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.

From rockclimbing.com thread.





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

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.

Yet on supertopo, Kent writes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MarcC

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

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.