"So Kent, status quo legalese aside, is AG a hypocrite or not?"


For asking others to respect private property rights while he cuts trees on land claimed by both AG and MP? Hypocrite would be a tough charge to defend under these circumstances. What if the judge rules in AG's favor and all appeals also fall AG's way?

And the property right AG is asking people to respect is his right to keep people off his land if he so chooses. Climbers have no legal right to climb on his land whether he wants them to or not.

Climber's rights (they have none) vs AG's rights to his land are not comparable to the MP's claimed rights vs AG's claimed rights to the same piece of land.

Donald, at least now you are becoming entertaining. :-)

Sue: "It can be a problem … Every time they [Mohonk Preserve] acquire another parcel I have to pick up more of their slack ...I think they have to start doing something as far as paying their fare share." And the hotel is a problem too.

In any given area, the more people there are the more tax you pay. The less people there are the less tax necessary. It may not happen immediately but this is the way it plays out over time. If you go to where there is no Preserve, but where there are untold acres of free space and a road, there is virtually no taxed income from the surrounding properties. Do you think towns in Pennsylvania like Effort, Renovo and Lock Haven suffer with heavy tax burdens?

Now if you find a way to cripple the Preserve lets argue, and now Marriott takes over, what happens then? In this case you could have more jobs and more development and subsequently more taxes, and your property may not be worth more. There would be less income from people visiting the Gunks. Then everything your doing would be counterproductive. THE WHOLE IDEA OF CRIPPLING THE PRESERVE WHEN YOU ARE ON THEIR BOARDER, WHERE THERE CAN BE NO DEVOLPENT HERE ONLY SOLIDIVIES THE ARGUEMNT THAT THESE ARGUENTS ARE ENTIRLY BASED ON BLIND INSANITY.

Minnewaska used to be taxed; now the state owns it. What happens if the Preserve disappears and the best choice is that the state takes it and there is no rockclimbing? You may pay more tax because the state does not like rockclimbers. There is no climbing along the Palisades or Minnewaska.

These AG threads will say anything to discredit the Preserve; the only thing that needs to make sense is that the argument degrades the reasoning for the Preserve in the first place.

From http://www.mountainproject.com/v/mohonkpreserveneighborsassociation/106846555__1

By JSH
Administrator
Aug 10, 2010

Speaking of confrontational tactics, I would not be surprised if this is the same organization responsible for the No Trespassing signs posted in the Near Trapps...

They are vanishingly different, if they are different at all.

As I pointed out on rc.com, thus far all of the "MPNA"'s postings carry the hallmarks of Kent. One of those hallmarks, Mr. Wesely, is indeed selectively avoiding or evading direct simple questions (see my post on rc.com). Despite his initial denials, he has now revealed that he is a core member of the group, which apparently numbers 7 people.

Rui, this is the same Kent + neighbors whose attempt to blackmail the climbing community into protesting the Gardiner zoning laws that diminished imaginary inflated real estate values of his and others' land, carried the threat that he would "close the Nears" if we didn't fall in line and do what he asked. He expected climbers to follow his beliefs and desires, but underestimated the individual opinions of climbers - who are also property owners with previous experiences around zoning laws, conservationists who don't want to see a subdivision below the Nears, represent a wide political spectrum in terms of taxation beliefs, and indeed think independently. As a result, 50 feet of the Nears are now indeed marked "no trespassing". For more backstory you can search either Gunks or rc.com under "clos* the Nears" ...

One may indeed ask why Kent (pardon me, the "MPNA") thinks climbers would so readily shoot ourselves in the foot, access-wise, and boycott the very organization that chooses to provide climbing access to us. It's a similarly strange, almost evangelical, tactic and expectation as we saw in the previous iteration; as is the choice to selectively target the climbing community to carry out their wishes.

As admins, we have no set definition of "jerk", but pointing out that the expectation of climbers to act against their own interests might be called lunacy seems fairly straight-up to me, however biased I might be.

I have to say that I have been and continue to be quite taken aback at the lack of dealing in good honest faith, by presenting the "MPNA" as anything but a mask of Kent (the "Caped Crusader" on rc.com) and as any kind of legitimate or broad organization, and at the previous iteration that was essentially blackmail for access to 50' of the Nears. I don't automatically assume that large moneyed organizations are ideal participants, but neither do I assume that their smaller neighbors are innocent Davids up against a terrible Goliath. Kent's and the "MPNA"'s behavior speaks for itself.

Kent, are you this same kent who owns property up at the Near Trapps? What is the problem you are having with the Preserve again?

Good morning Donald.

Julie (JSH) likes to rant on about how AG (aka MPNA) and I are the same, but this is not so.

Regarding ownership of closed land, there are five pieces of land in the Near Trapps and the Bayards, now closed, that were open as a neighborly accommodation prior to April 2009. Two of them are mine, both in the Bayards. The owners of the piece in the Near Trapps that is closed have asked me, in writing, to act as their agent regarding who has access to that land, and together we have decided it should be closed to the public.

Regarding problems with the Mohonk Preserve, many landowners around the Mohonk Preserve object to MP conduct, not just those who have taken the strong step of closing their land. We find objectionable their willingness to use quit claim deeds and litigation to lay claim to land, their seeming propensity for mismarking property lines, their lobbying for aggressive zoning laws which take property rights away from their neighbors, their failure to pay property taxes as promised by Smiley family members at the inception of the Mohonk Trust, and their lawsuit against the Town of Gardiner to avoid paying property taxes. Now, added to the pile, a number of us also object to the Mohonk Preserve transferring the MP campground land on RT 299 to the PIPC so the MP can circumvent the land use restrictions in the same zoning law they helped write.

None of us object to land preservation. We object to the divisive tactics the MP uses to preserve land and to the disproportionate burden those tactics place on those who own undeveloped land and also on those who are local property tax payers.

Kent, we are talking about a lot of lots here. Numerous lots! In order for me to see your point I need to see exactly what you are talking about. I mean exactly, not a little here and a little there. And I need to see the whole thing in perspective with the rest of it.

Can we start with your property specifically? How has the Kent property at Bayards been directly effected? I can see your property boarders the Preserve, so you reap great benefits knowing that you can sell your property 10 years from now, and that there will not be a house on top of the ridge looking down on you. Perhaps you are confused? Where is your problem on the Kent property?

Kent, how do you and your neighbors in the town of Gardiner feel about people coming up from the city and exploring these lands? Is it something you and your neighbors appreciate and want to encourage, or have the people in Gardiner on N. Mountain Road for example bought these properties to seek solitude and to be left alone? That is, is the reason they pay taxes here on these lots is to have privacy for the most part?

Donald, I have much to do today. I'll respond when I have time in the next few days.

Kent wrote "Regarding problems with the Mohonk Preserve, many landowners around the Mohonk Preserve object to MP conduct, not just those who have taken the strong step of closing their land."

From Don: If there are really "many landowners ... object[ing]" where are they? I can't find them. Perhaps they have come to grips with the fact that they have been blaming the Preserve for things that don't add up? If not then whats up? They must not be that concerned. Hello??? Anyone out there except Kent???

I will say it louder ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!!

Hello??? : (

See ... no one answers. : ?

What's up with that?