ordinance, many climbers might well side with protection of the ridge, as some have already mentioned here.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#44060 - 04/10/09 02:50 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: SnowJunkie]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
Based on the comments so far, I don't see much chance that restricting access is going to convert climbers into a lobby to get the zoning changed back, even assuming that their influence [hah!]could accomplish that. Nor do I see that as a desirable outcome.

So we're left with two choices: 1)an increasingly antagonistic situation in which the owners try to bar access, while pissed-off and/or unknowing climbers continue to use the trails; or 2) some attempt to resolve the situation in a way that recognizes the conflicting interests.

I don't know if the Preserve or some other conservation-oriented entity can raise the funds to buy an easement over the cliff faces and the land necessary for an access trail, but that seems like the most reasonable outcome. I don't believe anybody has a God-given or legal right to climb on someone else's private land, so if this is something that the climbing community really wants, it should be prepared to raise some reasonable amount of funds to obtain access. Either that, or get used to hiking down and rappeling in.

And yes, much as it will piss Kent off, the price will be lower because the other possible uses have been restricted by the zoning. That's the reality: collectively enacted zoning laws shift the benefits and burdens of landownership in ways that certain individual owners may not like. It's certainly possible that if the individuals affected are sufficiently motivated and numerous, they could take over the Board and repeal the law, but I think it's highly unlikely: plenty of local residents who are not directly burdened by the zoning laws probably like to keep the cliffs as they are.

Nor do I think it likely that such a right could be obtained through litigation along the lines Rich suggested. On the other hand, I don't know that it's flatly impossible, and if the homeowners are not willing to try and reach some agreement, someone might end up giving it a try. I'd argue that every effort should be made to avoid that: people who end up in litigation usually wish they hadn't.

Top
#44061 - 04/10/09 03:24 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: retr2327]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: retr2327
So we're left with two choices: 1)an increasingly antagonistic situation in which the owners try to bar access, while pissed-off and/or unknowing climbers continue to use the trails; or 2) some attempt to resolve the situation in a way that recognizes the conflicting interests.


There's a third option: ignore Kent and the landowners, meaning, let them close access to their land and respect the closure. Just go around them. A quick check of the black Dick guide shows that we're talking about only 4 or 5 climbs. Yes, the access to the remainder of the Nears is indeed a PITA, but think how it might be even less crowded out there.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#44062 - 04/10/09 03:34 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: MarcC]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
I have some work to do today so I can't respond right now to the many posts.

I do sincerely appreciate the input though, even from those of you who so strongly disagree with me. Perhaps now we'll be able to have some discussions that should have started so long ago.

Top
#44063 - 04/10/09 03:39 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: MarcC]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Quote:
There's a third option: ignore Kent and the landowners


This, sir, is exactly what they're asking us to do: go away.

As much as this doesn't sit well with me, I have to say there is no contradiction at all between Kent's saying "climbers could have helped" and "there is no quid pro quo. Access denied." The message is clear: the relationship has broken down, you blew it, and now it is too late. Deal with it.

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, Kent's property is located in the Bayards, not the Nears. Kent is not doing the closing this time.


Edited by pedestrian (04/10/09 03:40 PM)

Top
#44064 - 04/10/09 03:39 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
Jgreene Offline
member

Registered: 07/17/08
Posts: 171
MarcC

Ditto. Lots of other great places to climb. Just respect the closure and move on already.

Top
#44065 - 04/10/09 03:44 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: pedestrian]
Aya Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 754
Loc: Climbing somewhere
Originally Posted By: pedestrian
The message is clear: the relationship has broken down, you blew it, and now it is too late. Deal with it.


Sure. Deal with it. Respect it. I will, I'm sure most people will. Doesn't mean I need to like it.

At any rate, what bugs me the most about it is that he's saying we (climbers) had a chance to help and didn't, hence the closure.

WTF? When did I ever have a chance to communicate? With whom am I supposed to have communicated? It's not "climbers" he means, it's the handful of climbers with whom he's had dealings who are representatives of the Preserve and the GCC. NOT the average climber who is the one being affected by the closure.
_________________________
Gunks T-Shirts!

Top
#44066 - 04/10/09 03:57 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: pedestrian]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
Originally Posted By: pedestrian


As much as this doesn't sit well with me, I have to say there is no contradiction at all between Kent's saying "climbers could have helped" and "there is no quid pro quo. Access denied." The message is clear: the relationship has broken down, you blew it, and now it is too late. Deal with it.



think you nailed it. There is no contradiction. What I'm not getting is how anyone is helped by this. If there is no carrot on the table, why would climbers rise up and pressure Gardiner to mod their zoning laws and restore the value to the landowners? As noted elsewhere..

Quote:
All this stuff about zoning and respect and the GCC is just prologue. The land is closed, thanks and goodbye. The land value doesn't change, the old lady buys catfood. We rap in. Oh well.

Top
#44067 - 04/10/09 03:58 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Aya]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Originally Posted By: Aya
Originally Posted By: pedestrian
The message is clear: the relationship has broken down, you blew it, and now it is too late. Deal with it.


Sure. Deal with it. Respect it. I will, I'm sure most people will. Doesn't mean I need to like it.

At any rate, what bugs me the most about it is that he's saying we (climbers) had a chance to help and didn't, hence the closure.

WTF? When did I ever have a chance to communicate? With whom am I supposed to have communicated? It's not "climbers" he means, it's the handful of climbers with whom he's had dealings who are representatives of the Preserve and the GCC. NOT the average climber who is the one being affected by the closure.


Yeah Aya we've been down that road before. Collective punishment and all that. Not saying that I don't feel that's the case, just that we've heard it before. And, hmm, the landowner's voice is pretty absent from this discussion, all I hear is Kent, so we can't read too much into what this particular landowner is thinking. But we can try anyway: it's really a power struggle between StR, FOS (the Annie O'Neill/Zimmerman dynamic duo) so the landowners are sending a personal message to them, like: see what your tactics have wrought. Are climbers caught in the crossfire between the two sides? Well the ridgeside landowners were caught in the crossfire between Bradley and the rest of the world.

Gonna be a cold weekend, I was gonna go to Rumney with Ed and his gang, thoughts are turning towards the Gunks as an alternative...

Top
#44068 - 04/10/09 04:09 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: pedestrian]
Aya Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 754
Loc: Climbing somewhere
Originally Posted By: pedestrian
And, hmm, the landowner's voice is pretty absent from this discussion, all I hear is Kent, so we can't read too much into what this particular landowner is thinking. .


This might help an eensy bit as a general background?
http://home.earthlink.net/~gripnow/index.html
_________________________
Gunks T-Shirts!

Top
#44069 - 04/10/09 04:12 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Originally Posted By: Kent
The Wustraus are a couple in their early seventies. Their land has been in Mrs. Wustrau's family for 120 years or so. They were recently sued by Mohonk partner The Friends of The Shawangunks. Two well known climbers serve on the board of FOS.


(The above is from rc.com)

I'd like to hear more about this lawsuit. To date I think we've only been told about some Quit Claim-type action by the Preserve (IIRC) many years ago re. a parcel on Clove Rd. If FOS is being a bully more recently, it can only help inform the discussion to provide some details. I am not aware of any formal tie the GCC has to the FOS, so maybe there's an opportunity to weigh in on this suit. Maybe just a letter, or possibly an Amicus filing in the relevant court.

Top
#44070 - 04/10/09 04:16 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Aya Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 754
Loc: Climbing somewhere
Mike - check the above link.
_________________________
Gunks T-Shirts!

Top
#44071 - 04/10/09 04:21 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Aya]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Long story short, the Wustrau suit is already over, the Wustraus won of course as the FOS should have known they would.

Top
#44072 - 04/10/09 04:31 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Aya]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
Many of you are saying that what Kent and company really wants is the ability to subdivide and conquer (the ridge). Despite your claims, he has consistently given a different and very clear message that you are choosing to ignore.

What he (and presumably the people he represents) would have liked is for the GCC and/or the Preserve to have worked together with climbers and other interested land-preservation partners to buy up the easements on the affected land at a fair market price. Thus insuring that the land is not developed, but sharing the burden of that across all the interested parties.

I mean, I don't like the fact that this is what it's come to either, but mischaracterizing and demonizing Kent's position does nothing to improve the situation.

GO

Top
#44073 - 04/10/09 04:36 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Mike Rawdon]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
Not sure if I'd say they were being a bully, exactly. Between Aya's link and a read of the appellate court's decision (In the Matter of Friends of the Shawangunks, Inc., Appellant v Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Gardiner et al., Respondents, 56 A.D.3d 883, 867 N.Y.S.2d 238 (Nov. 2008)), it seems like the Wustraus sought and received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to pave a previously unpaved 3200 foot driveway so that they could more easily hike and picnic on the property (it doesn't seem like there was a house there), and FOS fought it.

Now, it's not cheap to pave a half-mile of driveway -- especially if all you want to do is picnic. So this suggests two things: a) they're not eating catfood; and b) they just might have had (and still have) more in mind than just accessing the property for picnicking purposes (again, not that there's anything wrong with that). But I can see why FOS might have seen this as step one towards subdividing.

Also, it seems to have been conceded that the driveway would have been banned by the ridge protection regulations, absent the variance. So again, I can see why FOS might have thought that fighting the variance was necessary to prevent the regulations from being undermined.

Top
#44074 - 04/10/09 04:38 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: pedestrian]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: pedestrian
BTW, to the best of my knowledge, Kent's property is located in the Bayards, not the Nears. Kent is not doing the closing this time.

He stated (in one of the three threads) that he's acting on behalf of the Wustaru's and orchestrated the closing of their land.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#44075 - 04/10/09 04:41 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Aya]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
Originally Posted By: Aya
Originally Posted By: pedestrian
The message is clear: the relationship has broken down, you blew it, and now it is too late. Deal with it.


Sure. Deal with it. Respect it. I will, I'm sure most people will. Doesn't mean I need to like it.

At any rate, what bugs me the most about it is that he's saying we (climbers) had a chance to help and didn't, hence the closure.

WTF? When did I ever have a chance to communicate? With whom am I supposed to have communicated? It's not "climbers" he means, it's the handful of climbers with whom he's had dealings who are representatives of the Preserve and the GCC. NOT the average climber who is the one being affected by the closure.


Well what do you expect? Do you think the landowners want their names and phone numbers written up on the internet, so well meaning people like you, and maybe some not so well meaning people could all knock on their doors individually?

Like it or not, the GCC is the only climber organization in the region, and obviously the communication between Kent and that organization failed utterly to resolve their issues. Both, of course, blame the other.

Clearly the only way for those who really care to get involved and help out would be (would have been?) to get involved with the GCC, and try to set it on a course that works better with landowners.

Or form another organization to try to take its place. Is there anything in the Access Fund's charter that says that only one organization can represent a region? If the GCC doesn't work, and a new organization does, well then the GCC would just slowly die out, right?

I'm not saying that should happen, I'm just trying to broaden the horizon a little.

GO

Top
#44076 - 04/10/09 04:43 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: GOclimb]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: GOclimb
Or form another organization to try to take its place. Is there anything in the Access Fund's charter that says that only one organization can represent a region? If the GCC doesn't work, and a new organization does, well then the GCC would just slowly die out, right?

I'd suggest that this is small town politics at it's finest and the same players will always resurface 'cause they all have a dog in the fight.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#44077 - 04/10/09 04:44 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: GOclimb]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
GO:

I hear what you're saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. But Kent's been mischaracterizing the issue himself to some extent, at least when he claims that the dispute is not about development rights. Of course it is: using the land in its undeveloped, non-subdivided state has not been restricted at all by the zoning change, so what else could this be about?

That said, I agree that it's not unreasonable for the owners to want climbers to kick in towards this "shared" good of preserved environment. But it might be easier for Kent to make progress towards that goal if he would concede that that's what's at stake. BS about how the owners just want to be good stewards of the property doesn't cut it; if that's all they want, donate it to the preserve, and let them be good stewards.

Top
#44078 - 04/10/09 04:45 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: retr2327]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Originally Posted By: retr2327

Also, it seems to have been conceded that the driveway would have been banned by the ridge protection regulations, absent the variance. So again, I can see why FOS might have thought that fighting the variance was necessary to prevent the regulations from being undermined.


necessary from their pov but futile. the gardiner z.b.a. has jurisdiction in this matter and ultimately, though they may couch it in different language, the court saw fit to rebuff an attempt to impose state jurisdiction on a local matter.

n

Top
#44079 - 04/10/09 04:48 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
Originally Posted By: pedestrian
BTW, to the best of my knowledge, Kent's property is located in the Bayards, not the Nears. Kent is not doing the closing this time.

He stated (in one of the three threads) that he's acting on behalf of the Wustaru's and orchestrated the closing of their land.


ultimately it's the landowner's land and their decision. no doubt he was an advocate. what they talk about when they're conceivably sitting around in the GRIP meetings w/ kent behind closed doors is also their business. ~n


Edited by pedestrian (04/10/09 04:49 PM)

Top
#44081 - 04/10/09 04:53 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: pedestrian]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
Um, no.

1) As the decision said, "zoning boards of appeals are invested by the Legislature with the power to vary zoning regulations in specific cases in order to avoid unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties arising from a literal application of the zoning law." In other words, the State gave the ZBA the power in the first instance; it could take it away anytime it wanted (not that that's remotely likely, politically); and

2) the State was not a party to this action.

Whatever else is going on in this dispute, it's not about State jurisdiction.

Top
#44082 - 04/10/09 04:54 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: MarcC]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
Originally Posted By: MarcC
Originally Posted By: GOclimb
Or form another organization to try to take its place. Is there anything in the Access Fund's charter that says that only one organization can represent a region? If the GCC doesn't work, and a new organization does, well then the GCC would just slowly die out, right?

I'd suggest that this is small town politics at it's finest and the same players will always resurface 'cause they all have a dog in the fight.


I know little about small town politics in general, and even less about Gardiner politics in particular. But it strikes me that one thing that this closure does is create a new dog in the fight - climbers who want access to the Nears restored.

Whether that dog will help or hurt the landowners' cause is, of course, totally unclear. But you have to admit that it does have the potential to change the scene. I mean, some people actually will do more than just spout about this on the internet!

For example, if the local climbers who cared about it enough were able to form a group to do what I outlined above, wouldn't that make a difference?

GO

Top
#44083 - 04/10/09 05:07 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: GOclimb]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319

Quote:
But it strikes me that one thing that this closure does is create a new dog in the fight - climbers who want access to the Nears restored.


but Kent has stated in multiple threads that this is not on the table.. nothing we can do. The land is closed, thanks and goodbye. Julie, Aya and I among others have tried to get him to be clear on this. He says he has been.

Unless....

Top
#44084 - 04/10/09 05:19 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ianmanger]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
Right. It's not on the table "for now" is what he says.

If climbers respect the closure, then further down the line, he says, things might change.

Makes sense to me.

GO

Top
#44085 - 04/10/09 05:20 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ianmanger]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
I don't want to say too much more until I have time to respond to the reasonable request for details on the zoning law and how it impacts landowners.

However, I'd like to clarify one thing. The Wustrau's land is not in the Near Trapps. The closed land in the Near Trapps belongs to another party and they have asked me, in writing, to act as their agent in regards to who has access to their land. They have also asked me to close their land. They do not want to be contacted directly. Please respect their wishes.

Over and out for now.

Top
#44086 - 04/10/09 05:36 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: retr2327]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Originally Posted By: retr2327

Whatever else is going on in this dispute, it's not about State jurisdiction.



It is and it isn't. The FOS suit was an attempt to recast this as a SEQRA (state environmental law mediated) dispute.

Top
#44087 - 04/10/09 05:40 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: GOclimb]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
Originally Posted By: GOclimb
Right. It's not on the table "for now" is what he says.

If climbers respect the closure, then further down the line, he says, things might change.


This would make sense. I just can't find a place in either this thread or the rc.com threads where "for now" is a qualifier.

Top
#44088 - 04/10/09 05:48 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ianmanger]
Jgreene Offline
member

Registered: 07/17/08
Posts: 171
What is Chris Moratz and the GCC doing to open the cliffs behind Cereus lane in rosendale? The cliff I'm talking about is the one that Elaine Matthews owns or co-owns. Lots of nice bolted routes back there. Since Elaine is a climber one would think she would be sensitive to access issues. Any word Chris?

Top
#44090 - 04/10/09 06:15 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: pedestrian]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
Originally Posted By: pedestrian
Originally Posted By: retr2327

Whatever else is going on in this dispute, it's not about State jurisdiction.



It is and it isn't. The FOS suit was an attempt to recast this as a SEQRA (state environmental law mediated) dispute.


Ped, what you wrote was that "the court saw fit to rebuff an attempt to impose state jurisdiction on a local matter." That's just not right.

The court rejected the argument that SEQRA's requirements had not been complied with, but there was never any question but that SEQRA (at some level) applied. Nor was there ever any question as to whether the state had jurisdiction.

The fact is that SEQRA has been used extensively by environmentalists and other activists (e.g., fighting IKEAs and Home Depots) opposed to development. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on your particular interests in any given case. But it was hardly a radical or novel argument for FOS to try. In fact, if you have ever given money to an environmental group of any kind, you have almost certainly helped support such lawsuits.

Meanwhile, I take it from Kent's latest postings (either here or on RC.com) that the Wustraus are not the owners at issue in this latest closing. Which is probably just as well, since I suspect that after two rounds of litigation, they're not in the mood to listen to anybody.

Top
#44091 - 04/10/09 06:45 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: retr2327]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Originally Posted By: retr2327
The court rejected the argument that SEQRA's requirements had not been complied with, but there was never any question but that SEQRA (at some level) applied. Nor was there ever any question as to whether the state had jurisdiction.


SEQRA does not dictate any particular level of environmental protection. It just says to agencies: "you have to give the environment consideration, you have to show that you have given it consideration, and you have to accept public comment." It doesn't have teeth.

Thus: Ultimately the ball was in Gardiner Z.B.A's court all along, as was the Wustraus right to build their driveway without deciding whether they want to build a house quite yet. The FOS lawsuit was a transparent ploy to twist one or two things the Wustraus might have said - maybe they were considering building a house. Maybe they weren't. Maybe they changed their mind. But they don't have to put that plan before the SEQRA review process. The suit was pretty frivolous to begin with.


Edited by pedestrian (04/10/09 06:56 PM)

Top
#44092 - 04/10/09 06:47 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ianmanger]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
Originally Posted By: ianmanger
Originally Posted By: GOclimb
Right. It's not on the table "for now" is what he says.

If climbers respect the closure, then further down the line, he says, things might change.


This would make sense. I just can't find a place in either this thread or the rc.com threads where "for now" is a qualifier.


Note the present tense (not past tense) in this paragraph:

Quote:

The Gunks community, climbers included, deserves a land preservation organization like the Harvard Forest with their Program On Conservation Innovation, and we deserve a climbing access organization like the Southeastern Climber

Top
#44095 - 04/10/09 07:05 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: GOclimb]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319


Quote:
Note the present tense (not past tense) in this paragraph:

Quote:

The Gunks community, climbers included, deserves a land preservation organization like the Harvard Forest with their Program On Conservation Innovation, and we deserve a climbing access organization like the Southeastern Climber


noted. though this is ambiguous at best. I think you're correct that closure is 'for now' and I sincerely hope that this can be revisited. Its just that on repeated questioning in fairly plain English about what climbers can offer in return for access at least now,the answer is nothing. Beyond the statement you have quoted, we have no metrics for how climber behavior will be judged or a timeframe for revisiting this decision, or under what conditions this is even possible. While accepting Kent's rights to do what the hell he likes with his property, I for one would like to know what concrete steps we can take to regain access at least through that section and how these will be measured. Even Charlie Manson gets parole hearings.

Top
#44097 - 04/10/09 07:15 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: pedestrian]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
"SEQRA does not dictate any particular level of environmental protection."

Ped, I didn't say anything of the sort. My reference to SEQRA review "at some level" was to the fact that SEQRA involves different levels of review for different types of projects. If you read the decision first, you'll have some idea of what I am talking about.

In this case, one of the issues was whether the driveway was an "unlisted" action, requiring a corresponding level of review, or a "type II" action, as the lower court had (erroneously, according to the appellate court) concluded. Actually, type II actions are not, according to the deicsion, subject to SEQRA review, but you first have to make the initial determination that it's a type II action, which necessarily entails consideration of SEQRA principles. Hence my statement that SEQRA "at some level" applies.

I was trying to avoid getting into that level of detail (and there's plenty more that could be said) because I don't think anybody here cares. Given that Kent now says the Wustraus are not involved in the current closure, I REALLY can't imagine anybody here cares.

But feel free to change your quibble yet again . . . .

Top
#44102 - 04/10/09 07:32 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: retr2327]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
SEQRA like I said does not dictate any particular level of environmental protection. It basically imposes a series of paperwork and public comment and procedure that must be followed for the ZBA to justify its decision.. but the decision was probably known well in advance as a matter of local politics which in a sense makes all that paperwork irrelevant, an afterthought. Am I cynical or am I a realist, you decide. Was the court faced with a decision to either simply respect local politics and not take sides, or put ZBA & the Wustraus through more bureaucratic harassment before they were able to finally justify their (most likely preordained) decision? You betcha.

And I hope you're wrong that nobody cares that climbers on the FOS board may well be needlessly and pointlessly rocking the boat with the neighbors.

Top
#44107 - 04/10/09 09:07 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: pedestrian]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
Jesus, Ped, you're a piece of work. I didn't say that "nobody cares that climbers on the FOS board may well be needlessly and pointlessly rocking the boat with the neighbors," I said that nobody here cares about the details of SEQRA review. But rock on, bro; whatever floats your boat.

Top
#44108 - 04/10/09 09:17 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: retr2327]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Thanks for the clarification! :-p

Top
#44122 - 04/11/09 04:19 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: MarcC]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
Here is a New York Times article, now ten years old, that sheds some light on the kinds of landowner grievances Kent may be referring to.


Top
#44123 - 04/11/09 04:40 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: rg@ofmc]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land
The moral of that NY Times article is that one is foolish not to do a painstaking title search before buying property in the East and that title insurance might be a good idea too. But I think this isn't the issue in this thread.
_________________________

Top
#44124 - 04/11/09 05:15 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: oenophore]
spasmatron Offline
newbie

Registered: 08/20/03
Posts: 49
Loc: Betwixt yonder and hither
On the contrary, it seems to me that the moral of that story is that you can't assume that all large non-profit environmental organizations are ethically faultless.

I've followed this story with interest since arriving in the area six years ago and I've seen Kent state his position clearly, eloquently and reasonably many times over.

Reading up the old threads which are lengthy and numerous, there is more to the story than just the dispute over deeds and boundaries. A lot of discussion has also revolved around the role of the preserve and it's consultants in directing and shaping the development of zoning laws in the area.

If even half of that stuff is true, it seems to me that a lot of the climber's umbrage misdirected at landowners should be better directed at the Preserve for not having made a better hash of developing the Preserve, its borders and its relationships with people on them, into the situation we are in today.

It is sad that parts of the cliff are closed, but I respect landowners rights to do so if their fair and reasonable wishes are being challenged, which IMHO, is the case here.

Top
#44126 - 04/11/09 06:34 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: spasmatron]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3765
Loc: Ulster County, NY
For Christ's sake people, it's getting nice out. Shut the damn computer off and go climb something on any of the miles of legal cliffline around here. Stop playing into Kent's hand. It's a freaking choss pile we are talking about anyway. If you want to go climb at the end of the Nears, walk around top. If you need to complain about that....well, then you're a fat slob, and probably shouldn't leave your armchair.

RR

Top
#44128 - 04/11/09 07:53 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: RangerRob]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
Actually Rob, I for one have mastered the amazing feat of going climbing and using the computer, although not at the same time, that level of multitasking being the forte of a much younger generation.

As for choss, it is in the eye of the beholder of course, and in this case some excellent single pitches which are on the land in question are now off-limits to those unwilling to trespass.

Moreover, going to the top and rapping in does not correspond to the way one spends a day during good Near Trapps routes. These routes tend to be single pitches at the base, and so walking along the base from route to route is the usual way of doing things. Now, having gotten a fair ways down the cliff, one would have to walk all the way back, then along the top, and then rap down in order to avoid walking through 150--200 feet of posted land. I don't think one needs to be anywhere near fat nor slobby to find this an exceptionally royal pain in the ass.

The Near Trapps is actually a goldmine of excellent, mostly one-pitch routes with zero choss. They are accessible, typically uncrowded, shady in the summer heat, with rock that is interesting and moves that are often atypical of Gunks climbing, providing a very nice touch of variety for those who think there are better things to do than hit up the Mac wall or slam their salmon for the millionth time. The current closure (and perhaps the possibility of a few more) constitute a major change in access to good climbing in the Gunks.

As for playing into Kent's hand, it may be true, but I for one don't really know what Kent's hand is or whether, when the playing is done, whether he will be happy or sad about the outcome of the "game." I can imagine outcomes that would be to the benefit of everyone, and others that would do no one any good.

Top
#44131 - 04/11/09 09:21 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: rg@ofmc]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
"For Christ's sake people, it's getting nice out. Shut the damn computer off and go climb something on any of the miles of legal cliffline around here."

I was in the NP cinema this afternoon watching Monsters Vs Aliens about the same time you were posting. Maybe we are both getting soft.....

Top
#44132 - 04/11/09 09:42 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Smike]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
What happens if an accident occurs at the further end of the Nears? I would, of course run right past those "No Tresspassing" signs to assist an injured person, but still...

And, if there is massive rockfall such as we saw in the Trapps last year? Do workers need to rappel in to do repairs?(No doubt Kent would enjoy that.... Sorry Kent, but you've pretty much shown your intent IS to inconvenience, in order to push your agenda).

An awful scenario I thought of and wished I could erase - someone rapping on to the farther area on the Nears goes off the ends of the rope. Could happen anywhere, of course, and lets hope that will never happen. But were it to occur, I think a host of ugly emotions would be unleashed.

Still, there is more at stake than just the naughty trespassers who may ignore those signs.
_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#44136 - 04/12/09 12:12 AM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Terrie]
caver Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 260
Loc: High Falls
Depending on your rappelling speed, walking to the end along the top, scrambling down, and heading back towards the north is likely to be faster. (maybe 45 minutes back to the Whetstone area)

Top
#44140 - 04/12/09 05:04 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: caver]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3765
Loc: Ulster County, NY
Yeah, I don't understand this whole rapping in deal. Why would someone do that? It's not like you're going to save yourself an hour of hiking time or anything. We're talking minutes here.

Top
#44141 - 04/12/09 06:52 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Gunks.com is still buggy as hell. One can't easily write a decent post or write it on word and paste it in. As well, many can't get to gunks.com at all and so they can't participate in the discussion at all. I don't have access in Gardiner. Instead I've had to VPN in through my office.

I've responded to the request from a few here on the details and impacts of the law on the Gunks access thread on rockclimbing.com

Top
#44150 - 04/13/09 04:14 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Kent]
Aya Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 754
Loc: Climbing somewhere
So, I am wondering - has anyone been down to the nears yet? How was this closure actually posted? How are climbers being notified?
_________________________
Gunks T-Shirts!

Top
#44154 - 04/13/09 05:58 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Aya]
tallgirlnyc Offline
member

Registered: 05/12/08
Posts: 194
Loc: Cold Spring NY
Hey Aya et. al

My partner Dana Bartlett and I are headed to the Nears tomorrow.
We've decided to go ahead and respect the privacy of the land owner(s) and go up and over.
We'll be happy to report how it was (in terms of time and terrain) and also what the signs say.

Peace,
Dana

Top
#44156 - 04/13/09 07:06 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: tallgirlnyc]
ranger hank Offline
newbie

Registered: 01/29/00
Posts: 40
hiya
check out this address for the Mohonk Preserve's statement on the closure, and the falcon closure on the trapps cliff- climb safe!!!
http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/index.php?news




-hank-

Top
#44157 - 04/13/09 07:15 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ranger hank]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
Eenie Meenie to Nazgul? Isn't that about 50 feet?
_________________________


Top
#44258 - 04/18/09 04:46 AM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: quanto_the_mad]
Bryan Offline
stranger

Registered: 10/12/04
Posts: 6
Since this is an extremely serious subject, the encroachment of an area that is beloved by countless people, I suggest parties involved sit down together and stop using these forums- which is such a poor way to communicate and can only lead to miscommunication and anger. A mediator is a great way to get the conversation headed in the right direction in a safe environment.
Just me 2 cents.
Bryan

Top
#44261 - 04/18/09 12:46 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Bryan]
phlan Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 02/11/00
Posts: 2778
Loc: Gardiner, NY
as a hopefully temporary work around a marked trail is now established to access the nears from the far side from the intersection of the millbrook blue trail where it intersects the first red trail at smedes cove.
take a left where the trail junction is and where you can see the orange survey tape leading down hill.
follow the orange survey tape on the trees, it will take you all the way to where the void climbs can be seen.
this really does not take long to get there and is a nice pleasant walk with nice views.
_________________________
Support Your Local Farmer!

Top
#44267 - 04/19/09 02:56 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: phlan]
Clmbr121 Offline
stranger

Registered: 04/19/09
Posts: 3
Loc: Philadelphia, PA
Just to get some clarification...and if it was clarified somewhere earlier and I missed it, I apologize...

In terms of bouldering, am I understanding this correctly that the Playground area is unaffected? And that the traditional access from the parking lot at the hairpin is off limits, so we would have to rap in?

Thanks in advance.
_________________________
On Belay Magazine

Top
#44282 - 04/20/09 09:28 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Clmbr121]
Coppertone Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/17/00
Posts: 1055
Loc: Newtown, CT
The hairpin parking has been off limits for many years. Many climbers were just too lazy or selfish to abide by the 1/2 hour limit. Now it is finally going to be enforced.

Top
#44283 - 04/20/09 09:46 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: Clmbr121]
ShakesALot Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/19/04
Posts: 257
Loc: NJ
Originally Posted By: Clmbr121
Just to get some clarification...and if it was clarified somewhere earlier and I missed it, I apologize...

In terms of bouldering, am I understanding this correctly that the Playground area is unaffected? And that the traditional access from the parking lot at the hairpin is off limits, so we would have to rap in?

Thanks in advance.


The approach options for the playground area aren't affected at all (unless you wanted to get there by walking from the South end of the nears). What coppertone says does apply for the overlook parking, only.

Top
#44357 - 04/27/09 06:34 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ShakesALot]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
We decided that with the gorgeous weather and possible crowds, we would head to the far end of the Nears.

The new descent trail was clearly marked with orange tape. As the blue trail begins to descend, it veers up and to the right. Keep following that blue trail over the rock and it heads down again and the orange tape is on a tree on the left. There's not much of a foot trail (yet).

As you head west and down, there's a section where the tape heads north, while the gully heads southeast; looking into the gully, you can see the orange tape about 30' below. This caused some confusion as to where the trail was going or if there were multiple trails. I think if they don't want people cutting their own trails, there should be a more direct path through that section, it doesn't make much sense to wind up and around.

After that, there's a relatively steep scramble down; not uncommon in other areas like Rumney, but a little unexpected at the Gunks. It's not too long, but could get slick if it's wet.

I lost track of the time, it might have taken us as much as an hour to get to the Williams wall, but we stopped a few times to shed layers as the sun roasted us on the ridge, tie shoelaces, apply bandaids to some little ones, try to reason out why the marked trail was leading away from the gully, the bottleneck in the gully (that we created), so really I don't know how long it takes.



_________________________


Top
#44361 - 04/28/09 01:32 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: quanto_the_mad]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
Ditto what quanto said. We dropped over on Saturday. The trail is rudimentary (obviously). In some places it butts up against clearly marked private land.
Having not ventured beyond Main Line previously, was surprised to get a nasty pump, evil rope drag and general ass-handing-to-me on Hold The Mayo. Then we did the crack on the side of Inside Out to TR Void Where Prohibited (or whichever the right hand roof is). Finally figured the trick out there. Then we did Mac Reppy. No clue at the crux. Being tall helps, I guess. Otherwise you are powering up off the broken flake and the key hold is way the hell up there for the somewhat shorter climber. I think Dana in some post a while back said that this is no problem if you're 5'10. Think I need to grow a bit. Great lines. Kind of a nice walk.




Originally Posted By: quanto_the_mad
We decided that with the gorgeous weather and possible crowds, we would head to the far end of the Nears.

The new descent trail was clearly marked with orange tape. As the blue trail begins to descend, it veers up and to the right. Keep following that blue trail over the rock and it heads down again and the orange tape is on a tree on the left. There's not much of a foot trail (yet).

As you head west and down, there's a section where the tape heads north, while the gully heads southeast; looking into the gully, you can see the orange tape about 30' below. This caused some confusion as to where the trail was going or if there were multiple trails. I think if they don't want people cutting their own trails, there should be a more direct path through that section, it doesn't make much sense to wind up and around.

After that, there's a relatively steep scramble down; not uncommon in other areas like Rumney, but a little unexpected at the Gunks. It's not too long, but could get slick if it's wet.

I lost track of the time, it might have taken us as much as an hour to get to the Williams wall, but we stopped a few times to shed layers as the sun roasted us on the ridge, tie shoelaces, apply bandaids to some little ones, try to reason out why the marked trail was leading away from the gully, the bottleneck in the gully (that we created), so really I don't know how long it takes.




Top
#44362 - 04/28/09 03:13 PM Re: Cliff Closure [Re: ianmanger]
Jannette Offline

Cliffmama
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 10/03/00
Posts: 2225
Loc: Gardiner, NY
I was with Quanto_the_mad and families on the descent trail. There were some steep spots on the trail down, but the youngest (6 year old) boy that was with us was able to negotiate it with only minor slippage and a hand or two occasionally (but then again, he's got lots of experience with hardcore climber parents).

Estimated time for an adult without dragging little kids was close to the same amount of time to walk along the base of the cliff.

When you get to the steep section, you'll see the orange tape blazes going way to the left as well as below you. It confused us at first because it looked like 2 trails - one going left across the top of the cliff, and one going down. But I found out that it's just a big switchback to make the hike easier - it goes left and back right again. To make this section clearer, it has since been reflagged with small wire flags so we don't get too many random trails going straight down to bypass the switchback.

I walked to where the closure was. It was such a small section of cliff that I could easily see climbers at the base of a climb at the other end of the closure.

Jannette

Top
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 ... 13 14 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored