Chip,

I would agree it is hard to imagine but given the pattern so far I wouldn't be surprised if a group of neighbors got together to legally challenge their 501c status at some point. Of course the courts would still have find that the preserve has acted in a way that is not in keeping with their 501c status, they would need to lose a few more court cases, etc. but as stated before, within ten years I would not be surprised. Besides, the land would still be protected, probably more so in the hands of NYS.
So take a look at map 9592 and look at the sale of land from the Mohonk Preserve to the Shawangunk Conservancy. Why would Mohonk Preserve sell land that is already "protected" to the Shawangunk Conservancy? I seem to remember John saying something to the extent of "but Mohonk doesn't sell their land" So why would they sell land in this instance? and to the Shawangunk Conservancy?


MPNA

Here are the maps again so you don't have to sift through 24 pages to find them.


MPNA

MPNA,


Thanks for reminding us of the Waterworks parcel, can't wait for it to open to bouldering.

Susan's statements on the subject have been just as vague about the facts as were the acreage figures she was originally complaining about a few months ago (which were stated to be estimates.) You have raised a few questions but you're not telling us what the answers are. If there's some conspiracy to swipe a neighbor's land I don't see it in these random boundary line surveys. (You're not even telling us who that neighbor might be; how can there be a crime with no alleged victim?)

And from the Waterworks thread.


So which is it? Does a property owner have to be listed on the parcel, or don't they?

Pedestrian,

Is this the article you are referring to? If so, I believe the acreage is quoted from the deed and not an estimate.

By WILLIAM J. KEMBLE
Correspondent

ROSENDALE — Town resident Sue Boice Wick is asking officials to explain how the town can claim 77 acres will be sold for $340,000 for use by Mohonk Preserve when deeds cite much smaller property sizes.

Wick, a title examiner, spoke during a telephone interview last week after learning the town would sell property to the New York City-based Open Space Institute, which would then donate the land to Mohonk Preserve.

"I don't find them holding title to that much property and their sketch map that's included ... has two separate pieces," she said. "One is 47 acres (of a 51.97-acre parcel), which does belong to the town, and the other is a 30-acre parcel that is claimed and assessed to Stephen Larsen and it's not the piece that they need to connect to Mohonk."

Wick contends the Town Board resolution passed on June 10 to sell the property did not clearly identify the owners.

"There is nothing in the ... documents that indicate that the town of Rosendale has any right to claim, much less convey this 30 acres," she said.

"What it boils down to is that the town should not be selling its neighbor's land," Wick said. "This project needs to go back to the drawing board, be properly researched, corrected, and represented in a legitimate manner."

Town Supervisor Patrick McDonough said the 77-acre figure is correct and does not include Larsen's property, which is a separate sale being handled by Open Space Institute and Mohonk Preserve. He acknowledged that the size of the town property is listed with Ulster County at 51.97 acres but expects it to be declared larger when a survey is completed by Open Space Institute.

"It was showing as 47 acres in some town records but based on the title description it's probably more like 77 acres," he said. "As soon as a survey is done, which OSI is doing as part of this process, we'll know for sure exactly what it is."

Wick said the confusion appears to be part of a routine used by Mohonk Preserve to improperly obtain land titles.

"They are in the habit of doing this type of land deal where they piggyback a piece of property on another deed," she said.

"They take people to court if they don't just let go," Wick said. "They took my grandmother's (3.6 acres of) land. They gave it back though ... after they reduced it by 20 percent."

Mohonk Preserve spokeswoman Nadia Steinzor said the organization has had some boundary disputes in court but contends there were no legal issues surrounding the parcel own by Wick's grandmother.

"The preserve has never tried to acquire it or take it or anything to that affect," she said. "We have done surveys in that area and back in the '90s there was a question about the property but we never went out to try and get it."

Mohonk Preserve Executive Director Glenn Hoagland said the dispute arose from a survey done by the group as part of routine property transactions and was intended to clear up records.

"Due to our survey work we discovered in the mid-1990's that parcel had been incorrectly mapped by the Ulster County tax map mappers as belonging to the preserve," he said. "As soon as we found out that 3.6-acre parcel held by her grandmother was mapped to us but we didn't have a deed to it we went to her and said, 'Did you know you owned this property?'"

Hoagland said steps taken by the preserve to protect its properties include making sure public records are correct.

"That ownership of record is found in the Ulster County Clerk's office," he said. "Now the Ulster County tax map is different. They don't represent accurate ownership, they're just maps, and from time to time we have found that the Ulster County tax maps can be incorrect. So we have to make sure ... that we're matching what the tax maps say to what we have deeds to."

Pedestrian,

Look at map 9592, you can see that Mohonk Preserve sells land to the Shawangunk Conservancy. Why would the Mohonk Preserve sell land that it had already acquired? Land that is contiguous with other lands that it allegedly owns? Thanks

MPNA

Here is a letter from this weeks Kingston Freeman:



Dear Editor:

A recent review of Mohonk Preserve's governing documents reminded me of an adage I was raised with: "It's up to you to read the fine print."

I wonder how many people are under the impression that real property acquired by the Preserve must remain undeveloped? I found that's just not true. According to its certificate of incorporation, the Preserve may acquire real property "and use such property and the net earnings thereof, including the proceeds of the sale thereof in such manner as the trustees of the corporation shall deem appropriate to carry out one or more of their purposes, except that the trustees shall not sell real property where the donor shall have provided by appropriate deed or other recordable restriction that the same shall not be sold."

So, if you intend to gift or sell land to the Preserve and don't want it developed or sold, you must carefully spell that out in the documents of transfer. Just to be on the safe side, have Mohonk Preserve representatives sign them, too.




SUSAN BOICE WICK

St. Remy

And your point is...?
Please don't tell us that you and the other locals are so naive that this is a surprise or great revelation of some sort.

If it is, no wonder you feel the way you do about the Preserve. Maybe you should hire a good lawyer instead of ranting on the net or local radio shows. Someone of Anderberg's caliber.

Marc,

I think her point is that in many cases the land is not protected. Joe Vitti wrote: "Mike is a logger and developer. Given the choice to support stewardship of land in the Clove between a logger and a "Preserve" it seems fairly simple."
I remember a case where the Nature Conservancy was willed a parcel that it later sold. They deemed it "not worth protecting", but the woman who donated it thought it would be "protected". The Mohonk Preserve wanted to develop the clove along the road had they prevailed in the Smitty lawsuit (documents already provided). Is this not the same behavior that Mr. Vitti is so appalled by? And what about my prior question regarding map 9592? Why is the Mohonk Preserve selling contiguous land that it allegedly owns to the Shawangunk Conservancy?

MPNA

Ianmanger. Seriously, your caustic tirade tells a different story, as do the pm's and support from some local climbers who have talked with us. Convincing non local users of the Mohonk Preserve (like yourself) remains a goal for us.

In the meantime, on map 9592 the Mohonk Preserve sells land to the Shawangunk Conservancy. This land that MP allegedly owns is contiguous with the rest of their holdings. So why did they sell it? Why would the Mohonk Preserve sell land that it already owned and was supposedly already "protected"?


MPNA