mummert wrote: "In case you're counting, you don't speak for me." In the context of "I have got no more desire or tolerance [to hear ant-Preserve posts] …"
mummert wrote: "…the MPNA … they have some valid complaints relating to the Gardiner zoning issues, and the degree to which the Preserve influences those issues. Case in point -- (sorry this ramble is so long, and perhaps not quite on point, but I hope Scott and Julie enjoy the detail) … the lot abutted the Preserve and there was some disagreement about where the actual property lines were. …I would love to have a second home near the Preserve, I ultimately decided there were too many negatives …"
From Donald: Gardner was the one that called in the Preserve to help them more succinctly define zoning laws already in place. Gardner comes to their own conclusions without the Preserve. If there was no zoning there would be nothing to stop property owners whose only concern is to increase the values of their own properties by pushing their homes ever further up the hills into the talus.
It is a crime against all thing sacrosanct when invaluable natural resources are consumed for personal profits, and some people either just never get it or cannot help themselves, who will even form associations to the cause to try and justify themselves! This is madness! This can be no different than flooding Yosemite or any other diminishing losses we have seen over the years, it's wrong, it is a crime. Someday that damn will be drained and that damn golf course will be removed.
The resources of the shawangunk Mountains are limited, they need to be preserved from people who will exploit them. It is wrong to allow them to be used up by those who would like to take advantage of them only for their own personal gain. You want to develop your property and increase it's value by diminishing natural resources?, do you think this is a smart idea?, think again. Climbers are not the only ones who don't like development; Gardner does not like it either.
Furthermore, how are poorly defined property lines all that have to do with the Persevere? This problem has been used against the Preserve by one associated property owner repeatedly only for personal gain. You did the right thing by not purchasing such property where the lines are not clear to start off with, but it would have been an ever greater mistake to buy such property and then malign the Preserve to try to gain an advantage as you seem to suggest as appropriate behavior.