Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 12 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 2 of 11 < 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 >
Topic Options
#60275 - 09/19/11 05:55 PM Re: Rope swing at the Gunks... [Re: Kent]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Originally Posted By: Kent
Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
How about a zipline to traverse the closed section of Near Trapps without technically setting foot on it? Now THAT would be neat.

Air rights will be protected under UN Resolution S/RES/1983 (2011) allowing the use of surface to air missiles against an aggressor to protect sovereignty.


Ah, Kent "gets it". AG... needs a sense of humor.

Top
#60276 - 09/19/11 06:02 PM Re: Rope swing at the Gunks... [Re: chip]
Advocacy group Offline
addict

Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 653
Loc: New Paltz,Marbletown,Gardiner,...
Originally Posted By: chip
Kent, I have to admit that I feel the vast majority of climbers have alwyas been very respectful to the land owners whose land they have crossed, knowingly or unknowingly, and yet the access to continue doing so was removed by the landowner. The reaction to close this land continues to be directed at those who are unlikely to generate any change to the initial beef and generally did not cause the conflict. This is why climbers continue to have difficulty understanding why they should then react with respect to the closure. I don't want to stir this up again and certainly agree that someone should always have the right to prevent others from crossing property they own. I have respected this closure from the start. I just wanted to express my perception of why this situation is not percieved as appropriate to the climbers.


Chip, why is the reason important? Respecting a land closure should not be "difficult for climbers to understand". If someone closes their land, it's closed, end of discussion.
Respect it and move on to the thousands of other routes in the area. The kind of comments from Mike Rawdon and the actions of Trappdyke and the like will only ensure that more land closes. MPNA
_________________________
The MPNA is an advocacy group for adjacent neighbors of the Mohonk Preserve. In the event of a dispute with the Mohonk Preserve, we can offer assistance in obtaining experts in the following areas; Surveying, Lawyers, Title, expert witnesses, ancient document research, and Maps.

Top
#60277 - 09/19/11 06:13 PM Re: Rope swing at the Gunks... [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
"Ah, Kent "gets it". AG... needs a sense of humor."

Mike, please don't suggest I have a sense of humor. You might ruin my reputation.

Top
#60281 - 09/19/11 10:28 PM Re: Rope swing at the Gunks... [Re: Kent]
jsj42 Offline
newbie

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 29
When did Gunks.com become Supertopo.com?

Top
#60282 - 09/19/11 10:56 PM Re: Rope swing at the Gunks... [Re: jsj42]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5981
Loc: 212 land
Originally Posted By: jsj42
When did Gunks.com become Supertopo.com?


Uh oh, look for a hostile takeover.
_________________________

Top
#60284 - 09/19/11 11:23 PM Re: Rope swing at the Gunks... [Re: Advocacy group]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
hey Chris, Want to elaborate on those restraining orders the Preserve needs to keep YOU from cutting down their trees, building fires and generally being a PITA?
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group


Chip, why is the reason important? Respecting a land closure should not be "difficult for climbers to understand". If someone closes their land, it's closed, end of discussion.


That said, I have to give you credit for wanting to keep other discussions on thread. A lot of the initial irritation with the initial MPNA thread was precisely because it didn't belong in general climbing. Even you seem to be learning, so kudos.

Top
#60305 - 09/20/11 04:55 PM Re: Rope swing at the Gunks... [Re: Advocacy group]
Mark Heyman Offline
old hand

Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 1123
Loc: South Jersey (Pinelands)
I am sure that the fact that landowner have gained any traction at all with access closure is largely because the Preserve cooperates with them! Take my home for example, I can not stay home to police it and so have ATVs creating eroding my footpath and a small hill, and deal with human waste left by canoers. I can only wish I had the Preserve as a neighbor! Gunks landowners would have a much, much harder time dealing with the public directly.

How many users here wouldn't pay MORE for a home with the Preserve as their neighbor?

Top
#60306 - 09/20/11 05:32 PM Re: Rope swing at the Gunks... [Re: Mark Heyman]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Mark, you are living in la la land. Some Mohonk Preserve members routinely trespass on private property and some of them also destroy private property and the MP does nothing to stop them.

And it's no wonder some MP members are so disrepectful of MP neighbors. Look at the Mohonk Preserve and the example they set: quit claim deeds, lawsuits, and zoning to strip development rights away from neighbors so targeted land is cheaper to buy. And now, the campground. The Mohonk Preserve has flipped the campground property to the PIPC specifically so they don't have to comply with state and town law, effectively shoving the campground down the throats of neighbors in that area.

The Mohonk Pre$erve. Saving the land, by screwing the neighbors, for life. (TM)

Edited to add:

I will add a caveat however. A few years ago Hank did call and ask about rerouting the Millbrook Ridge Trail off private land along the top of the Nears and Bayards. In several places it was rerouted but little is done to ensure MP members and guests follow the new routing and stay on MP land.


Edited by Kent (09/20/11 05:37 PM)

Top
#60307 - 09/20/11 06:02 PM Re: Rope swing at the Gunks... [Re: Kent]
retroscree Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/29/11
Posts: 397
Originally Posted By: Kent
...and some of them also destroy private property and the MP does nothing to stop them.

Please substantiate this charge.

Originally Posted By: Kent
And it's no wonder some MP members are so disrepectful of MP neighbors. Look at the Mohonk Preserve and the example they set: quit claim deeds, lawsuits, and zoning to strip development rights away from neighbors so targeted land is cheaper to buy. And now, the campground. The Mohonk Preserve has flipped the campground property to the PIPC specifically so they don't have to comply with state and town law, effectively shoving the campground down the throats of neighbors in that area.

Talk about living in fantasy land. Endless ranting about the same old 2 or 3 quit claim deeds, the same old 3 lawsuits, and the orchestration of zoning laws. Newsflash! The MP didn't vote in the zoning law - your neighbors did! The campground isn't on MP land, so it makes sense to hand it over to some other entity to manage. And it's not like there wasn't a campground in that vicinity, and the nearest neighbor is what, the distance of a football field away?

Originally Posted By: Kent
I will add a caveat however. A few years ago Hank did call and ask about rerouting the Millbrook Ridge Trail off private land along the top of the Nears and Bayards. In several places it was rerouted but little is done to ensure MP members and guests follow the new routing and stay on MP land.

Man, nothing is ever good enough for you. You can probably solve all your angst by simply selling off your land that abuts the MP. Nah,....probably not...seems like you and AG are just bitter, old, scared men.


Edited by retroscree (09/20/11 06:04 PM)

Top
#60308 - 09/20/11 06:34 PM Re: Rope swing at the Gunks... [Re: retroscree]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Retroscree aka MarcC, Mohonk Preserve members trespass frequently, tear down no trespassing signs, and remove barriers.

As for the campground, it was MP land. When it was MP land the MP tried to get a road cut permit from the NYDOT and couldn't. They tried to get a special use permit from the Town of Gardiner to build the campground but couldn't. The only reason the MP transferred ownership of the land to PIPC is because the PIPC is a sovereign entity not bound by NY State or Gardiner town law.

As usual instead of engaging in any kind of reasonable or constructive discussion you engage in ad hominem personal attacks.

Edited to add: I forgot to include a zoning rebuttal. The Mohonk Preserve was intimately involved in drafting language for the ridge zoning law.


Edited by Kent (09/20/11 06:36 PM)

Top
Page 2 of 11 < 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 >


Sponsored