Certainly placing an anchors where 70m ropes are required at the Gunks is far more a hazard than a generally manky anchor.
That's exactly right; with any kind of climber-placed anchor (slings, pitons, fixed nuts, etc) I think people do at least question whether they'll need 2 ropes or 1. With fixed bolts, I think it's almost inevitable that people would just clip & lower away without questioning it. Plunk.
The two consistent themes I perceive around the contemporary "ethics" or consensus in the Gunks are: consistency, and traffic management. By consistency, I mean both consistent with past and generally accepted practices, and consistency from route to route along the cliff. Notably, I also perceive a desire to *disregard* simple convenience, despite the "convenience anchors" (some of them might not be, but some just plain are) that the Preserve has installed. I think Rich is right in his perception that the Preserve started down a road and soon after, reconsidered that travel.
In terms of consistency, an anchor at 70m just ... isn't. Nothing else along the cliff is set for a 70m toprope or lowering. It doesn't make sense to me to say "well, 70's are the wave of the future" at the Gunks.
Consistency with the past also says: chop this anchor, manage your pebbles and/or TRing uses yourself, then walk off or rap elsewhere.
In terms of traffic management: there's a set of anchors over City Lights that is better management, in terms of seeing what you're throwing a rope over, and in terms of pebbles. There's also the line over Baby. And there's walking off. I don't see the need for an *additional* set of anchors over SoEO for traffic management's sake.
If it's there for TRing convenience, I think the general consensus is against simple convenience here.
These three are the reasons that I think the anchor should go.