It seems as though there is some confusion as to whether land obtained by the Mohonk Preserve is actually "protected" from development. Here are a few examples:

Quanto the Mad wrote in the Millbrook thread:

"I have no idea what the preserve will do, I hope just leave it alone (in terms of adding parking lots or permanent structures). With the current zoning, could they even build a driveway or parking lot? "

Tradjunkie asks a question to Chris Moratz that never gets answered:

"And re: you don't see how trail/parking could happen - could you just elaborate a bit as to the reasons, to avoid confusion?"

MPNA has shown through documentation that the Mohonk Preserve would be willing to develop land it owns, this is perhaps the point of Sue Wick's letter to the editor.


MPNA

For clarity, here is the document from Mohonk Preserve:


Thanks MPNA

The arrogance and sense of entitlement in this statement is profound:

"most of the property is undevelopable and should come to the preserve just because it would round out our boundaries in that area"

Followed by Mohonk Preserve, the developing non-developers, wanting to develop the land along the road. "Preservation" at it's finest!

Way to not get the joke MPNA.

If you're trying to convince non-local users, why haven't you posted on any messageboards besides climbing ones? You don't seem to be trying very hard.

And if you're trying to convince us, why won't you answer direct questions with direct answers?

At least this thread gives me something new to read every day, anyway.

First off why does MPNA have no problem with asking the same questions repeatedly and expecting an answer but yet won't answer questions asked repeatedly by the other forum members. You can't have it both ways. These are just some of the tactics in this thread that have made me glad that the zoning law changed and and that the preserve plays hardball at times.

Also.. what is with posting that document from 1985 again? Come on now how does a document that is from the last century have any real relevance to what is going on today considering alot could have changed and things are far different 25 YEARS later! And what is with posting the document which you undoubtedly cherry picked due to the "horrible" things it purports to show then making a comment about it in the very next post as though there is a consensus. Do you have conversations with yourself much...?? There may be more wrong here then the big bad preserve that you need to be concerned about.

I have the pleasure of living in an area that has seen successful preservation of a large portion of wooded lands surrounding the Brandywine River. This has been accomplished by The Woodlawn Trustees and was started long ago by the Bancroft family when they had a large and successful textile mill in town. While you might argue that any type of mill placed on a river is an environmental disaster, they have more than offset this by the preservation and recreation opportunities they have accomplished. They have been able to continue to keep these lands wooded by developing large tracts that are not near the river/wooded areas and by leasing large portions for farming.
Likewise, while you might percieve the Preserve to have deep pockets, they are sometimes acquiring land at reasonable compensation from the current owners, which takes money. I have no problem with developement of lots along the established road in order to perpetuate that process.

As I pointed out when AG first trotted out this fallacious strawman argument and bears repeating, the development on Clove road was merely one of several possibilities considered to pay for acquisition of the land. There was never a firm, definitive plan or intention to develop that roadside land. And as Snow Junkie pointed out, this document is over 25 years old and does not reflect current reality.

So basically on this point what we're saying AG is STFU!

I suppose one of the things that has really pissed off people on this board and accounts for a lot of the animosity toward MPNA is the use of these kind of blatantly dishonest debating tactics. Repetition of the same misconstruing and falsification of facts in the hopes that those reading will eventually accept said falsification is an insult to your readers.

Marc,

It's hard to imagine what your stake is being that you hail from Sandy Utah. That being said, the document states that MP was going to develop lots along the road. What were the other "several possibilities" that you say were offered? The document might be 25 years old but the case just finished! Besides we are establishing a pattern, one that apparently offends you, as well it should. What is truly sad is that a 55 year old man uses terms like STFU while people are trying to engage in civil discussion. We are not in high school anymore, and if you can't participate in a way that is appropriate Mr. Chrusch, then please refrain from your outbursts. If you claim that we have falsified something, show it, state it like a gentleman, and wait for a response. You have yet to debate the merits of any of the documents we have posted. And how about answering the question I asked about map 9592? Why would MP sell land that it said it owned to the Shawangunk Conservancy?

MPNA

I have no knowledge of the inner workings of MP but I suspect it would sell land to another entity in order to raise funds for land acquisitions that are considered more of a wilderness than a few plots along the side of the road. Just a wild quess, and they can frankly do whatever they want with land that they own. MP is not bound by any charter that I know of to keep all property they have acquired but rather to preserve and manage what wilderness/forested property they can. Anything else on the ridge remains fair game but can't be considered as valuable. Again, just a guess.

Hey ag, I still want t know, what oother groups of reserve members have you reached out to to try to recruit to your cause? Have you posted on any hiking messageboards, for example?