Kent wrote the following complaints about the Preserve:
1. Their willingness to use quit claim deeds and litigation to lay claim to land.
2. Their seeming propensity for mismarking property lines.
3. Their lobbying for aggressive zoning laws which take property rights away from their neighbors.
4. Their failure to pay property taxes as promised by Smiley family members at the inception of the Mohonk Trust.
5. Their lawsuit against the Town of Gardiner to avoid paying property taxes.
6. 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.
We will now deal with "1. Their willingness to use quit claim deeds and litigation to lay claim to land."
In the use of quick claim deeds, we are talking about one or two cases as I understand it, both of which were some years ago. I will need more information on these properties you wish to establish as iron clad examples, but in regard to your point it is unnecessary. You cannot establish the Preserve as an Evil Empire based on isolated cases outside of present and ongoing protocol. So I am going to cross this off the list too.
However, if you want me to put it back on I will, for the sake of argument. But if you wish to argue it, I need the names and dates you want to use to get a better understanding on exactly how the quit claim deeds were used and why.
And as for your challenge about new Zoning vs. "old" Zoning at a 10% difference on your property, like I said before, that argument is spurious because it has to do with the consensus of the people on the ridge who do not necessarily climb and have been there for over 30 years. These are the people you will need to convince if you want to deal with the Zone. However there was a zone in place before, as well as a mind within the building department and the people concerning development on the ridge that was there all along, but not expressed succinctly in the old zone laws. We are done with Zoning, it is no longer a reasonable argument.
However, if you want to wager that your property has changed value at 10% because of zoning that's fine. But it has nothing to do with your own argument about the Preserve as the Evil Empire. And I do not how you are going to win because you will have to prove that people who care about the new zone were not the same people who put the old zone in place for the same reasons.
The very fact that you yourself have put up no trespassing signs demonstrates that you view these lands as zoned for private use set apart from people. Your intentions are to contradict yourself and an unchanged thinking, expecting us to view this as something reasonable.
I therefore conclude that Kent's arguments are spurious.