The new zoning, the old zoning, or both? In other words if we are talking about appraisals with the old zoning and the intentions of the old zoning in place then, yes I am interested. What kind of construction did you have in mind?

As the current real estate values have declined through-out the entire U.S., it would be very difficult to prove that any local reduced value along the ridge is a result of zoning changes rather than part of more pervasive changes. Also, Gardiner real estate became quite inflated after 9/1/01 and the general histeria to move north from NY City seems to have quelled.

Chip has made some fine points. The three out of town appraisers would have to really do two appraisals. One reflecting the probable current value without the new zoning code, and one reflecting the current value with the new zoning code. Would this change the cost of have these three appraisers?

"The new zoning, the old zoning, or both? In other words if we are talking about appraisals with the old zoning and the intentions of the old zoning in place then, yes I am interested. What kind of construction did you have in mind?"

Name three appraisers Kent.

*

These Little Red Hoods are $30.00 a piece. Email my with your address so I can send one to you!

Not at all, just another variable to control for, and something any appraiser ought to be able to take in stride. If non-ridge properties in the area have declined by, say 20% (just to pick a number), and ridge properties not in Gardiner have declined by 20%, and the ridge properties in Gardiner have declined by 30%, then you can do the math pretty easily.
(By the way, an initial investment of $100k would have turned into $80k off the ridge and $70k on the ridge, which is more than a 10% difference...it's an 8/7 or 7/8 difference.)

If there really is real money on this, I am glad to see that we have strong advocates on both side! This will be fun and instructive for all. I am particularly glad to see Kent wiling to invest to prove his point with some solid evidence. Data always wins me over, personally.

By the way, given that the original complaints around the closure were around the inability of ridgeowners to subdivide (staying in their existing home but selling surplus property to fund their retirement, right, Kent? 'cuz they still want to live there and have to live somewhere), I would argue that the parties involved should specify to the appraisers the value of any subdivision be explicitly calculated, since the value of the homeowners, stub property is rather moot since it was not to be sold.

Kent's original wager was 10% on the overall property value, not on the subdivided part, but I think that the allocation of value will be instructive for all parties.

Kent, I like your challenge. If this is really on and leads to a real outcome, and if you name an appropriate cause to which I can donate, I will donate a small sum within my budget (right now $20 is a stretch, but if my budget changes I will increase it) do the cause of your choice should you win. Should your wager fail, I will donate the same sum ($20, unless I increase it later) to the Mohonk Preserve or the Open Space Institute.

These are $23.00. Send me an email and how many you want and what sizes. If you click on the shirts they enlarge so you can read it.

Kent wrote the following complaints about the Preserve:



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.