Does anyone else feel like this thread is a case of a "dog chasing it's tail?" The gist of this long series of posts seems to go like this.. MPNA makes a broad statement about how the preserve is evil and would think nothing of stealing candy from a baby.. then someone calls them out on it with some questions (such as what was in the contract that the preserve was able to use to foreclose on the Haviland property) and asks for more of the supposed info/documents that they have.. and drum roll please... the MPNA then turns around and asks the poster to present the documents/info themselves (when all they made was an educated guess as to what was going on). Round and round we go...

In the case of Louise Haviland:

1. We stated that her mortgage was purchased without her knowing.

2. We then showed the internal memo that Robert K Anderberg wrote saying he was acting as agent on behalf of the Mohonk Preserve.

3. We stated this is back handed, sleazy, not neighborly, legal etc.....and that Louise Haviland was not a willing seller.

4. We posted a response by Glenn D. Hoagland explaining that the Mohonk Preserve only bought from "willing sellers"

5. retr says the following "The most likely explanation -- which I will believe until you post the actual damn documents, and stop hiding behind half-truths, distortions, etc. -- is that she was only able to obtain the land in the 1st instance by covenanting, in the purchase money note granted by the seller, not to subdivide the land. So when she went ahead and did it anyway, she was in default."

6. MPNA asks for documentation of his belief that Louise Haviland had a non-develop clause in her mortgage.

As Mohonk Preserve neighbors, the Preserve, and the climbing community want us to make gifts of land to the Preserve, donate money to the Preserve, and leave land and/or money to the Preserve in our wills. The Preserve and many of their members want to be able to recreate on neighboring land. In short, they want neighbors to be neighborly.

Neighborliness is a two way street.

I haven't seen a copy of the Haviland mortgage, but like others I assume there was some kind of breach. Otherwise, as several posters have pointed out, the Preserve wouldn't have been able to foreclose. Nonetheless, foreclosure is a decidedly unneighborly thing to do. Sure, maybe some huge impersonal distant bank would do that, but not your neighbor the Mohonk Preserve, at least not if they want to be neighborly.

So Glenn Hoagland's claim that the Preserve buys land from willing sellers is true, but incomplete. They have also bought and foreclosed on a neighbor, used a quit claim deed to try to take a portion of a neighbor's land, and they are currently suing two neighbors. Additionally they have helped craft master plans and zoning laws that virtually eliminate other buyers for some of the land around the preserve and thereby have greatly lowered the value of that land. None of those things are neighborly either.

If the preserve were to adopt a truly cooperative approach to working with it's neighbors all of the current conflict would go away. If they came out and said something like "we won't try to exploit defects in deeds to claim land. We will pursue mediation with neighbors in an attempt to resolve disputes. We will be transparent in our attempts to influence the local political processes of master planning and zoning. Above all we pledge to conduct ourselves in a respectful and openly communicative way with our neighbors at all times."

If they said these kinds of things and then backed them up with actions consistent with those statements, then we'd all be one big happy family.

Until then, unfortunately, we are not.

I am willing to bet that if these tactics continue, the Mohonk Preserve will lose their 501c status within ten years, of course this is just speculation, but my guess is that in ten years the land holdings of the Mohonk Preserve will become the property of NY state. Wont that be an interesting predicament for rock climbers?

I understand what you are saying but the discrepancy lies in what Glenn D Hoagland actually says. You say: "So Glenn Hoagland's claim that the Preserve buys land from willing sellers is true, but incomplete." In fact Glenn Actually says "only from willing sellers", he mentions nothing about buying mortgages, foreclosing, confrontational quit claim deeds, buying disputed property, etc.... this behavior does not fall into the realm of "willing seller". I wonder how many of their donors would subscribe to such practices? My guess is well find out soon enough.
I am willing to bet that if these tactics continue, the Mohonk Preserve will lose their 501c status within ten years, of course this is just speculation, but my guess is that in ten years the land holdings of the Mohonk Preserve will become the property of NY state. Wont that be an interesting predicament for rock climbers?

MPNA