Taxes VS preservation...have at it!

Posted by: RangerRob

Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/23/11 08:48 PM

Consider the thread moved! Continue discussion.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/23/11 10:00 PM

That seemed simple enough. Thank you RR. If everyone else is game.......

On the initial thread Kent recently posted:

"At the same time Mohonk Preserve members shouldn't expect ordinary taxpayers, those who are not MP members, to subsidize their recreational opportunities."

But aren't these same ordinary taxpayers also subsidizing the preservation and conservation of their local resources in addition to the varied recreational activities.

Today's taxpayers have had little to say about how tax breaks were awarded to non-profits. However, over the decades their elected officials have had much to do with it at all levels. As long as the tax law allows these exemptions, we should expect the non-profits to take advantage of these lawful breaks.

That is really the bigger issue, the availability of these tax breaks to non-profits. Tuesday's newspaper released a list of non-profits that recently lost their federal non-profit status. Over 400 organizations in Orange, Ulster, and Sullivan Counties. The list was very enlightening and equally surprising. If these changes are upheld, local communities will follow suit and reap the benefits of additional tax dollars.

BTW, none of the trusts in question were on the list.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/24/11 12:43 PM

First off, I'd just like to point out that we are in danger of conflating Kent's issues with the Preserve with a more general question of the impacts of "preservation". The 100000acres referred to in the plan is obviously not going to end up being an extension of the Preserve and to imply so is absurd.

I would be interested to know exactly how much $$ is actually 'lost' because the Preserve sits on 7000acres of unimproved, tax exempt land. However, to focus solely on the loss of local tax revenue as though this is some form of subsidy to visitors seems to miss the point entirely, since it implies that this is the end (loss)of the economic value of that land to the community. Well, a little lazy Google shows that tourism contributes >$400M to the overall economy in Ulster county, or roughly 8-10% of the total economic activity for the area.

tourism $ for Ulster county


2005 $427,190,073
2006 $471,731,320
2007 $489,814,060
2008 $470,180,331
2009 $420,160,000

Look at the numbers in the link, and especially the higher numbers for Ulster compared to its neighbors. Most probably people enjoying the parks, preserves etc i.e. the preserved state of the land. This equates to over $2K for every Ulster county resident. That's a lot of dirtbag dollars that filter into every pocket and into the community coffers as a result of local taxes.
The Preserve could pay more, but as Rickster points out, the Preserve would be idiotic not to preserve its 501c2 status, I'm also not going to deny that some people (Kent) etc are negatively impacted by the existence of the Preserve and their immediate proximity to it but I don't think based on this that, on average, local communities are effectively subsidizing our recreation i.e. are, on average, worse off as a direct result of preservation under tax-exempt status as is implied. I don't have numbers that break this issue down further but it seems obvious that the very existence of those preserved areas directly generates economic activity that would more than offset any lost revenue.
Posted by: chip

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/24/11 01:02 PM

I think I understand the many concerns that locals have as well as the desire of many to preserve as much open space as possible. I think the bottom line is quality of life. For me, the opportunity to live next to such a recreational a visual resource as the preserve would well out-weigh any monetary concerns about my wallet.
I don't say that lightly, as we all want to prosper and take care of any family as best as we can. That is a vital driving force for the betterment of everyone and the reason why capitalism will always bring everyone to the highest level they can function at. In this case, Gardiner property values have risen steadily, especially after 9/1/1, and you will not get as much property for your money as if you were to purchase on the west side of the ridge. You will not be able to sell the land for developement. That is reality. The benefits are still appreciable and for me would be worth it.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/24/11 01:32 PM

Originally Posted By: RangerRob
Consider the thread moved! Continue discussion.


Nice move Rob!

So where does the Watchtower group fit into all of this?
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/24/11 02:17 PM

To suggest that the Shawangunks Byway is somehow *bad* is appalling. The towns west of the ridge have suffered economic downturns since the age of summering in the area dwindled several decades ago, and industry fled the country in their race to the bottom.

The efforts to bring these towns to the fore as a recreational/tourism centers should be applauded - what OTHER force gives these towns a chance to not only subsist but eventually to flourish? Industry sure ain't coming back any time soon, so long as the US is still competing internationally.

Bring in tourism, and you will see second home purchases rise. perhaps BECAUSE land east of the ridge ISN'T so readily available.

Second homes, become primary ones, as people realize it's a damned sight better away from the ratrace cities they have been going back to each Sunday might(that I know from personal experience!).

Primary homes bring children, and pets, and needs for businesses which support a daily existence as opposed to weekenders who aren't all that concerned if they can't get a good loaf of bread locally. etc., etc., etc.

Also - tourism brings in sales tax dollars - here's a short article mentioning the proposed 4% extension to sales tax in the county.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9NVM1802.htm


On an aside - I met a local artist a few days ago, who has a kitschy little venture , HomeGrown Mini-Golf!

April 30 to October 30, 10 am to 6 pm daily
Kelder's Farm
5755 Route 209 between Accord and Kerhonkson, NY
845-626-7137

"Homegrown Mini-Golf on Kelder's Farm features real vegetables, fruit, grain and herbs. All of the plantings in the mini-golf garden are edible, some are unusual, and many of the varieties are also grown in the Kelder's Farm U-Pick fields. It's only $3.25 a game--and of course you get a chance to win a free game on the last hole."
http://www.homegrownminigolf.com/


Her intention is to be part of bringing growth and opportunity to the area, and looking to tourism as a way to do that.

Local residents whose communities DEPEND on tourism are being short-sighted when they diss those very real funds which tourism brings to their communities.

You want no tourism in Ulster(Gardiner/new Paltz, etc.)? Take a look TO those towns west of the ridge and their struggle and you will see what happens when the tourism isn't there. Not that it WOULD happen, but without the toursim, which holds a checks and balances to this side of the ridge, what would eventually occur WOULD be only wealthy homes.
Posted by: yorick

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/24/11 03:26 PM

With all due respect, the western part of the ridge is doing fine, or as fine as any place else in the county is in this economy. Yeah, there's a few missing teeth from Ellenville to Rochester, but weekenders long ago found the Rondout Basin (three New Yorker articles three weeks in a row started the boomlet c. 1999). And Marbletown is certainly every bit as gentrified country as Gardiner...or Rhinebeck.

Kelder and other local farms are even providing food to the Rondout School District. It doesn't get any better, more sustainable, than that.
Posted by: Mike Rawdon

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/24/11 05:51 PM

Can anyone confirm (or refute) that property values in Gardiner have actually INCREASED relative to, say the towns west of the Ridge, since the new zoning regs were adopted?

I have long believed that "developable land" only brings higher prices when sold to a developer. (Kinda like an unusual old car. The fact that a collector MIGHT pay you dearly for it doesn't raise what a scrapper will pay for the vehicle.) And that doesn't seem to have happened much in the restricted zones of the ridge, either before or after the new regs.
Posted by: chip

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/25/11 01:50 PM

You make a good point, Mike. Without a buyer, who is to say what the value of anything is? Real estate listings are just the value others have previously seen in a particular property. Much of the country has realized just how fragile a marker that truely is and is only just starting to rebound back toward previous prices. Most investments are speculative and you can only hope that the timing is right when you buy and sell.
Posted by: yorick

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/25/11 03:51 PM

Mike,

Scroll down to median price. Gardiner tops the list, followed by Marbletown and Olive.

http://www.ulstercountynyrealestate.com/ulster-county-real-estate-market-2010

Can't find anything comparable for earlier years online, so I looked at some old editions of the late Weekender Magazine published by Blue Stone Press, which used to list each home sale bi-annually for every town in Ulster County.

For Autumn of 2004, Gardiner's average price was $345,000. Marbletown's was $340,000. Olive, $301,000. Rochester, $243,000.

For the Spring/Summer of 2005, Gardiner was $281,000 and Marbletown came in at a whopping $481,000. No numbers for Olive, but Rochester was $276,000 and Denning, $365,000.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/27/11 01:04 PM

Rationalizations for the Mohonk Preserve's tax exempt status have been:

From Ian: MP members spend money here.
Quote:
As a local homeowner who comes to enjoy the parks and the Preserve, I directly employ a number of local people and a further good number of my disposable $ end up in local hands.

Everyone who lives here spends money here too. MP member expenditures are no more exalted than anyone else's.

From Oen: MP doesn't burden the local community
Quote:
There are no children to educate and, I'd guess, almost no local effort at policing and infrastructure maintenance in these places.

Wouldn't it be nice if we each paid taxes in accordance with the government services we used? It doesn't work that way. We all shoulder the burden, and generally speaking, those of us more able shoulder more. Not so the MP. And climbers, as a group, use considerable town services. Some 35 Mohonk Preserve calls a year come into the Gardiner fire department.

From Rick:Tax exempt status is legally enacted by elected representatives and therefore ok.
Quote:
Today's taxpayers have had little to say about how tax breaks were awarded to non-profits. However, over the decades their elected officials have had much to do with it at all levels. As long as the tax law allows these exemptions, we should expect the non-profits to take advantage of these lawful breaks.

One is left wondering how you feel about huge taxpayer funded government subsidies to big oil companies. In both instances politically influential wealthy corporations have used their influence to further their interests at the expense of others less well off.

From Ian: Locals should recognize they are blessed by our dirtbag presense.
Quote:
Well, a little lazy Google shows that tourism contributes >$400M to the overall economy in Ulster county, or roughly 8-10% of the total economic activity for the area. This equates to over $2K for every Ulster county resident. That's a lot of dirtbag dollars.

Too funny. The MP's own study concludes the MP, Sam's Point, and Minnewaska combined economic contribution is just $12M or something like 0.3% of the overall economy in Ulster County. Generously speaking, the MP generates perhaps half of that or 0.15%.

Another theme common to many of the posts supporting tax exempt MP status is open space is worth the loss of tax revenue. This is, of course, easy to say when it's not your money. More important though, other means of maintaining open space on the ridge also maintain a tax revenue stream for towns. Minnewaska State Park is a good example.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/27/11 03:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Rationalizations for the Mohonk Preserve's tax exempt status have been:

Quote:

Everyone who lives here spends money here too. MP member expenditures are no more exalted than anyone else's.


Exalted? What?

You have to be kidding. We're talking about money that comes in that wouldn't come in otherwise. This is extra. To the tune of $400M for the whole of the county and or the $12M modeled by the Preserve itself as you point out. Seems like a deal to me.


Quote:

From Ian: Locals should recognize they are blessed by our dirtbag presense. [quote]
Too funny. The MP's own study concludes the MP, Sam's Point, and Minnewaska combined economic contribution is just $12M or something like 0.3% of the overall economy in Ulster County. Generously speaking, the MP generates perhaps half of that or 0.15%.


Kent, seriously? OK, so the models say $12M. Works for me. Now, how much tax is lost?

Quote:

Another theme common to many of the posts supporting tax exempt MP status is open space is worth the loss of tax revenue. This is, of course, easy to say when it's not your money.


So my taxes to the town of Rochester go where exactly?
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/27/11 08:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent


From Rick:Tax exempt status is legally enacted by elected representatives and therefore ok.
Quote:
Today's taxpayers have had little to say about how tax breaks were awarded to non-profits. However, over the decades their elected officials have had much to do with it at all levels. As long as the tax law allows these exemptions, we should expect the non-profits to take advantage of these lawful breaks.

One is left wondering how you feel about huge taxpayer funded government subsidies to big oil companies. In both instances politically influential wealthy corporations have used their influence to further their interests at the expense of others less well off.

Kent, once again you spin. Quote me when you feel so inclined, but please, don't miss quote me. At no point in my post have I said "Tax exempt status is legally enacted by elected representatives and therefore ok." Those are your words, not mine. If your words express how you understood my post, then read the post again, until you understand what it is that I did write.

Additionally, I would figure that you may be the only one who is left wondering how I feel about huge taxpayer funded government subsidies to big oil companies. Keep wondering.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/27/11 09:51 PM

Some 35 Mohonk Preserve calls a year come into the Gardiner fire department.

Speaking as one of those calls: I "bought" two flights from a Gardiner-based heli rescue company. To a tune > $48,000.00 (I should be clear that my health insurance paid those costs).

If it weren't for the MP drawing climbers to the area, that $$ wouldn't have been earned in Gardiner.

And if it weren't for the steady need for such services in Gardiner, they wouldn't be there at all. The fire department in Gardiner might be one truck at the town hall.

One could observe that, aside from the $48,000.00 spent, Gardiner also benefits from beefed-up fire departments and rescue services, because of the MP.

And yet I'm sure some will see an entitled dirtbag taking advantage of town services without any benefit or $$ going to Gardiner. Somehow.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/27/11 09:54 PM

I am glad to see you are up and kicking. Welcome back.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 02:59 AM

Julie I seriousl doubt the medical flight is Gardiner based...unless I have been blind the last 12 years. The Gardiner Fire Department only follows protocols set by Ulster County 911 when they have injuries sustained from a fall of a certain height. Those flight services are usually based out of Westchester. I can asuure you that neither the Town or the fire department saw a dime of that money.

I have sympathy for your accident and your flight bill, really I do. Attacking the Gardiner Fire Department for your medical and resuce bill is repulsive however. They have done the climbing community more service than any other agency I can think of...including the Mohonk Preserve. Maybe you should work to change the protocol instead of criticizing the people who came to your rescue.

No one forces us to climb cliffs and put our lives at risk. We assume every outcome of that activity when we choose to undertake it, including the medical flight that the fire department is legally bound to call for in that instance.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 03:05 AM

Furthermore, what has the climbing community ever done for the Gardiner Fire Department? They got a plaque one year at the Filmfest. Wonderful. When was the last time the community did anything collectively to benefit the fire department in a meaningful way? The only instance I know of was when I donated the $250 bucks I made giving a slide show at Rock and Snow to them. Anyone else? Anyone ever give a donation after an incident?

I should go to bed before I get pissed and write something I really shouldn't.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 10:16 AM

Rob, I think you misunderstand Julie. I think the point she's making is that Kent fails to take account of numerous ways the Preserve contributes to the local economy.

Her specific example-- that climber accidents bring rescue revenue-- is (I'm guessing) meant to be only half-serious. But while I'm only half-sure that she's half-serious, I am totally sure that she's not criticizing rescue personnel or complaining about the size of the bill.
Posted by: Advocacy group

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 12:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Julie
Some 35 Mohonk Preserve calls a year come into the Gardiner fire department.

Speaking as one of those calls: I "bought" two flights from a Gardiner-based heli rescue company. To a tune > $48,000.00 (I should be clear that my health insurance paid those costs).

If it weren't for the MP drawing climbers to the area, that $$ wouldn't have been earned in Gardiner.

And if it weren't for the steady need for such services in Gardiner, they wouldn't be there at all. The fire department in Gardiner might be one truck at the town hall.

One could observe that, aside from the $48,000.00 spent, Gardiner also benefits from beefed-up fire departments and rescue services, because of the MP.

And yet I'm sure some will see an entitled dirtbag taking advantage of town services without any benefit or $$ going to Gardiner. Somehow.



Julie,

Try going to one of the various local town board meetings before you spay online about what local municipalities have and who contributes $$ to them. I don't know about the dirtbag part but you really do come off as quite entitled.

Thanks, MPNA
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 12:45 PM

I may have been a little harsh in my response, and for that I am sorry, but at the very least her post seemed as if she had no idea where her insurance money went, and who benefited. She seemed to imply that the fire department makes out like a fat rat because of climbers, when in fact those rescue calls cost the fire department money. Money that never comes back to them, unless the rescuee decides to be a little philanthropic.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 05:41 PM

Rob - I very much did not mean to attack the Gardiner FD. I'm *very* sorry if it came across as doing so. Seth got it right. And I understand why/how you saw it the way you did.

I guess I was trying to express some generalized shock at how much this accident will cost in the end; but not that it should cost any cent less, and not that anyone's making out at all, let alone like a fat cat, just - wow, what a huge, potentially life-changing number. And maybe as a warning that one shouldn't climb without health insurance (!) ....

I am sure that both flights, including the one from Pkee to Westchester, were Gardiner-based; they told me so themselves.

I am surely intending to donate some considerable cash, to the rescue apparatus as a whole; I have a long list of thanks to express. Your suggestion of donating directly to the Gardiner FD is appreciated. I could not be more grateful that the rescue structure - dozens of people to whom I probably owe my ability to walk - was there when I needed it, and just writing that started tears down my cynical old face, dammit.
Posted by: chip

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 06:00 PM

Thanks Julie. Figured that was about how you felt.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 06:59 PM

I've been busy and so unable to respond to Ian and Rick but I'll get to it. For the moment I just want to back up what Rob said about there being no helicopter rescue service based in Gardiner. There just aren't any. If Rob and I are wrong, please post company name, address, phone, web site, etc..

It would be cool if there was. There could be something new and not on anyone's radar yet, even Rob's, but that's not likely.

Post up contact info for said Gardiner based helicopter rescue service please.
Posted by: oenophore

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 07:06 PM

And maybe as a warning that one shouldn't climb without health insurance

Yeah, I know this is thread deviation, yet the above is some of the soundest advice ever given on this website.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 08:51 PM

Julie, thanks for the clarification. Again, I'm sorry I reacted harshly. I was in a mood apparently. But I would encourage you to look into that helicopter thing. Most likely it was Mobile Life or Stat Flight. neither of which are based in Gardiner.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 09:08 PM

No worries, Rob, the evidence says I'm not firing on all guns yet so I'm sure I wrote or expressed things badly there somehow. It is teh interwebs after all.

Mobile Life brought me the mile between the steel bridge and the field across from the Deli. The bill I have for both flights is from Rocky Mtn Holdings LLC, based in Cincinnati OH with a return address in Fontana, CA. It says Air Medical transport services were provided by Air Methods Corp..

I remember chatting with the guy who loaded me onto to the heli, and I remember clearly that he said he was based out of Gardiner. I also remember a nurse in P'kee saying they were waiting for the heli to get there from Gardiner (to take me to Westchester). That's all's I know, and that's why I have this impression that Gardiner has a heli service.

Aside from the money flow and whether it hits Gardiner or not, my original point was that when any Gardiner resident calls 911, the response they get is better than many other random small towns in, say, Kansas ... because of a history of emergency calls from the MP. Dark but true.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 10:30 PM

Julie, There is a Twin Star helicopter based at The Sky Ranch in Gardiner. I would suggest they also have refueling capabilities there as well and maybe used by other air services?
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 11:30 PM

Ian,

what I'm saying is the economic activity generated by the MP and their members isn't any more important than economic activity generated by non members. You spend money and put people to work. Great. So does everyone else who participates in the local economy. It doesn't justify the organization you are a member of, the MP, being tax exempt.

Property taxes are higher for all property tax payers because the MP is tax exempt. Every time they acquire another piece of land the tax base is eroded further and everyone pays a little more.

If you're a MP member and you pay local property taxes it's pretty much a wash. But people who are not MP members shouldn't be subsidizing people who are.



Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/28/11 11:36 PM

Rick,

I paraphrased you and I quoted you to support my paraphrasing. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your remarks.

About you supporting oil company subsidies I was obviously pulling your leg. But the dynamic is largely the same. Wealthy, on a different order of magnitude of course, well connected people getting what they want at the expense of others.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/29/11 12:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Rickster
Originally Posted By: Kent


From Rick:Tax exempt status is legally enacted by elected representatives and therefore ok.
Quote:
Today's taxpayers have had little to say about how tax breaks were awarded to non-profits. However, over the decades their elected officials have had much to do with it at all levels. As long as the tax law allows these exemptions, we should expect the non-profits to take advantage of these lawful breaks.

One is left wondering how you feel about huge taxpayer funded government subsidies to big oil companies. In both instances politically influential wealthy corporations have used their influence to further their interests at the expense of others less well off.

Kent, once again you spin. Quote me when you feel so inclined, but please, don't miss quote me. At no point in my post have I said "Tax exempt status is legally enacted by elected representatives and therefore ok." Those are your words, not mine. If your words express how you understood my post, then read the post again, until you understand what it is that I did write.

Additionally, I would figure that you may be the only one who is left wondering how I feel about huge taxpayer funded government subsidies to big oil companies. Keep wondering.


Kent,
I guess you could call it a paraphrase. If the point you make in your "paraphrase" was at all related to the point I was making in my post. Which I thought was pretty clear.

As long as tax law allows it, non-profits will take the tax exemptions. In no way does that statement agree or disagree with the practice as your "paraphrase" alludes.

I also missed the humor in your comment about the oil company subsidies. It appeared to me as if you were attempting to broaden the discussion thread with a little drift.

Now, as far as rephrasing my post to fit your paraphrase? Now, that's funny.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/29/11 12:54 PM

Can we phase in to the next phase of rephrasing other persons paraphrases?
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/29/11 09:57 PM

Originally Posted By: RangerRob
When was the last time the community did anything collectively to benefit the fire department in a meaningful way?


I am pretty sure I have seen announcements from the GCC about donations to Gardiner Fire Dept. When they do fundraisers I recall them announcing/posting on flyers that donations will be going there.

This seems to me something done on behalf of the climbing community, and I am fairly certain that is the intent.
Posted by: phlan

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 06/30/11 12:36 PM

Yes Terrie you are correct. they donated money on at least two occasions on behalf of the climbing community.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 07/21/11 12:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Originally Posted By: laurelinjune
I did ask why Mohonk Preserve had to hire a security guard. It is because there have been death threats against some of the administrators. Wow, that's activism run amok.

My info on this is second hand too. I've only heard about one threat, not threats plural. The way I heard it is a Near Trapps landowner went to the visitor center and words were exchanged that resulted in Mohonk Preserve staff calling the New York State Police and the landowner being arrested and charged with menacing in the third degree.

The Preserve had previously filed a quit claim deed in an attempt to lay claim to part of this landowner's land. The Preserve's brand of avaricious and confrontational land acquisition can, apparently, quickly get out of hand.

My source of info is the Nears landowner. The quit claim deed is a matter of public record. It's the same quit claim deed I've mentioned a number of times before.


Kent, it sounds like you feel as though the landowners actions were justified.
Posted by: Mim

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/08/11 02:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Kent

My source of info is the Nears landowner.


I'm sorry... but I was the unfortunate tenant of said landowner for 18 months and he's fuck'n crazy. There is no other words around it. There is only one reason why the Mohonk Preserve got a restraining order - he threatened them and they felt for their safety. No court would give a restraining order without just cause. Like I said, he's fuck'n crazy.

And THAT's your source? AHAHAHAHAHAH!
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/08/11 03:10 AM

Mim,

Mental illness is no laughing matter.

And if said person is unstable, aggravating the situation with something like a quit claim deed to try and take his land on the sly is unconscionable. Just because someone has issues doesn't mean their assets, their property, is fair game for a large, wealthy, politically well connected, legally savvy corporation to take via trickery.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/08/11 03:12 AM

Originally Posted By: cfrac
Kent, it sounds like you feel as though the landowners actions were justified.


I don't feel that violence or threats of violence are justified under any circumstances.
Posted by: Mim

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/08/11 01:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Mental illness is no laughing matter.



Just to clarify: I'm not making fun of him, but of you.
Posted by: TrappDyke

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/08/11 03:31 PM

Snap!!
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/12/11 03:15 PM

Mim, there are many rumors flying around about threats made, but no one knows what was said except the people who were present at the visitor center at the time of the incident, and it's likely even they have different versions of what transpired. I referenced my source, when speaking of the incident, because he was there.

And no matter how crazy you think he is, he's a human being and a neighbor of the preserve and he deserves a voice. Remember the Mohonk Preserve used a quit claim deed to try and take part of this neighbors land. It's despicable conduct on the part of the Preserve. Under the same circumstances most neighbors would be at least a little crazy.

Also despicable is your willingness to throw this landowner under the bus in an effort to make fun of me. And so it goes between climbers and private landowners in the Nears, and elsewhere around the Preserve.
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/12/11 05:13 PM

"Also despicable is your willingness to throw this landowner under the bus in an effort to make fun of me. And so it goes between climbers and private landowners in the Nears, and elsewhere around the Preserve."

....not unlike when you stated that a landowner was dining on pet food due to being financially strapped(because of MP zoning laws manipulations...

"Remember the Mohonk Preserve used a quit claim deed to try and take part of this neighbors land."

I had heard that the sale was in discussion and the man was told there was a problem with the title which he would need to sort out before negotiations could proceed.


On an aside:

Kent - I am not very educated when it comes to real estate and most other municipal workings. I've looked up the term "Quit Claim" and from everything I have seen it does not seem to be this evil trap you are inferring. It isn't (from what I understand) a title transfer.

Could you please take some time to explain how the quit claim puts into act some force that irrevocably transfers land holdings (which is the impression that was made to me when first reading about the use of such a thing from you). Absolutely no beed to be so specific as to particular case(and actually prefer you do not take advantage of this opportunity to do so).
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/12/11 06:35 PM

Terrie, I don't see how Mim throwing the Nears landowner under the bus, by publicly discussing her opinion of the landowner's mental health status, is at all like me talking about a landowner whose financial well being is compromised by the zoning law. Many people know exactly who the Nears landowner is that Mim is referring to. No one knows who I'm using as an example for the consequences of the zoning law.

Regarding the QCD. I've explained it in detail before so I'll be brief here. Every time land changes hands the deeds are transcribed by hand. Scrivener's errors occur and the deeds don't reflect exactly what is owned. A landowner, or anyone for that matter, can go to the seller and buy a QCD, wherein the seller quits any claim they might still have to the land to the QCD buyer. That's one way of fixing a scrivener's error. The MP approached the party who sold the land to the current owner and explained they might still have an interest in the land. For $1, I believe, the MP acquired a QCD for any interest the seller may have still held in the land. They then filed that QCD with the Ulster County Clerk's office thereby creating a competing chain of title to part of the land in question.

The Mohonk Preserve knew full well that the land hadn't been subdivided at the time of sale as any subdivision would have required planning board approval and there would have been a public record.

I've talked with the current landowner about this, with the seller, and also with the MP exec director. The current landowner is irate, and should be. The seller regrets entertaining the MPs proposal. The MP refers to this QCD as a mistake. I guess that would be kind of like how cheating on an exam is a mistake. It only becomes a mistake when you get caught.

Using a QCD in this same way, to exploit a scrivener's error in a deed to create a competing chain of title, was central to the Shawangunk Conservancy lawsuit against Mike Fink and Karen Pardini in The Clove Valley that has received so much press over the years. The Shawangunk Conservancy lost. They appealed and lost again. They appealed again and lost a third time.

Using QCDs in this way is, as I've said previously, despicable. But the Mohonk Preserve and the Shawangunk Conservancy seem to think it's ok if they can get away with it.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/13/11 03:08 PM

I too am not very knowledgable when it comes to these legal trappings of real estate. I know quitclaim deeds do have the reputation of being underhanded and sneaky. Can someone here better learned about it than me please explain why they even exist in the current laws, if they are in fact so underhanded and devious. Are there non underhanded and non devious ways to use a quitclaim deed?

Back on topic though. Which town in Ulster County has the highest combined property and school tax rate? I'm wagering New Paltz and Gardiner are waaaayyy up there. How does that correlate with the amount of preserved lands in those townships. I wonder if there is a correlation between preserved lands and taxes.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/13/11 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: RangerRob
I know quitclaim deeds do have the reputation of being underhanded and sneaky. Can someone here better learned about it than me please explain why they even exist in the current laws, if they are in fact so underhanded and devious. Are there non underhanded and non devious ways to use a quitclaim deed?

Like slmost anything else, they can be used for good or evil. Here's a brief explanation.
Posted by: SkurdeyCat

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/21/11 02:28 AM

First of all, thanks to all regular contributors on both sides of this and related discussions/arguments for at least a year of great entertainment.

Secondly, I've been coming to the Gunks 7-10 times a year for more than ten years, and by a generous estimate, I have spent less than $200 in the town of Gardiner in that whole time, sorry, but until Gardiner offers some accommodation options, whether (affordable) hotel or nice camping, I have no reason to spend money there. On the other hand I'm sure I have spent many thousands of dollars in New Paltz. If this country wasn't so afraid of Big Government, and so keen on local control of everything, maybe Gardiner could get a share of my money.

Anyway, I may be wrong, but it's likely the primary reason the MP even exists is to save the MMH from paying taxes. If this "loophole" did not exist, there might not be a Mountain House today, but if there was, climbing at the Trapps would be gone the way of Skytop.

The tax code gives this break to non-profits because society as a whole feels it's a good thing. I don't bitch that I'm "subsidizing" your school/hospital/church/fire company/food bank, so quit bitching that you're subsidizing mine.

In the end, taxes (or lack of) are a zero-sum game,money just moves around, what the government does with it isn't inherently better or worse than what you do with it, just different.

Skurdey
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/21/11 03:53 AM

Seriously folks, relax. We live in a really neat place with lots of fun things to do. We are fortunate that weekenders want to visit the region we call home.
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/22/11 04:25 PM

Originally Posted By: SkurdeyCat
Anyway, I may be wrong, but it's likely the primary reason the MP even exists is to save the MMH from paying taxes.


I understood that the trust was formed in response to a fight to when government attempted imposing imminent domain to build a highway atop the ridge. The Smiley's understood that, being privately held land, the region would be vulnerable to such efforts in the future, and creating a land trust was the way to protect it.

As well, the Mountain House did understand that using mountain hotels as retreats was lessening in people's use of free time, and the resulting lessening of income would become problematic in supporting the land. They could easily have chosen to sell the land as opportunity decried, and realized quite nice profits, no doubt. Instead they chose conservation.


It is often said that we humans will sometimes suggest another is behaving in a certain way because it is the was WE would behave in the given situation.
Posted by: Advocacy group

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/22/11 10:04 PM

Originally Posted By: TerrieM
Originally Posted By: SkurdeyCat
Anyway, I may be wrong, but it's likely the primary reason the MP even exists is to save the MMH from paying taxes.


I understood that the trust was formed in response to a fight to when government attempted imposing imminent domain to build a highway atop the ridge. The Smiley's understood that, being privately held land, the region would be vulnerable to such efforts in the future, and creating a land trust was the way to protect it.

As well, the Mountain House did understand that using mountain hotels as retreats was lessening in people's use of free time, and the resulting lessening of income would become problematic in supporting the land. They could easily have chosen to sell the land as opportunity decried, and realized quite nice profits, no doubt. Instead they chose conservation.


It is often said that we humans will sometimes suggest another is behaving in a certain way because it is the was WE would behave in the given situation.


Wow! Where to begin with this one..... First off it's eminent domain. Secondly, most everything else quoted is simply not true. The mountain house was broke plain and simple. But it is fun TerrieM to read your rants about What conservation is in regards to the Mountain house. I guess building a 300+ room hotel on the side of a mountain, a golf course, numerous other houses, 80 miles of roads and smiley tower is how some define conservation.

MPNA
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/22/11 11:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
I guess building a 300+ room hotel on the side of a mountain, a golf course, numerous other houses, 80 miles of roads and smiley tower is how some define conservation.

At the time all those were built, the conservation movement in the US was barely in its infancy and didn't gain genuine traction until Teddy Roosevelt. The overriding laissez-faire position at the time held that owners of private property should be allowed to do anything they wished for their property. Few had any concept of conservation or why it might be desirable. The hotel was built in 1869. Trying to equate the modern idea of conservation with what was considered conservation then is pointless and just serves to provide you with a fallacious argument.
Posted by: Mark Heyman

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/23/11 02:38 AM

And it left a lot more "natural" area than rows of McMansions or a highway would have. Moreover with the decline of summering in the mountains, I don't believe the area would be particularly desirable without the preserve and parks.

It is ironic that rows of McMansions would have killed the very thing that made them desirable, but like bacteria in a petri dish, or humans on earth, not all all unlikely.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/23/11 03:17 AM

SOMEBODY sounds like a broke-ass terrible rapper saying Tupac sucks. Jealous hater. And yes - I am the first person to use hiphop as a reference to anything on this site.

As a rhetorical question, per taxes: how much in payroll taxes does Ulster County's largest private employer, MMH, pay? Any what about federal and state taxes their employees cough up? And what about gas taxes employees pay driving up that hill? And the drinks and dancing they might choose to pay for on nights off in town?

C'mon. The weather outside is like Utah - save your bitching for winter. There...I'm don bitching.
Posted by: Advocacy group

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/23/11 03:33 AM

Originally Posted By: retroscree
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
I guess building a 300+ room hotel on the side of a mountain, a golf course, numerous other houses, 80 miles of roads and smiley tower is how some define conservation.

At the time all those were built, the conservation movement in the US was barely in its infancy and didn't gain genuine traction until Teddy Roosevelt. The overriding laissez-faire position at the time held that owners of private property should be allowed to do anything they wished for their property. Few had any concept of conservation or why it might be desirable. The hotel was built in 1869. Trying to equate the modern idea of conservation with what was considered conservation then is pointless and just serves to provide you with a fallacious argument.


Retroscree,

1869 was just the start of it. Lets take a look at some of the Smiley legacy in the Shawangunk mountains.

1869 Mountain house purchased (40 guest total)

1879-1910 Mohonk mountain house expanded to 266 guest rooms.

1879 Cliff house hotel open at lake minnewaska

1881 Cliff house hotel expanded to accomodate 225 guests

1887 Wildmere hotel opens at lake Minnewaska

1907 Smiley bros gives easement to NYC ($25,000)for aqueduct allowing the blasting of a crag and the clear cutting, mining of and entire mountain.

1911 Wildmere hotel expanded to accomodate 350 guests

1921 Smiley memorial tower built (Skytop) along with three miles of paths.

1926 5 tennis courts, golf course, baseball diamond and hundreds of Gazebos built at Minnewaska

1998 New $2.8 million 9200 sq. ft. Visitor Center built.

2001 9375sq. ft. refrigerated ice rink opens at Mohonk

2005 30,000 sq. ft. spa opens at Mohonk

Of course this is only a partial list. Don't forget about the old visitor center, the many houses that surround the mountain house hotel, the trailer park, the various mining operations, 80 miles of roads, the land sold for development, the mountain house golf course, the electrical easements that scar the ridge etc... Hardly pristine, hardly conservation minded, hardly occurring only in 1869!

MPNA
Posted by: Doug

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/23/11 12:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
Ulster County's largest private employer, MMH


That part jumped out at me - do you have a source on that? From a quick search, it seems like Uniprise/United Health Care is the largest. This link for the chamber of commerce lists large employers and seems to put MMH in a second tier. Other non-authoritative results seemed to peg United Health Care as the largest private employer.

Perhaps it fluctuates with seasonal work?
Posted by: Mike Rawdon

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/23/11 01:36 PM

I was told by MMH HR office that they have a payroll of 1200.
Posted by: SkurdeyCat

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 08/23/11 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
I was told by MMH HR office that they have a payroll of 1200.

Wow! That explains the room rates!

OK, back on topic, the voters in my township (Philly exurbs) recently voted to purchase some boring farmland in order to preserve open space. This not only lost the township tax revenue, but directly cost money! If this overwhelmingly right-wing locality sees the benefits of preservation worth the cost, surely the value in preserving the Gunks is obvious?
Skurdey
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/16/11 02:04 AM

Hello, I do not know anything about these arguments, and the more I read the more questions I have. However having said that I would like to say something as one who has used the Preserve properties for years.

I like to rockclimb, and from the way I see it, if these properties were owned privately there would be no rockclimbing at all ever, period. It is hard enough to climb on state land, and private property owners here are for the most part very difficult to talk to. They have no concern for these things at all, they are unsympathetic in understanding them in anyway. You do not want to be on their property or bother them if you can help it. This may have something to do in part with the way the legal system is set up for accidents and property issues in New York.

That being said, I hope you can understand that as far as I am concerned the Mohonk Preserve is ordained by God so that people like myself can get out of the city and explore God's creation and understand Him better (I really believe this). This was the very reason for why the Preserve was created by the Smileys in the first place, rather than become a race track, and maybe the cliffs turned into a quarry. So for this reason I really have a hard time sympathizing with private property owners who want to argue with the Preserve under any circumstances. For the same reasons I am going to fight for this country, even with all its inconsistencies, is the same reason I would fight for the Preserve, inconsistencies or not. The Preserve and the Smileys have done humanity a great and enormous unrepayable service. And for this we should all be overflowingly and eternally grateful. Those who seek to hinder that work set forth by the Smileys should be eternally ashamed of themselves. If everyone had the same kind of charity and vision for making the world a better place as the Smileys have there would be no fighting. The Smileys have not only helped themselves, their families and their heirs but they have also never forgotten us in that process. I am more than happy to will my property to them, and if they want anything of mine I am more than happy to share it with them, whatever it is.


BTW I have posted this same letter in two threads. You can take it either way.
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/16/11 02:40 PM

"...a great and enormous unrepayable service."

Agreed
Posted by: laurelinjune

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/16/11 09:13 PM

I'm not a climber but I am a hiker, nature lover, and longtime member of Mohonk Preserve. I heartily agree with DP and TerrieM. Both MP and the MMH complex are treasures. I'd prefer MMH not have a golf course, but as the whole, it is a huge asset to Ulster County.

I recently went to the Ulster County clerk's office to read for myself the two pending cases involving boundary disputes between MP and neighboring landowners. Very easy online access; just have to wade through the legalese. I wanted to satisfy myself that MP was using reasonable methods to protect their holdings. I can't predict whether MP will prevail, but in both cases MP has a strong basis for its claim to the land. It is not using malicious or unusual tactics or arguments. It is simply protecting land it fully believes it purchased and held in good faith, no more or less than what any landowner would do to protect their investment. Even if the courts rule against MP in one or both cases, I will not reduce my donation level. The simple fact of losing a lawsuit doesn't make a person or entity a bad guy and doesn't mean the the lawsuit was frivolous or malicious. It merely means the other side had a stronger case in the court's opinion.

MP is using the adverse possession argument only as a secondary argument to the chain-of-title argument. And the defendants are doing the same thing in their counter claim. It is very common practice in real estate disputes. Taken together the arguments are saying in effect, "I believe I own this land through rightful chain of title, and in addition I have been using and maintaining the land as my own for the past xx years."
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/17/11 01:09 AM

You do realize that you, Terrie, and Donald just sent Chris Ullrich's blood pressure up at least 20 points.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/18/11 02:45 AM

delete
Posted by: Advocacy group

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/18/11 12:28 PM

Originally Posted By: donald perry
" I'd prefer MMH not have a golf course, but as the whole, it is a huge asset to Ulster County."


Not only do we who wish to enjoy God's creation together owe the Smileys a great and enormous unrepayable dept, but so likewise does the whole world. Back in early days world leaders would come to the Mohonk Mountain House to relax to discuss world peace. The Mohonk Mountain House was in effect of our the places where the ideas of the united nations came into effect. World leaders would get to know each other, and when they could not understand each other they played golf together. Indeed God has done nothing but bless the Smileys over abundantly for their love for God and their love for humanity. The Smileys have never been self serving in their plans, and their plan have always been wide and large and full of faith. God said concerning Abraham that He would bless those who bless him and he would curse those that curse him. Likewise I would advise caution, to be carful to only bless what the Smilies and have done. What happened here did not come about through a series of random chances of good luck. But rather God has especially been working through the Smiliys to demonstrate His love for the world, and therefore it would be wise not stand in places of hostility between God and the Smilieys.


Today, when people use the name Smiley it is no longer used when referring to the Mohonk Perserve, nor anything having to do with the United Nations in NYC for that matter. However, what I am referring to here has to do with fathers of these ideas. Indeed God allowed the Smileys to invent such creations to glorify Him, and these ideas should be attributed horizontally to them. The Smileys are those we need to thank for the Mohonk Preserve, it was created by them for us to enjoy as wells as to glorify God our creator. And in turn I am sure that these things did not come about without divine intervention, God Himself had a hand in it. Likewise if we are talking about the blessings of Israel, that nation, there many possessions, and all their blessings bestowed upon them, it is impossible to do that without talking directly about Abraham.




oh you called it retroscree, guys like this really worry us.... Hahahaha
Posted by: Advocacy group

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/18/11 12:43 PM

Originally Posted By: donald perry
" I'd prefer MMH not have a golf course, but as the whole, it is a huge asset to Ulster County."


Not only do we who wish to enjoy God's creation together owe the Smileys a great and enormous unrepayable dept, but so likewise does the whole world. Back in early days world leaders would come to the Mohonk Mountain House to relax to discuss world peace. The Mohonk Mountain House was in effect of our places where the ideas of the united nations came into effect. World leaders would get to know each other, and when they could not understand each other they played golf together or went up to the top of the rock to see the lights of New York City. Indeed God has done nothing but bless the Smileys over abundantly for their love for God and their love for humanity, and likewise we should bless them too. The Smileys have never been self serving in their plans, and their plan have always been wide and large and full of faith. God said concerning Abraham that He would bless those who bless him and he would curse those that curse him. Likewise I would advise caution, to be carful to only bless what the Smilies and have done. What happened here did not come about through a series of random accidents of good luck. But rather God has especially been working through the Smiliys to demonstrate His love for the world, and therefore it would be wise not stand in places of hostility between God and the Smilieys.

Today, when people use the name Smiley it is no longer used when referring directly to the Mohonk Perserve, nor anything having to do with the United Nations in NYC for that matter. However, what I am referring to here has to do with fathers of these ideas. Indeed God allowed the Smileys to invent such creations to glorify Him, and these ideas should be attributed horizontally to them. The Smileys are those we need to thank for the Mohonk Preserve, it was created by them for us to enjoy as wells as to glorify God our creator.

We should be sure that these things did not come about without divine intervention, God Himself had a hand in it. Likewise if we are talking about the blessings of Israel, that nation, their many possessions, and all their blessings bestowed upon them, it is impossible to do that without talking directly about Abraham and all those blessing bestowed upon him. And these are the sources and the fountainhead from which all these blessings have flowed down to us.




hey don, this is a thread about taxes. Don't you know better than to mix church and state. If you want to DP something you might try retroscree's ass. Although it's probably sore enough from our abuse......
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/18/11 12:44 PM

" I'd prefer MMH not have a golf course, but as the whole, it is a huge asset to Ulster County."


Not only do we who wish to enjoy God's creation together owe the Smileys a great and enormous unrepayable dept, but so likewise does the whole world. Back in the early days world leaders would come to the Mohonk Mountain House to relax to discuss world peace. The Mohonk Mountain House was in effect of our places where the ideas of the united nations came into effect. World leaders would get to know each other, and when they could not understand each other they played golf together or went up to the top of the rock to see the lights of New York City. Indeed God has done nothing but bless the Smileys over abundantly for their love for God and their love for humanity, and likewise we should bless them too. The Smileys have never been self serving in their plans, and their plans have always been wide and large and full of faith. God said concerning Abraham that He would bless those who bless him and he would curse those that curse him. Likewise I would advise caution, to be carful to only bless what the Smilies and have done. What happened here did not come about through a series of random accidents of good luck. But rather God has especially been working through the Smiliys to demonstrate His love for the world, and therefore it would be wise not stand in places of hostility between God and the Smilieys.

Today, when people use the name Smiley it is no longer used when referring directly to the Mohonk Perserve, nor anything having to do with the United Nations in NYC for that matter. However, what I am referring to here has to do with fathers of these ideas. Indeed God allowed the Smileys to invent such creations to glorify Him, and these ideas should be attributed horizontally to them. The Smileys are those we need to thank for the Mohonk Preserve, it was created by them for us to enjoy as wells as to glorify God our creator.

We should be sure that these things did not come about without divine intervention, God Himself had a hand in it. Likewise if we are talking about the blessings of Israel, that nation, their many possessions, and all their blessings bestowed upon them, it is impossible to do that without talking directly about Abraham and all those blessings bestowed upon him. And these are the sources and the fountainhead from which all these blessings have flowed down to us.
Posted by: Advocacy group

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/18/11 12:57 PM

Originally Posted By: donald perry
" I'd prefer MMH not have a golf course, but as the whole, it is a huge asset to Ulster County."


Not only do we who wish to enjoy God's creation together owe the Smileys a great and enormous unrepayable dept, but so likewise does the whole world. Back in the early days world leaders would come to the Mohonk Mountain House to relax to discuss world peace. The Mohonk Mountain House was in effect of our places where the ideas of the united nations came into effect. World leaders would get to know each other, and when they could not understand each other they played golf together or went up to the top of the rock to see the lights of New York City. Indeed God has done nothing but bless the Smileys over abundantly for their love for God and their love for humanity, and likewise we should bless them too. The Smileys have never been self serving in their plans, and their plans have always been wide and large and full of faith. God said concerning Abraham that He would bless those who bless him and he would curse those that curse him. Likewise I would advise caution, to be carful to only bless what the Smilies and have done. What happened here did not come about through a series of random accidents of good luck. But rather God has especially been working through the Smiliys to demonstrate His love for the world, and therefore it would be wise not stand in places of hostility between God and the Smilieys.

Today, when people use the name Smiley it is no longer used when referring directly to the Mohonk Perserve, nor anything having to do with the United Nations in NYC for that matter. However, what I am referring to here has to do with fathers of these ideas. Indeed God allowed the Smileys to invent such creations to glorify Him, and these ideas should be attributed horizontally to them. The Smileys are those we need to thank for the Mohonk Preserve, it was created by them for us to enjoy as wells as to glorify God our creator.

We should be sure that these things did not come about without divine intervention, God Himself had a hand in it. Likewise if we are talking about the blessings of Israel, that nation, their many possessions, and all their blessings bestowed upon them, it is impossible to do that without talking directly about Abraham and all those blessings bestowed upon him. And these are the sources and the fountainhead from which all these blessings have flowed down to us.




holy non sequitur Batman!
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/18/11 01:55 PM


Pictures of the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court Building.


Advocacy group wrote: "Don't you know better than to mix church and state."


That is not what God said to Moses or Israel, and that example is among the highest example a nation can draw from. The United States was formed by Protestant Christians, not by peoples of some other religion, and its laws were established on principles set forth in the Ten Commandments. The idea of "separation" should only to have to do with personal choice and reasons why the pilgrims came to the establish what is now the United States in the first place. The state should not be understood to be the same as the person [people need to think for themselves], that would be communism. But the idea that a nation needs to be separated from God in its thinking when it comes to law is not only foolish but dangerous. Ultimately if for example you are talking about quality or service or dedication, none of these things mean anything when they are not defined by service to the principle itself. In other words if you love for loves sake it means nothing. But if you serve love, and you believe that God is love and love is your God, now you are held accountable to love.


Moses said in Deuteronomy 4: Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. [6] Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. [7] For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? [8] And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?"


From Wikipedia: The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however, separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]


PS [I hope you are not going to keep quoting whole page letters every time you wish to say something, it takes up a lot of extra pages and makes navigating the thread cumbersome. Moderator please take note.]
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/18/11 02:15 PM

Advocacy group Wrote: "hey don, this is a thread about taxes."

You and I are writing about that which has to do with something much more deeper than simply "taxes". Ultimately the tread is not about taxes at all, it is ultimately about something else. That *something else* is what I am either directly posting for or against.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/19/11 12:28 AM

Advocacy group Wrote: " A. MPNA has no problem with the decision, in fact this is another case of strong arm tactics by the Mohonk Preserve, and once again they lost." "Glenn Hoagland states "Our established land protection program ONLY works with willing sellers" Louise was not a willing seller, they bought her mortgage and foreclosed on her. Do you support this kind of land acquisition practice?" "Even some other land preservationists have accused the conservancy of overzealous tactics"


From Don: I can see your posts basically have to do with arguments against the Preserve, for alleged strong arm tactics to acquire property.

I am sure, as with any business, there are happy an unhappy transactions as well as mistakes. I am sure, as with any business, it cannot be represented by any one person or incidents having to do with one person. And business change over time, sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad depending on when, where, who, and how. The Preserve was set in motion for good, and that good is to acquire land for public use, and it is done in a way that the land is kept as close as possible to its natural state, and that is good, and it has done good, and it will continue to do that good.

If the Preserve is doing something illegal, then that is a reason for concern, that is for the courts to decide, not us, that is what they are there for. But if a judge has made a decision that nothing wrong has been done, why do we now need to retry the case here? This is not a court room and ultimately it is unfair to argue things meant for court disputes here. And actually it is completely illogical to pretend we can now do so, to weigh all the facts. Get a lawyer if you think you have a case and go to court. There either a judge or a jury will hear your complaints and then come to decision. How do you expect gunks.com etc. to now see into these things like a judge would with court orders? You cannot, because it is impossible. And if they have not done anything illegal, if you cannot bring them to court, it is because the laws of our land have determined that nothing wrong has been done. And if you have a problem with that, then you need to go about seeing how you can change laws for the good of mankind and forget about this one incident that involves you and your personal affairs. Then that would be the right thing to do.

In the meantime, I remember years ago when the Marriott Corporation wanted to build on Lake Minnewaska, but there were problems to overcome with water use, sewage and other issues. No one wanted to see them there. And I remember when White Horse Ledge used to be only woods, now there is a fence at the base of the talus, and the other side is heavy development with a fence. Someday all that will be removed by someone like the Preserve.



The bottom line is that in these things, at the end, we will either be left with open wide spaces or privates lands for commercial use. If it is not the Preserve that is buying up property, if it cannot compete somehow, if it is not a strong worldly and stable force it would be defeated. In this case you would instead be dealing with Marriott or someone else most likely for some sort of commercial venture with very little concern for these same concerns that we have with the Preserve. Maybe someone like the curry company who runs Yosemite Valley who lease the land from the state.

The bottom line is that in the future there is going to be someone buying up property here, it will either be the Preserve or it will be someone else with bigger plans. And unless the Preserve is able to control its property, unless we can stand behind them, then someone else like Marriott will turn it into something far beyond whatever problems you can now ever imagine.

We are in a new age, and these crags are marked for deletion. Ultimately we only have only two choices, the Gunks are no longer neutral ground. It is either the Preserve and these wide open spaces or a Marriott type venture and wide development for commercial gain. We need to support the Preserve, and in doing so we will continue to support the ridge.
Posted by: oenophore

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/19/11 10:20 AM

Ultimately the tread is not about taxes at all, it is ultimately about something else.

I think that what your critics are saying is that you are treading upon this thread.
Posted by: Doug

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/19/11 01:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
If you want to DP something you might try retroscree's ass. Although it's probably sore enough from our abuse......


Always a classy "group" spokesman
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/19/11 02:40 PM

Religion has been used to justify atrocities throughout history. There is seemingly no reason it can't also be used to justify the Mohonk Preserve screwing their neighbors and local taxpayers.
Posted by: Advocacy group

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/19/11 03:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Doug
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
If you want to DP something you might try retroscree's ass. Although it's probably sore enough from our abuse......


Always a classy "group" spokesman


Hi Doug, if you want classy come hear us speak at the various town board meetings or read our letters that are sent to county and state representatives. We are able to adapt to a variety of settings some of which include gunks.com like situations. If you think about our accomplishments over the years the Neighbors of the Mohonk Preserve are making quite an impact. Here on gunks.com our threads are some of the most viewed and responded to. As stated before we have gotten the word out on the street as to some of the tactics of the Mohonk Preserve and informed neighbors of the Preserve and local and county representatives. We have been published in the local papers and on local radio and much more is in the works. All of the comments from the gunks.com community has helped us shape our message and we thank all of you for that. We look forward to future discusssions. Thanks, MPNA
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/19/11 04:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Religion has been used to justify atrocities throughout history. There is seemingly no reason it can't also be used to justify the Mohonk Preserve screwing their neighbors and local taxpayers.

Judging from the posts here, on rc.com, and even Supertopo, it seems that a lot of people wouldn't mind seeing a few select MP neighbors and local taxpayers screwed.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/19/11 04:53 PM

Originally Posted By: retromarc

Judging from the posts here, on rc.com, and even Supertopo, it seems that a lot of people wouldn't mind seeing a few select MP neighbors and local taxpayers screwed.


Yup. There are indeed a number of narcissistic, selfish, and woefully disrespectful climbers out there.
Posted by: Advocacy group

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/19/11 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: retroscree
Originally Posted By: Kent
Religion has been used to justify atrocities throughout history. There is seemingly no reason it can't also be used to justify the Mohonk Preserve screwing their neighbors and local taxpayers.

Judging from the posts here, on rc.com, and even Supertopo, it seems that a lot of people wouldn't mind seeing a few select MP neighbors and local taxpayers screwed.


Way to go Joe Quinnipiac!
Posted by: Advocacy group

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/19/11 05:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Originally Posted By: retromarc

Judging from the posts here, on rc.com, and even Supertopo, it seems that a lot of people wouldn't mind seeing a few select MP neighbors and local taxpayers screwed.


Yup. There are indeed a number narcissistic, selfish, and woefully disrespectful climbers out there.



I think you mean RetroMarcC
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/19/11 11:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
Originally Posted By: Doug
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
If you want to DP something you might try retroscree's ass. Although it's probably sore enough from our abuse......

Always a classy "group" spokesman

Hi Doug, if you want classy come hear us speak ...

What you are implying by your comment ["Although it's probably sore enough from our abuse" "if you want classy come hear us speak"] is that you and Charlie Bales, Don Conklin, Bruce Keeping, Carol Ann Keeping, Mike Yucowicz, Kent Pierce, Pauline Alexander, William Connor, Michael Browne, Jonathon Gascoine, Richard Weaver, Mark Rollins,Helena Duda, Anita Gehrke, Nat Higgins, Rich Lapp, Pam Lapp, Chris Ullrich, Mike Fink, Howard Harder, Toby Stover, Charlie Majestic, Marybeth Majestic, Louise Haviland, Robert Lapp, Thomas Borchert, Donald DeGraw, Susan Boice Wick, that these people you represent are all Sodomites and that when you all speak you all imagine that it is the same as homosexual rape. What you have written is not classy at all [having or reflecting high standards of personal behavior] unless your typing these post from a someplace like Sodom.

Genisis 19:4 "… all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Isaiah 3:9 "The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves."

I am not a homosexual, and I don't take kindly to people who rape other people, be they male or female. I consider your Sodomistic sexual rape abusive remarks extremely disgusting and I think the board deserves an apology if you and yours are going to continue. Otherwise I would ask that you kindly excuse yourselves from the forum. There are children who read these posts, and there is no reason why they need to be sexually educated about your brand of sexual behavior by you and your friends who apparently see nothing wrong with homosexual rape [otherwise I would assume that they would have said something by now].

The Board Rules are as follows:
The forums are moderated, but that does not mean that the moderators read every post (far from it!). We respond to reports of abuse and will take appropriate action (include suspending users' posting privileges) if we feel a user is being threatened, marginalized, bullied, personally attacked, or their character called into question because of their point of view.
Be respectful / Avoid name calling (jerk, idiot, psychopath, terrorist, bunched panties) / If someone engages in inappropriate posting behavior, notify a moderator.

I have a question for you Charlie Bales, Don Conklin, Bruce Keeping, Carol Ann Keeping, Mike Yucowicz, Kent Pierce, Pauline Alexander, William Connor, Michael Browne, Jonathon Gascoine, Richard Weaver, Mark Rollins,Helena Duda, Anita Gehrke, Nat Higgins, Rich Lapp, Pam Lapp, Chris Ullrich, Mike Fink, Howard Harder, Toby Stover, Charlie Majestic, Marybeth Majestic, Louise Haviland, Robert Lapp, Thomas Borchert, Donald DeGraw, Susan Boice Wick. Is homosexual rape really how you want us to understand the way you feel toward people you have differences with? Would your group allow the homosexual rape of minors and adults? Please forgive me for asking these questions, but I am trying to get some clarity into what you people are really all about. Frankly, I cannot believe what I am reading, or that I need to get into these kinds of discussions in the first place. Perhaps you find these kinds of very personal ideas entertaining or acceptable, but I, and I am sure that, the reset of the forum does not. This comment has been on here for over 24 hours and I already see that some of you are perfectly fine with it. If this was my group I would make sure that I was not represented in a way that made me look like someone who is part of group of people that tolerates gang rape on any level. But if this is how you all "speak", shame on you all. If this is so, then indeed, you are a disgusting group of people.

Please keep in mind that I am not posting about gang rape, your representatives are, which is the reason I bring it up.

I have a question for you Charlie Bales, Don Conklin, Bruce Keeping, Carol Ann Keeping, Mike Yucowicz, Kent Pierce, Pauline Alexander, William Connor, Michael Browne, Jonathon Gascoine, Richard Weaver, Mark Rollins,Helena Duda, Anita Gehrke, Nat Higgins, Rich Lapp, Pam Lapp, Chris Ullrich, Mike Fink, Howard Harder, Toby Stover, Charlie Majestic, Marybeth Majestic, Louise Haviland, Robert Lapp, Thomas Borchert, Donald DeGraw, Susan Boice Wick: Do you understand what homosexual gang rape is? Has anyone ever raped you or your daughter or your son? Do you think it is acceptable to speak to people about homosexual gang raping them … in public? What's up with that?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/20/11 12:13 AM

error
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/20/11 01:42 AM

post moved to the post after the one below.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/20/11 02:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Religion has been used to justify atrocities throughout history. There is seemingly no reason it can't also be used to justify the Mohonk Preserve screwing their neighbors and local taxpayers.



I don't think religion has anything to do with the Preserve these days, you missed my point. I was not posting about submitting to religious authorities. What I was referring to from the beginning was, how did these things come about?, how did we get to this point? How was this mechanism set in motion? And if it was by divine intervention, then untimely it may not be going away anytime soon. However, that does not mean that the mechanism may not have some bugs in it, it may, it may not, I don't know. I do not know if there are bugs or not. But certainly from your posts it is impossible to tell. We have nothing to go on. You are asking us to climb without a rope, fly without wings, dive with no water, jump with no chute. We have nothing because you have given us nothing, and then you complain when people hit the ground. Read my last post again if you do not know what I am talking about.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/20/11 02:50 AM

A woman going by the name of Sue [Re: Mohonk Neighbor on Gary Bischoff show], who appears to be a very educated person, said that someone from the Preserve came to visit her Grandmother and convinced her that the Preserve had the right to take her property. Sue told her grandmother to invite him back again. When he appeared, and repeated what he had to say Sue told him not to come back and that if he did she would get a restraining order and make sure of it.

If this story is factual, she had advanced notice he was coming, whey didn't she recorded the conversation so she could bring it to court? Why did she tell him not to come back, why didn't she play along? Why didn't she call the police and have them get his name? How did she know for a fact that this person really has anything to do with the Preserve at all? It seems to me difficult that someone would threaten immanent domain in front of a witness and expect to get away with it. [Everyone who knows the word understands that it has to do with the state, and those in the area should be aware of the difference between Mohonk and Minnewaska.] What kind of capacity would they have in the Preserve, in other words this seems to be a job that someone does that has personal interests. But most importantly, why did she tell him not to drop off his papers or he would not be invited in? At the very least you would have some kind of paperwork and a business card.

Nevertheless, even if I had more information I would still need to find a way to dig into the facts the way things happen in court. Think of any of these court cases they have on TV these days, you can never tell what is happening, how much less here second hand through you. I would need to see some court transcripts and understand a judgment for me to make sense of what is being said. You claim there is a lot going on. Do you have court papers and judgments that prove there is a hostile plan at work? No?, you have no substantiated facts of some illegal trend? OK then stop wasting our time and yours. Move on to something else.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/20/11 03:37 AM

delete
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/20/11 02:31 PM

I note that after your first post on *MohonkPreserveNeighborsAssociation Redux*, from there you move on to attack the preserve for the way they use their own land. So I think it is safe to assume that your first post is your last in relation to the alleged illegal or unethical practices of the Preserve. That said, I see that several cases seem to have to do with one or two parties. Is this true? How many problems are there that can potentially end up in court?

My Dad owns property in Connecticut. There is a problem there with the people over a right of way for 40 years. So I can see that if you are dealing with a lot of properties there can be a lot of problems with a lot of people. Now, if you have surveyors that can never follow the deeds, I would think that that is something that would get the attention of the town officials rather quickly. That they would pick up on it. It does not seem like something people who work for the people of the town would just let slip by time and again. Are the town officials really that incompetent up there, that they are just going to let their tax maps be rewritten every time the Preserve comes to town? Why don't you guys talk to the town people and let them know your concerns about compass miscalculations?

Or could it be that these miscalculations are just the nature of the beast, that when you buy land, sometimes there is no way to know for sure where the boundaries are all the time. Sometimes you just have to do the best you can, and in the process you may step on a few toes? I cannot imagine being in that process without some difficulties, it seems unavoidable. For example, I see that concerning one property you complain of, it appears that the property in question was never marked until the Preserve did so. The property was never marked in the way that the Preserve marked it for over a hundred years.

Now, for your story it seems very short, but your list is very long. Can you define who all these people are and why they are on this list?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/20/11 02:32 PM

In other words Advocacy group, how have each of these people been effected on what property? What do all these names represent? I count 28 names and I assume that's all we are talking about in relation to your complaints. Are we talking about 28 pieces of property or 3 properties, there is no way to tell. From your story it would seem that this all has to do with 3 pieces of property ultimately, even though you give some hits that there are more ("Other property owners" "Neighboring property owners say the non-profit Mohonk Preserve").

I count the properties as follows:
1 The Fink property.
2. The Sue Boice Wick propery.
3. The Christopher Ullrich property .

One of these properties has to do with land deeded to the preserve by a previous owner: "Christopher Ullrich said the case was initiated after Mohonk Preserve officials came to him with claims that he was clearing land deeded to the preserve by a previous owner.". That leaves us with two property left to build a case for the Preserve using strong arm tactics to seize land from property owners.

Just so I make myself perfectly clear, let me reiterate: *I cannot understand WHAT you are talking about unless you make yourself clear*. Please define the parcels owned by the preserve that are the problem, and the parcels owned by your Advocacy group that are affected. If you cannot do that then there is no reason for us to continue with any interest in what you have to say concerning your said conspiracy targeted against property owners.
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/20/11 07:46 PM

I Think AG and MPNA may have met their match with this donald perry fella!
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/20/11 11:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Doug
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
If you want to DP something you might try retroscree's ass. Although it's probably sore enough from our abuse......


Always a classy "group" spokesman


AG speaks for AG, and no one else, especially when he speaks as above.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 03:25 PM

On the Gary Bischoff show previously posted, where the Mohonk Preserve was not invited to defend itself, a woman named Sue says that the Preserve came to her mother to advise that they resolve a property issue out of court, as it appears. And that otherwise the Preserve would take the property through "Imminent Domain". Sue claims that it is just these kinds of tactics that the Preserve uses to steel peoples properties.

This story, as it seems to me, is very unlikely that anyone would wish to use that kind of an argument, which could so easily be discounted by talking to almost any other person. Everyone knows what imminent Domain is, you can read about it in the papers often enough. And to bring it up in front of two witnesses (herself included, "a real property title examiner … certified in the supreme court of NY State" ), one who might be recording the conversation on the second time around, to show up on a specific date, is even more difficult for me to believe. Perhaps the person doing the talking for the Preserve was a professional in another field and was confused. But whoever he was, if he said anything like this, he was not playing with a full deck of cards. Even if someone had malicious intentions, more than likely, all it would do at best is make them look someone you cannot trust as well as complete idiot.

Perhaps what was actually said or meant was "Adverse Possession", if there is any truth to the story at all. Sue as a professional dealing with these very problems in property had the opportunity to have paperwork, record conversations, call the police, none of which things they did. Sue mentions property line disputes over their property with the Preserve, which boarders they had not property marked (i.e. Sue mentions a conversation with her mother where there was some reluctance to mark the property, and then thereafter they went ahead and marked it as needed.), so Adverse Possession seem more likely what a story like this might have been about.

Adverse possession Purpose and moral basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
Adverse possession exists to cure potential or actual defects in real estate titles by putting a statute of limitations on possible litigation over ownership and possession. …Because of the doctrine of adverse possession, a landowner can be secure in title to his land. Otherwise, long-lost heirs of any former owner, possessor or lien holder of centuries past could come forward with a legal claim on the property. The doctrine of adverse possession prevents this. This means the law may be used to reward a person who possesses the land of another for a requisite period of time. Failure of a landowner to exercise and defend his property rights for a certain period may result in the permanent loss of the landowner's interest in the property.


Adverse Possession and Border Fences
http://www.colemanchambers.com/CM/Articles/Adverse-Possession-and-Border-Fences.asp
One of the most common sources of conflict between neighbors, other than occasional late night noise and college football, is property line disputes. Oftentimes the conflict arises out of bordering plants growing from one neighbor's property to another, or the condition of a shared wall or fence in relation to the property line. All property owners should be aware of the law concerning their property boundaries so they can best protect their interests, as well as be a good neighbor. … The law concerning property lines, adverse possession, and bordering trees and fences is complex. There are other elements that contribute to whether a border fence, Leyland Cyprus, or other bordering object establishes a property line or constitutes adverse possession, about which you can ask an attorney. There are also some preventative steps you can take to prevent yourself and your property from being taken through adverse possession. The first step is to know and mark your property lines. This can be done with stakes in the ground, or a blaze on the tree trunk.

Sue mentions that "we're not sure" what Indian tribe all of the "Bear Clan" is from because "nobody wrote it down." And what I am getting out of this is that if you own property you need to maintain your property lines so everyone knows where they are all the time. My father once told me that there is a saying that goes something like "A good neighbor has a wall." I remember asking him what it meant, and he said that unless you maintain your property lines you end up inadvertently causing fights with all your neighbors. It seems that these arguments have everything to do with poorly maintained deeds and poorly maintained property. If there can be no argument with the deed, if you dad did not will your property to the Preserve, then pull up that Preserve fence and there is nothing they can do about it. But if you buy property or maintain property and you allow there to be speculation in the deed then rest assured sooner or later you will have to pay for it. A good neighbor has a wall.

BTW, I [Donald Perry] am not an professional in anything having to do with any of the matters of law to which I address. I am not an attorney nor do I have anything to do professionally with real-estate. Consider that these letters I write are for entertainment purposes not legal advise.




.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 04:42 PM

I for one am pretty convinced that there are multiple people posting as Advocacy Group. The syntax, tone, grammar, and vocabulary are all vastly different from one post to the next. I always spell the same word wrong....I'm always a little crotchety, and I always have a similar approach to responding to people. AG is all over the board with everything. It has to be different people posting under one username. If I were a member of that group I would demand to know who that was and make sure he or she never represents my interests again.
Posted by: chip

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 05:25 PM

I think the literary quote is "Good fences make good neighbors" by Robert Frost. It has been at least 35 years since I read it and hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 09:58 PM

Fro the closed thread / Re: MohonkPreserveNeighborsAssociation
http://gunks.com/ubbthreads7/ubbthreads.php/topics/54922/1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08/03/10 Advocacy group: There are at least two cases before the courts right now.
In both cases Mohonk Preserve is the Plaintiff. For those of you not familiar with the legal terms, that means that the Mohonk Preserve is suing their neighbors. We will post the outcome of these trials here and on our facebook page when the judges have written their respective decisions. Since climbers make up a significant percentage of revenue generated, we are asking that you stop donating to the Mohonk Preserve if the ruling favors the Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09/16/10 AdvocacyFail: 09-2747
RJI No. 55-09-0162
HON. MARY M. WORK
Assigned Justice

Plaintiff. MP [Mohonk Preserve]
Defendant. MP neighbors [One of the three properties above in discussion by Advocacy group]

The Court finds that plaintiff [Mohonk Preserve] has established the elements required to entitle it to a preliminary injunction: a likelihood of success on the merits, a potential for irreparable harm, and a balance of the equities in their favor (Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 NY2d 860,862 [1990]).

With respect to the merits, as the Court's lengthy recitation of defendants' unfulfilled promises to obtain a survey demonstrates, defendants have had since at least 2005 to produce a survey demonstrating their ownership of the disputed parcel. It took plaintiffs [Mohonk Preserve] surveyor only three months to produce a survey. The fact that defendants [Advocacy group] have failed to secure a survey at this late date in the legal proceedings suggests that such a survey would not be favorable to their position. The plaintiff has produced a survey by an apparently highly qualified surveyor, who is the successor in practice to the individual upon whose work defendants rely for their claim to the disputed portion. Defendants [Advocacy group] did not produce Mr. Pauli's topographic map in support of their opposition to the motion. The title insurer of defendants' [Advocacy group] property has submitted an affidavit in support of plaintiffs [Mohonk Preserve] position.

With respect to irreparable harm, the Court finds that the cutting down of standing trees and/or the cutting up of downed trees constitutes irreparable harm to the ecosystem the Mohonk Preserve was created to safeguard (Gramercy Co. v. Benenson, 223 AD2d 497 [I" Dept 1996]). The building of fires on Mohonk Preserve land creates a potential for a forest fire, which could cause devastating harm to the Preserve.
The equities clearly tilt in favor of the plaintiff Defendants own approximately 14 acres on which they can camp and cut up fire wood. Without knowing the open burning regulations of the Town in which their property is situated, the Court cannot say that they can freely build fires on their property, but they certainly have no need to burn fires on what, from all evidence now before the Court, appears to be the property of the Mohonk Preserve.

The motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. Plaintiff [Mohonk Preserve] shall submit an order in accordance with this decision, excepting only the right of defendants[Advocacy group] to use the shale driveway as it currently exists for access to their property.

This constitutes the decision of the Court. The original decision and order are returned to the attorney for plaintiff. A copy of this decision, and all other papers, are delivered to the Supreme Court Clerk for transmission to the Ulster County Clerk for filing.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 10:18 PM

Donald, The Fat Lady has yet to sing. A decision will be issued hopefully within the next three months and one side or the other will then have legitimate bragging rights. At least until an appeal is filed.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 10:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Donald, The Fat Lady has yet to sing. A decision will be issued hopefully within the next three months and one side or the other will then have legitimate bragging rights. At least until an appeal is filed.


OK, so there are three cases, maybe four.

This one has "The title insurer of defendants' property [Advocacy Group / (Fink?)] has submitted an affidavit in support of plaintiffs [Mohonk Preserve] position."

It seems to me that if you cannot support your own case without, doing yourself irreparable damage you have a problem dealing with facts in the first place, and you need to learn to stop picking on the innocent. Advocacy Group seems to be unconcerned with facts running out of plausible conspiracy theories. Furthermore, because Advocacy group does not comment on this information it appears that they wish to be unfair with the facts, that they don't want to come clean. What's up with that?
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 10:49 PM

The fact that the fat lady has yet to sing hasn't stopped AG/Chris crapping on about this case to the kingston times and other local rags. Dollars to donuts he didn't tell them about this injunction and they were presumably too lazy to look into the background already in the public record. Despite being composed on Pure Evil, I thought Glenn H sounded pretty reasonable. Worth emphasizing in DPs quote, and as retr pointed out at the time, even AG's title company supported the plaintiff (the Preserve). Still, if the court finds for AG, as long as he doesn't pollute general climbing while gloating, I have no issue with it as he 's been in my ignore list for evah.

Originally Posted By: Kent
Donald, The Fat Lady has yet to sing. A decision will be issued hopefully within the next three months and one side or the other will then have legitimate bragging rights. At least until an appeal is filed.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 10:55 PM

I understand Ian.

It's just that it seems the merits of these cases will become clearer when a decision based upon evidence submitted and testimony given at trial is issued. Speculation in the interim is just that.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 11:07 PM

And as for AG approaching the papers, and trying to convince them of the merits of his position, he's simply doing what the MP has been doing for years.

The MP frequently issues very one sided press releases and the local papers often reprint them as news. No investigative reporting on the back story is done as the papers simply don't have the funding or staff necessary to do thorough investigative reporting on some of these issues.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 11:34 PM

Furthermore, Fink says he has already spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars" on legal fees. Why should I wait for him now, what for? In other words, history repeats itself, and we have enough information already to make accurate assessments. There is no Mohonk Preserve conspiracy, and to continue to insinuate such is no longer speculation on your part, but rather slander.

Furthermore, "Ms. Haviland was never a seller to begin with. The mortgage was sold to the Preserve by a third party." I think the thing to keep in mind here is not that the Preserve is an evil entity, but rather that you need to have a lawyer read to you your mortgage and advise you before sign. And after that, well, if you want to break the contract you decided to agree to, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Now if you don't read your contract and you don't go over your deed then you will necessarily come to learn the hard way.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 11:34 PM

Right, but when he shows up here offering his literally breathtaking hypocrisy about respecting closures, he will get called on it..and the granting of a TRO is not 'a matter of speculation' its a finding of the court, albeit temporary. The 1/14/11 TRO quite clearly states that the court wishes to stop AG from tearing down and ignoring posted boundary markers.


Originally Posted By: Kent
I understand Ian.

It's just that it seems the merits of these cases will become clearer when a decision based upon evidence submitted and testimony given at trial is issued. Speculation in the interim is just that.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 11:45 PM

Of course I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is the injunction is designed to maintain the status quo until the case can be argued in court. Aside from legalese, this makes good sense. If two parties both claim a chunk of land, and engage in a legal battle over ownership, it makes sense to keep one of them from altering the land pending the outcome of the trial.

And again for clarity, I didn't mean to say the restraining order, the temporary injunction, was speculative. I meant to say using the temporary injunction to predict the outcome of the case is speculative.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/21/11 11:47 PM

"The accumulation of conflicting claims persuaded Mr. Hagen and Mr. Kelder to sell the land to the conservancy for $37,500 rather than become mired in costly litigation. Mr. LaBudde said he ''never had any suspicion'' the land was owned by Ms. Pardini and Mr. Fink. Nevertheless, he added, ''We recognized we were buying a problem.'' "


You cannot determine anything from what goes on with cases like this by someone winning or loosing, other than that there is no conspiracy.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 12:13 AM

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

Originally Posted By: Kent
Of course I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is the injunction is designed to maintain the status quo until the case can be argued in court. Aside from legalese, this makes good sense. If two parties both claim a chunk of land, and engage in a legal battle over ownership, it makes sense to keep one of them from altering the land pending the outcome of the trial.

And again for clarity, I didn't mean to say the restraining order, the temporary injunction, was speculative. I meant to say using the temporary injunction to predict the outcome of the case is speculative.

Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 12:23 AM

It's time to stop the story telling, the jig is up. There are no "strong arm tactics". There is no ongoing *conspiracy against hundreds of "angry" property owners*. These are personal matters concerning people who need to learn to take responsibility for making blatantly risky choices, buying poorly defined properties or else maintaining properties in a poorly defined state assuming that they will remain that way. If you want to take chances go ahead. But when you get hurt own up to it. Don't expect to blame it on others and then have everyone sympathize with you.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 12:23 AM

"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.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 12:25 AM

Donald, at least now you are becoming entertaining. :-)
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 01:59 AM

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.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 01:07 PM

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.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 01:09 PM

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?
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 01:29 PM

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.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 03:46 PM

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?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 04:05 PM

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?
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 05:22 PM

Donald, I have much to do today. I'll respond when I have time in the next few days.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 06:50 PM

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?
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 07:34 PM

Donald, you seem to have found them quite easily when you chose to maliciously malign them upthread. Now suddenly you can't find them.

Your line of questioning and reasoning doesn't seem to have much to do with understanding, only attacking, so I'm not going to waste my time.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 08:47 PM

From Kent "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. "

I suppose you could argue that the Preserve needs to build a path if it wants to cross over.




This is kind of silly isn't it? When we are talking about the boarder of a property at the edge of a cliff face such as has been first defined back 100 years ago, where since then rocks and dirt have annually built up and horizontally away from that said boarder, this means that as I walk now on that path today it is no longer over your property. And this is already obvious in most places.

Now, if one wanted to remove that gift that has fallen down to us from the heavens then they would need to remove all that debris down to where the original property line was back when it was first said, to make sure there is no ledges under there that dirt is not on etc. The rock in these arias is always falling off the cliff and that means that rock at the base is always marginal ground. The rock changes and ledges explode, I have seen it happen. If you want to split hairs you would need to get an mini-excavator and an archeologist up there. And regardless if you did that or not people have a right to walk the boarders of their property. How else could these lands be surveyed? You cannot not check the survey it at the top of the cliff, that's not where it happens, except in those cases where your property owners own the cliff, but even in some cases that is in dispute, the language is sometimes confusing.

To get right to the point of what I am saying, if you were to build a fence up there along the edge of the cliff, as you hammered the pipes down the fence would lean, and subsequently you would have to plant those posts at least 3' away from the edge of the cliff. And even if you put them right at the edge there would still be enough room in most places to walk between the fence and the cliff. As I understand it where there is a property line at "the edge of the cliff face" today I can walk across at high tide as I always have before.


But this really is not worth arguing about anyway, as far as people going to Bayards or going to these parts of the Near Trapps, there is nothing there to climb. The rock is always loose, and people can go around to where the rock is good, it makes little difference. But then again on second thougt, I think you and your neighbors are crating hazards to completely block off access knowing people are back there. In the case of some kind of stress or accident are you and your neighbors going to run up to the cliff and stand it the way of a rescue or someone looking for their lost child?


Ultimately what is being convened here is hate toward people, not hate for the Preserve, and your going to run up there to prove it? I hope this helps.

DJP
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 09:13 PM

Donald, the property lines along the Nears and Bayards are almost all at the "high point of the land". Try again.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 09:49 PM

That's my point. Read my post again.

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 1000 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?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 10:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Donald, you seem to have found them quite easily when you chose to maliciously malign them upthread. Now suddenly you can't find them.

Your line of questioning and reasoning doesn't seem to have much to do with understanding, only attacking, so I'm not going to waste my time.



I'm calling you out Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association; I'm putting you on blast. Where are you, if you exist at all?, who are you, what are your names?, and what issues do you individually stand for against the Preserve? Speak now or forever hold your peace!



When I was a kid my Dad and Mom used to take my brother Dana, David, and I down to Barnegat bay to go fishing. We would catch a lot of fish, but most all were puffer fish. We would bring a cooler full of ice on a small boat, and my Dad would throw those puffers in, and when we got home my Mom would put some butter in a pan and cook them up, and we would eat them.

I have no idea what "Advocacy Group / Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association" is. But one thing is for sure, they don't stand behind what they believe, otherwise they would reveal their identities individually and be real on all levels. You know who I am; I have no alias name, you see my photograph there Ken. You see it there not because I am brave but because I believe in what I am saying and I stand behind what I say. You have someone to blame and you have responsibility here, and that is what this is all about. With that alias there's nothing, and it looks to me (and I am not alone in this) like a puffer fish. There is no group of angry neighbors. There may be one, two or three and some friends, but that's it. If someone really believes in what they say they will be willing to answer questions, they will not run and hide as they throw red herrings behind them. Your full of nothing but hot air when you cannot answer, that holds true for you especially … Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 10:26 PM

Donald, they're not here. They're not here on gunks.com and never have been. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

I don't mean MPNA but the many neighbors who regard the Mohonk Preserve as a huge problem neighbor and who have never logged on to gunks.com
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 10:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Donald, they're not here. They're not here on gunks.com and never have been. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

I don't mean MPNA but the many neighbors who regard the Mohonk Preserve as a huge problem neighbor and who have never logged on to gunks.com


What your implying now is Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association is actually a hoax not only because "They're not here on gunks.com and never have been" but also because "... the many neighbors who regard the Mohonk Preserve as a huge problem neighbor and who have never logged on to gunks.com" are not represented in MPNA.

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 1000 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?
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 11:01 PM

You haven't been paying attention have you?
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 11:21 PM

Does anyone else think Donald's picture is...shall we say....interesting?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 11:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
You haven't been paying attention have you?


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 1000 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?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/22/11 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
You haven't been paying attention have you?


Trust me Kent, I have been paying very close attention. Now, can you answer the question please.

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 1000 years from now, and that there will not be a house on top of the ridge looking down on you. Where is your problem on the Kent property Kent?
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/23/11 12:21 AM

Donald, I've discussed these things many times here before. If you are sincere in your inquiry please send me a private message and then I will be glad to discuss them with you.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/23/11 02:29 AM

It is no longer a private matter Kent, and you have made it that way, you are responsible for that. Answer the question Kent and stop playing games. We are all listening. If you can not answer the question you need to post elsewhere with those who have other concerns.
.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/23/11 03:21 AM

I've written about it extensively before. If you want to read about it, go look it up.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/23/11 04:19 AM

Sorry, I see nothing about your lot.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/23/11 04:21 AM

Got any links to what you are referring to?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/23/11 01:55 PM

Kent, I looked though all the posts. There is nothing here about the Preserve devaluating your lot.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/23/11 03:10 PM

I wrote it, so it's out there somewhere.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/23/11 10:25 PM

error
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/23/11 11:02 PM

Kent posts as Caped Crusader on both Supertopo and rc.com. Chris Ullrich posts as Advocacy Group, the handle for the MPNA. Some feel there may be multiple people using the Advocacy Group login.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/24/11 02:30 AM

As far as the Zone being bad, if you have interests in preserving the land, you are wrong, ultimately it is a good sign that values are going up, as there will be more investors like you who want to preserve the land and protect it from those who want to utilize and expand it for monetary gains. Your property will be more attractive to buyers who will buy because they don't have to worry about waking up one moringing to find a golf course or a development next door.



But if that's what you want for the ridge Kent [whatever agaist the zone means], go for it. I wish you the best of luck, I feel bad, too bad you did not sell sooner.



Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/24/11 02:36 AM

THE NEW ZONE

Kent, you wrote at [http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=829896&tn=60]: "The bottom line is, a few dozen landowners have been forced to bear the burden of protecting open space on the ridge." "… many of us landowners along the ridge regard the Preserve as something of an Evil Empire."

Some people invest in the stock market and some people invest in gold or silver … and some people invest in real-estate. The advantage in real-estate is, they say, it always goes up. However, real-estate has gone down, down, down over the last few years. But if you are in a special place, where other factors are at work, then there can be special advantages or disadvantages.

Kent, there is something much bigger than the Preserve, that has escaped your notice. And that is the people that are at work to make rocking popular for a living. Over the last 25 years there has literally been an explosion of interest in rock-climbing because of these people. There is rock-climbing in gyms, there is rock-climbing on cruise ships, and there is even rock-climbing walls in day camps, there is rock-climbing everywhere!

The reason that there are new zoning laws on the ridge is ultimately because of the commercialization of rock-climbing. And the zone has to do with property value going up in a specific way where the value is seen as invaluable. You made a good decision when you bought Bayards and saw your property values go up, but you made a bad decision when you saw the expansion of interest in preserved lands and you decided to hold on and wait to see what would happen. What you did is the equivalent to stockholders who don't carefully do their homework. A good stock investor reads the papers as well as other journals, and in this way he can forecast his stock. You obviously did not do your homework. What you may have done was you decided to make these stocks of somewhat of a personal interest. This is the biggest of mistakes anyone can make who deals with investments! You don't get attached to the deal. And when you play you have to have a good poker face.

Ultimately people have to decide in advance whether they want to hold on to a property because it is an investment or because they love their purchase and want to preserve it. You cannot choose both. So you made a mistake, you held on to the wrong piece of property, and you have only yourself to blame for this. So now you have two choices. The first is you can get out now, and get what you can for your investment, or you can hold on to your investment and hope that things change.

But if you think that this trend toward preservation is going to change, that you and those like you will be able to build on the ridge, you're not reading the paper, you're not reading the journals, you're not in touch with your investment. Then you are doing, all you are doing, is demonstrating a perfect example of someone who does not know what to do with an investment. Talk to some people who deal with investments for a living and get their opinion, you are wasting your investment and doing more harm than good by everything you have done so far.

But old habits die hard. People don't change, and worse, people don't take advice from their "adversaries". People are not open minded and often find it impossible to do what makes sense, even when the right choice is as plain as the nose on their face. They let their emotions get the better of them and become irrational rather than allow themselves to see things from a neutral perspective.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/24/11 12:37 PM

Exsactly what the new zoning laws mean, you never spell it out. In one place you say there are too many pages to comment. You have to be spicific if you want people to understand what you are doing here. But rather then come out with the facts we have guessing games, no one knows for sure what you are talking about. Lack of clarity does not give you more to complain about, it gives you less.

I can tell that whatever the Zone means it is there for everone. I know damn sure my property is devaluated whenever anyone builds. I have enough problems without having to worry about my neighbor cutting down trees and creating more traffic so people can see into my property.

Today people buy here for differnt reasons, times are a changing. Today its all about the ridge. Keeping up with the times is part of being a good invester. If you wake up one moring and suprise!, there is a golf course, or you wake up one moring and suprise!, you cannot build, ultamatly it is because you have not done your homework, you have not been a good steward to your investments. You have only yourself to blame in this, you need to own up to that Kent and stop blaming us and start dealing with these things in a reasonable manner for your own sake.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/26/11 01:05 AM

I apologize Kent for saying that you do not spell things out.

I see here at http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2117245;page=8;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; in answer to ""If I may ask, how much devaluation are we talking here?"
" you say "It's hard to say. The law is complicated and the land highly variable. A rough ballpark average is 50%. The upthread fantasies of how the land hasn''t lost any value are just that. For example, your valuation included valuing 11 acres of unbuildable land at $475k, or $43k an acre. Land here that's unbuildable either becasue of topographjy or zoning is likely worth more like $3k an acre. If land here could be valued at $43k an acre for for the purposes of donation or sale of development rights in a conservation easement, virtually every ;landowner in Gardiner would move to donate or sell there land immediately. It's not worth that though. "

You also write: "The town, who wants to either buy the land themselves, or have the Preserve or some other organization buy it, used their regulatory authority to devalue the land so it would be cheaper for them to acquire. It's coercion plain and simple. "



FROM DONALD

Maybe the town wants to build a visitor center and does not have enough money to do it? It seems to me that purchasing highly desired property is a big mistake. There are just some things that are hard to hold on to without a lot of fighting and legal fees. There is an old saying and a song that comes to mind that goes something like this: "If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life Never make a pretty women your wife.".

Originally Posted By: Kid Creole And The Coconuts - If You Want To Be Happy
If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
so for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you (repeat)

A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall
As soon as he marries her then she starts
Doing the things that will break his heart
But if you make an ugly woman your wife
Then you will be happy for the rest of your life
An ugly woman cooks meals on time
She'll always give you peace of mind

CHORUS
If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you (repeat)

So if your friends say you have no taste
Go ahead and marry anyway
Though her face is ugly her eyes don't match
Take it from me she's a better catch.


My dad bought property in Waterford, Connecticut on the shore, and there is a right of way to get to it. The right of way has been needing legal work, and has yet to be fully defined. In the mean time they built a power plant at the mouth of the bay. And after that building a road over wet lands has become an expensive issue. Now it's worth piratically nothing. Whose fault is that? I believe its my Dad's mistake for the following reasons.

1. Should have resolved the right of way on paper before he bought it.

2. Should never have bought property before he was ready to build on it.

3. Should have been paying attention to conservation issues in relation to his wet lands.

4. After he built he should have been watching those Nukes and kept up with town issues and sold before they where sure they were going to build.

I also have some potential legal problems from people who need to pay me for different reasons. However, I have come to the conclusion that my time is better spent on making money and staying out of court. I have decided to set my emotions aside and do what someone else would suggest if they were not emotionally involved. I am not going to be a crusader in these things, it's simply not worth my time.






Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/26/11 01:43 AM

http://www.townofgardiner.org/uploads/Gardiner%20Zon%20most%20recent.pdf

TOWN OF GARDINER ZONING LAW TOWN OF GARDINER, NEW YORK

This Zoning Law enables Gardiner to protect the diverse character of the Town while also giving landowners a range of options and choices for the use, development, and conservation of their land. It is designed to strike a balance between achieving the community's goals as expressed in the Town's Comprehensive Plan and protecting the property interests of landowners, providing a development approval process that is predictable, efficient and fair. ... For any large-scale development (a large business or a development of several homes) it is also a good idea to consult the Town's Comprehensive Plan to understand how to make a proposed development it within the Town's vision of its future.

FROM DONALD

It sounds to me like they want to keep Gardiner the way it is as well as make it better for everyone who lives in the town. Today: My Dad has a nuke in his backyard and trouble crossing wet lands, you have trouble building on the ridge. The only differance between you two is my Dad is not blaming other people for his mistakes. But maybe now with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster there is a chance.





Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/26/11 02:09 PM

I am not sure if stopping me personally from crossing on the same trail I have crossed on for so many years and every year is legal. I don't think it is. And I will call the Gardner Police and my attorney before I use that same old trail to know what my legal rights are. I will also and consult with the town records and deeds, as I have before. I don't want to do anything illegal or unethical. Everyone else can go around, and I am sure they may, you admit that they may not when you say they don't respect no trespassing
signs, but I'm getting old and I need a hip replacement. Why didn't you post this before when I was crossing over it all these years? There was never any sign there before. And if I don't keep crossing over, I give up my rights, then I have to go around for sure.

Originally Posted By: Trespass, Adverse Possession and Prescriptive Easements

From http://www.moeland.com/adverse.htm
Many landowners are surprised to learn that under certain circumstances, a trespasser can come onto land, occupy it and gain legal ownership of it. The trespasser may acquire a few feet of property or whole acres in this way. If someone is using your property, even a small strip on the edge, you should be alert to the risk. A trespasser may also gain a legal right to use part of someone else's property; this is called a prescriptive easement. (See "Easements," below.) The legal doctrine that allows trespassers to become owners is called "adverse possession." Although the name sounds nasty (and the results can be), the trespasser is not necessarily an intentional evildoer--far from it.


Furthermore, if you and your neighbors are having so much trouble with the town of Gardenier, why don't you consult with a lawyer and form a tax exempt organization so you will not have to pay tax? However I think you would have to come to some agreements off paper as well, you would have to know you could trust each other. From there you could potentially generate income in the very same way that the MP does. And if you could find some loophole to sell it all back to yourselves what would stop you?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/26/11 04:40 PM

Kent, there is a saying that says "You have to pick your enemies wisely". But you are at war with all of God's creation, and you are trying to get other people to fight for you. You have increased your numbers. But you cannot fight city hall, donald perry, the Preserve, established laws and ethics, the climbing community, hikers, nature lovers, local and world trends and time itself! There is a saying that says "You have to pick your enemies wisely". What is it exactly that you are trying to accomplish other than getting my attention?



Yet, a blade of wheat will bend with the wind, but the tare is broken off because it will not bend.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/26/11 05:19 PM

Before Y2K I stocked up. I read that power could go out for months. So I decided I would be self sufficient. What I learned was is that it is impossible to be self sufficient. Today we live in a world where we are all dependent on each other. It seems like you have reached the point where Gardenier needs your property. I wish you the best in that regard, and if there was something that I could do to help you pay less taxes now that your property has been devaluated, as you say, I would do what I could to help. What about getting a petition together that agrees that ridge properties should now have to pay less taxes? But doesn't the Zone say it has only to do with major develpoment below the actual ridge?




Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/26/11 08:51 PM

Donald is now clearly talking to himself
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/26/11 11:06 PM

moved





Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/26/11 11:30 PM

erased
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/27/11 03:59 AM

Originally Posted By: RangerRob
Donald is now clearly talking to himself




I was posting on soloing and AG busted in and said we needed to get over here right away. They said we should stop supporting preserved land. The said they needed to close off the traps so we would listen. They said the world needs to listen!!! No Rob, trust me I'm listening and now they're listening too.

Kent posted a number of concerns. I am looking into these with an open mind one at a time. Right now I am dealing with zoning before I move on to the next conspiracy. I am on a quest to validate of all these evil allegations. But I have no one to help me, because these guys like to deal in generalities and I have yet to make any kind of headway at all for lack of information. So now I'm getting mired down in the process.

I need to get out from behind the monitor and talk to the building department and the inspectors about Kent's property to see what these evil allegations are all about. I know people on the ridge work there as well as that they have connections with the judge. At lest that is the way it used to be. He has said there are evil intentions at work there now for people on the ridge, maybe there are. There is no way to tell without me going there.

I have a feeling that this will be just as exaggerated as that there are "numbers" (more than 0) of lot owners with strong arm tactic legal cases now pending against them in courts around the Gunks ready to talk-----pointing to the indisputable fact that there is an evil conspiracy against any property owner at work by nature lovers.



Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/27/11 02:55 PM

Previously I wrote: "And if I don't keep crossing over, I give up my rights, then I have to go around for sure." And to that you or someone else may say: "Why do you want to piss-off property owners when climbers are trying to argue peaceable with them?"

What is going on here, what has been going on here is an argument of ethics just as much as it is about legalities. Kent and company are arguing that the Preserve respects neither ethical nor legal ideals. My crossing over has to do with revisiting those ideas to see the weight of the moral, ethical and legal values in these things. We are not talking about climbing. I believe we are arguing a grey area and need to come to grips with it. My point in arguing has more to do with the observing of that position as to what kind of legal or ethical tone it has to it. That the idea of viewing the Preserve as an "Evil Empire" is an idea that has nothing to do with anything we can attach anything to, that it is illogical.

The reason I say "grey area" is because when a property line is either at the edge of a cliff or somewhere between heaven and earth it is a grey area. How does one survey that? It cannot be done, especially with a hemp rope over sharp loose rocks, wasp nests and other angry flying creatures. I would conclude that the property line is *somewhere between the top and the bottom of the cliff, but that it is neither at the top or the bottom of the cliff*.

Kent, you have said that the property owner of the Near Trapps does not want people crossing over and has posted his property as no trespassing with you as his agent in these matters. I need to assume that you are a trouble maker and that the property owner has been seduced by your unearthly thinking, that you have gone up there and made an argument and thrown up no trespassing signs on his property.

I need the lot and block number to the property in question, and the name and address of this said person because I am researching these issues very carefully and cannot proceed without tangible information. Name, Address, Block, and Lot number please. Now if I cannot get that then I will just wait till I run into someone up there, so I can verify what is going on at town hall and with the real property owner, not you. Unless you have power of attorney, in which case I need you to forward that to me before I talk to you anymore about that piece of property considering you with any kind of authority. I am trying to get to the bottom of this , but you are not helping matters. Block and Lot number please.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/28/11 09:24 AM

error
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/28/11 09:51 AM

moved
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/28/11 01:02 PM

moved below
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/28/11 01:46 PM

moved
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/28/11 03:00 PM

moved
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/28/11 06:28 PM

From rockclimbing.com 2009
Climbing Information: Access Issues & Closures: Gunks

Kent writes: jsh, Julie- It's not that I won't answer your questions, it's that you don't like the answer. It's as if you were at someones house and you decided you liked their patio furniture. You say "what do you want for the patio furniture?" They say "we don't want anything for it, we like it right where it is". You say, "you're not answering my question....what do you want in exchange for the patio furniture". And around it goes.

onyerbike writes: Umm, Kent, instead of unnecessary analogies, can you spell this out in the terms that Julie, Aya and others have asked? It appears to be "There is nothing I want in return for granting access to my property. The closed section is off limits to everyone. Please respect this. Thanks and goodbye." If you'll just admit this, it would be helpful and we can all get on with our lives.

Kent answers: Onyerbike, Using different words I've said pretty much exactly what you've said. I've been very clear. The land that's closed is closed.

OK, noting that exchange Kent previously presents himself as follows: "As for my personal motivations, my financial interests have largely been protected, so I am in fact standing up for little old ladies on the ridge, among others. These modest and gracious people, long time ridge residents, have been thrown under the bus. If I don't speak up for them, who will?"

I conclude that Kent is not interested in helping little old ladies [his neighbors] at all, but that if there is any old lady suffering his intent is to see that it is worsened, while his "financial interests have largely been protected". His aim is to bring vigorous and bitter conflict, discord, and antagonism, to bring long lasting strife. And as he is irregardless of the outcome, he throws little old ladies under the bus, and nothing more.

Take Note: I am maintaining and will not be deterred of prescriptive easement rights (but not potentially adverse possession) in response to Kent along every Shawangunk upper and lower ridge trail just as I have before. And I need to do this to maintain a point of argument having to do with ethics and legalities of similar matters that Kent has argued. We can now talk about something else.

Originally Posted By: Trespass, Adverse Possession and Prescriptive Easements
From http://www.moeland.com/adverse.htm
Many landowners are surprised to learn that under certain circumstances, a trespasser can come onto land, occupy it and gain legal ownership of it. The trespasser may acquire a few feet of property or whole acres in this way. If someone is using your property, even a small strip on the edge, you should be alert to the risk. A trespasser may also gain a legal right to use part of someone else's property; this is called a prescriptive easement. (See "Easements," below.) The legal doctrine that allows trespassers to become owners is called "adverse possession." Although the name sounds nasty (and the results can be), the trespasser is not necessarily an intentional evildoer--far from it.


In other words I am ignoring all the Kent induced insanity for the sake of little old ladies. That ridge property owners may wake up and realize that they are doing the bidding of their adversary. That they may be able to find help within the climbing community. If some property owner would like me to help them in any way, other than Kent and anyone associated with that kind of unproductive thinking, I will be willing to help. And I can *guarantee* that many of my fellow climbers, whom you should always consider as part of your real family, are indeed more than willing to help you in whatever way that can. Climbers love the wilderness, but they also love people, and they love property owners like you. Kent does not want to help little old ladies, he is your adversary, and he wants your suffering to remain as well as increase while he projects himself as your advocate. These tactics represent that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The Board Rules are as follows: "8 Don't reveal … personal information in the forum 11 If your intent is to do harm, cause pain, embarrassment, etc., take another approach."

I therefore ask that the moderator dismiss Kent from any future postings forever, he is clearly adversarial to good intentions to be bestowed upon the Mohonk Preserve Neighbors as stated by him in his own words. He is untruthful when he says he is their advocate. He has repeatedly slandered the good name of Mohonk Preserve as well as their benefactors without any kind of detailed justifications or necessary responsible representation.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/28/11 06:34 PM

Once upon a time, there was a little darling damsel, whom everybody loved that looked upon her, but her old granny loved her best of all, and didn't know what to give the dear child for love. Once she made her a hood of red samite, and since that became her so well, and she, too, would wear nothing else on her head, people gave her the name of "Red Hood."

Once her mother said to Red Hood, "Go; here is a slice of cake and a bottle of wine; carry them to old granny. She is ill and weak, and they will refresh her. But be pretty behaved, and don't peep about in all corners when you come into her room, and don't forget to say 'Good-day.' Walk, too, prettily, and don't go out of the road, otherwise you will fall and break the bottle, and then poor granny will have nothing."

Red Hood said, "I will observe everything well that you have told me," and gave her mother her hand upon it.

But granny lived out in a forest, half an hour's walk from the village. When Red Hood went into the forest, she met a wolf. But she did not know what a wicked beast he was, and was not afraid of him.

"God help you, Red Hood!" said he.

"God bless you, wolf!" replied she.

"Whither so early, Red Hood?"

"To granny."

"What have you there under your mantle?"

"Cake and wine. We baked yesterday; old granny must have a good meal for once, and strengthen herself therewith."

"Where does your granny live, Red Hood?"

"A good quarter of an hour's walk further in the forest, under yon three large oaks. There stands her house; further beneath are the nut trees, which you will see there," said Red Hood.

The wolf thought within himself, "This nice young damsel is a rich morsel. She will taste better than the old woman; but you must trick her cleverly, that you may catch both."

For a time he went by Red Hood's side Then said he, "Red Hood! Just look! There are such pretty flowers here! Why don't you look round at them all? Methinks you don't even hear how delightfully the birds are singing! You are as dull as if you were going to school, and yet it is so cheerful in the forest!"

Little Red Hood lifted up her eyes, and when she saw how the sun's rays glistened through the tops of the trees, and every place was full of flowers, she bethought herself, "If I bring with me a sweet smelling nosegay to granny, it will cheer her. It is still so early, that I shall come to her in plenty of time," and therewith she skipped into the forest and looked for flowers. And when she had plucked one, she fancied that another further off was nicer, and ran there, and went always deeper and deeper into the forest.

But the wolf went by the straight road to old granny's, and knocked at the door.

"Who's there?"

"Little Red Hood, who has brought cake and wine. Open!"

"Only press the latch," cried granny. "I am so weak that I cannot stand."

The wolf pressed the latch, walked in, and went without saying a word straight to granny's bed and ate her up. Then he took her clothes, dressed himself in them, put her cap on his head, then shut the door and got into the grandmother's bed, expecting Little Red Riding Hood, who came some time afterwards and knocked at the door: tap, tap.

"Who's there?"

Little Red Riding Hood, hearing the big voice of the wolf, was at first afraid; but believing her grandmother had a cold and was hoarse, answered, "It is your grandchild Little Red Riding Hood, who has brought you a cake and a little pot of butter mother sends you."

The wolf cried out to her, softening his voice as much as he could, "Pull the bobbin, and the latch will go up."

Little Red Riding Hood pulled the bobbin, and the door opened.

The wolf, seeing her come in, said to her, hiding himself under the bedclothes, "Put the cake and the little pot of butter upon the stool, and come get into bed with me."



Little Red Riding Hood took off her clothes and got into bed. She was greatly amazed to see how her grandmother looked in her nightclothes, and said to her, "Grandmother, what big arms you have!"

"Ah, granny! Why have you such long ears?"

"The better to hear you."

"Ah, granny! Why have you such large eyes?"

"The better to see you."

"Ah, granny! Why have you such large hands?"

"The better to take hold of you."

"But, granny! Why have you such a terribly large mouth?"

"The better to eat you up!"

And therewith the wolf sprang out of bed at once on poor little Red Hood, and ate her up. When the wolf had satisfied his appetite, he lay down again in the bed, and began to snore tremendously.

A huntsman came past, and bethought himself, "How can an old woman snore like that? I'll just have a look to see what it is."

He went into the room, and looked into the bed; there lay the wolf. "Have I found you now, old rascal?" said he. "I've long been looking for you."

He was just going to take aim with his gun, when he bethought himself, "Perhaps the wolf has only swallowed granny, and she may yet be released."

Therefore he did not shoot, but took a knife and began to cut open the sleeping wolf's maw. When he had made several cuts, he saw Red Hood gleam, and after one or two more cuts out skipped Red Hood, and cried, "Oh, I was so frightened! It was so dark inside the wolf's body!"

Afterwards out came old granny, still alive, but scarcely able to breathe. But Red Hood made haste and fetched large stones, with which they filled the wolf's maw, and when he woke he wanted to jump up and run away, but the stones were so heavy that he fell on the ground and beat himself to death.

Now, they were all three merry. The huntsman took off the wolf's skin; granny ate the cake and drank the wine which little Red Hood had brought, and became strong and well again; and little Red Hood thought to herself, "As long as I live, I won't go out of the road into the forest, when mother has forbidden me."
Posted by: oenophore

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/28/11 09:31 PM

she made her a hood of red samite

Before you deem the above post anti-samitic, read what this is.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/28/11 11:51 PM

I think if we had a list of things to do for ridge owners there is almost nothing that would be impossible for us to do, if we could agree to do them together.

Chris Brown JK Wedding Entrance Dance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0

Although that is not to say that there would be no difficulties and differences. But unless there is happy communication nothing good can ever happen.

Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/29/11 01:10 AM

David Guetta feat Usher - Without You (Full Lyrics video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO9THtRWb2s

Donald on The Mohonk Preserve Stupidcrack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwtIfQzLyRc
Thank You Mohonk Preserve! We love you!

Thank you:

Ronald G. Knapp, President
James L. Hoover, Vice President
Thomas J. Murphy, Treasurer
J. Russell Clune, Secretary
Joseph T. Bridges
Donald P. Christian
Vincent R. Clephas
Terrence English
Harvey K. Flad
Norman L. Goluskin
Eric M. Gullickson
A. Floyd Lattin
Carol S. Rietsma
Sara S. Senior
Albert K. Smiley
Laurel Sweeney
Penny Switlik
Michael Tannen
Jane K. Taylor
Kathleen C. Weathers

Thank you:

Executive/Administration
Glenn D. Hoagland, Executive Director
Ellen M. Sticker, Executive Projects Manager

Scott Brown, Director of Finance and Administration
Bill Sticker, Associate Director of Information Technology

Programs
Kathy Ambrosini, Director of Education
Garrick Bryant, Education Coordinator, Public Programs & Family Initiatives
Cathy Shiga-Gattullo, Educator for Interpretation & Visitor Engagement

Kim Tischler, Education Coordinator, Groups and Camps
Pamela Uihlein, Seasonal Special Educator

Jennifer Garofalini, Director of Land Protection
Bob Larsen, Historian/Naturalist

Hank Alicandri, Director of Land Stewardship/Chief Ranger
Eric Fye, Managing Ranger, Facilities and Operations
Justin Key, Facilities Manager
Anthony Greco, Facilities Worker
Bill Koepplinger, Grounds Worker/Mechanic
Jon Ross, Visitor Services Coordinator

John Thompson, Director of Conservation Science
Paul Huth, Director of Research Emeritus/Associate Curator
Shanan Smiley, Conservation Biologist/Collections Manager

Communications & Development
Gretchen Reed, Director of Communications
Patricia Murphy, Communications Associate
Gregg Swanzey, Associate Director of Grants & Corporate Relations

Joseph Alfano, Director of Development and Membership
Meme Hanley, Development Officer
Katie Herlihy, Development/Database Associate
Jamie Hritz, Associate Director of Volunteer Programs & Special Events
Krista Tverdak, Associate Director of Membership & Audience Development


Thank you

Jeanne Cimorelli

Thank you Frank Tkac and Bob and all the Rangers!

Thank you Thom Scheuer, we miss you, you are not forgotten, rest in peace.

And Thank you Quaker Twins Albert and Alfred Smiley!

Thank you Smiley family!

We would never be the same without you!, Know that you are all greatly and dearly appreciated both now and forever!








Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/29/11 05:24 AM

Solo Attempt of The Matterhorn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEHGBvXshm8

This is Magical!, It's very dangerous there though. Our beloved Mayor Kevin, author of Stupidcrack died here.
Posted by: oenophore

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/29/11 10:14 AM

Donald on The Mohonk Preserve Stupidcrack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwtIfQzLyRc


Admirable humility is demonstrated by posting that. (I failed at it too.)
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/29/11 02:04 PM

Here I proved that although falling can be bad hangdog is undeniably out of the question. That's a religion that we subscribe to.

I guess it is hard on the rope, makes you look stupid, and it does not save any time anyway. Unless you can't climb in the first place. In which case you would be better off on something easier, so you could learn to climb in the first place.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/29/11 03:08 PM

stupidcrack 5'.4" there are extra moves if you are short. They look hard, I'm just glad I don't have to ever do them.

Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/29/11 05:13 PM

Check out this move sequence.





You have to flip your hand around upside down. I am not sure I can do that.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/29/11 05:22 PM

And check out this one.







We still can't figure out how he did that. He climbs like an insect, it's better not to watch so you don't get sick.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 12:08 AM

Originally Posted By: donald perry
From rockclimbing.com 2009
Climbing Information: Access Issues & Closures: Gunks

Kent writes: jsh, Julie- It's not that I won't answer your questions, it's that you don't like the answer. It's as if you were at someones house and you decided you liked their patio furniture. You say "what do you want for the patio furniture?" They say "we don't want anything for it, we like it right where it is". You say, "you're not answering my question....what do you want in exchange for the patio furniture". And around it goes.

onyerbike writes: Umm, Kent, instead of unnecessary analogies, can you spell this out in the terms that Julie, Aya and others have asked? It appears to be "There is nothing I want in return for granting access to my property. The closed section is off limits to everyone. Please respect this. Thanks and goodbye." If you'll just admit this, it would be helpful and we can all get on with our lives.

Kent answers: Onyerbike, Using different words I've said pretty much exactly what you've said. I've been very clear. The land that's closed is closed.

OK, noting that exchange Kent previously presents himself as follows: "As for my personal motivations, my financial interests have largely been protected, so I am in fact standing up for little old ladies on the ridge, among others. These modest and gracious people, long time ridge residents, have been thrown under the bus. If I don't speak up for them, who will?"

I conclude that Kent is not interested in helping little old ladies [his neighbors] at all, but that if there is any old lady suffering his intent is to see that it is worsened, while his "financial interests have largely been protected". His aim is to bring vigorous and bitter conflict, discord, and antagonism, to bring long lasting strife. And as he is irregardless of the outcome, he throws little old ladies under the bus, and nothing more.

Take Note: I am maintaining and will not be deterred of prescriptive easement rights (but not potentially adverse possession) in response to Kent along every Shawangunk upper and lower ridge trail just as I have before. And I need to do this to maintain a point of argument having to do with ethics and legalities of similar matters that Kent has argued. We can now talk about something else.

Originally Posted By: Trespass, Adverse Possession and Prescriptive Easements
From http://www.moeland.com/adverse.htm
Many landowners are surprised to learn that under certain circumstances, a trespasser can come onto land, occupy it and gain legal ownership of it. The trespasser may acquire a few feet of property or whole acres in this way. If someone is using your property, even a small strip on the edge, you should be alert to the risk. A trespasser may also gain a legal right to use part of someone else's property; this is called a prescriptive easement. (See "Easements," below.) The legal doctrine that allows trespassers to become owners is called "adverse possession." Although the name sounds nasty (and the results can be), the trespasser is not necessarily an intentional evildoer--far from it.


In other words I am ignoring all the Kent induced insanity for the sake of little old ladies. That ridge property owners may wake up and realize that they are doing the bidding of their adversary. That they may be able to find help within the climbing community. If some property owner would like me to help them in any way, other than Kent and anyone associated with that kind of unproductive thinking, I will be willing to help. And I can *guarantee* that many of my fellow climbers, whom you should always consider as part of your real family, are indeed more than willing to help you in whatever way that can. Climbers love the wilderness, but they also love people, and they love property owners like you. Kent does not want to help little old ladies, he is your adversary, and he wants your suffering to remain as well as increase while he projects himself as your advocate. These tactics represent that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.


Originally Posted By: Kent
As I'm the one who gets to decide whether or not the Nears reopens it's an opinion perhaps worth considering.



As a matter of public record please note that again today Sept 29th 2011 I Donald Perry residing at 5 Davis Ave Kearny, NJ 07032 crossed along the lower ridge trail along the base of the Shawangunks ridge cliff as I have done regularly throughout each of following years:

1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

I can see that in order to protect my rights I will need to take this to court. However, if I have to go to court to prove my point it is not going to be for an prescriptive easement but for adverse possession of the trail AND the cliff. Do I need to take this to court Kent or can I just walk across?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 03:41 AM







Thanks Mohonk Preserve Rangers!
This song is for all of you guys who work for the Mohonk Preserve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO9THtRWb2s

Rick Ross
Hank Alicandri
Eric Fye
Frank Tkac
Bob Elsinger
Ken Deutschlander
Andrew Bajardi
Steve Soodik
Richard Williams

Many thanks!!! We love you all very much!!!

Rangers Are Awesome!!!
http://www.elcapreport.com/content/special-edition-elcap-rescue-92611
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 12:38 PM

I spoke with the people in the town of Gardenier. Some of the names own ridge property for over 30 years, and the building inspector knows of no one who have had problems with the new zoning laws. And regardless, there have already been Shawangunk zoning laws in place for many years as far back as he can remember.

Kent, hello where are you? Kent, I can see that in order to protect my rights for waling the Near Trapps trail I will need to take this to court. However, if I have to go to court to prove my point it is not going to be for an prescriptive easement but for adverse possession of the trail *and* the cliff I have been all over for over 30 years! Do I need to take this to court Kent or can I just walk across?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 01:57 PM

I spoke to the tax assessors office and they told me that Zoning has good points and bad points and it is a matter of personal preference. There are cases where husbands and wives are divided over zoning issues, these are people who live on the ridge. The tax assessors office assured me that property values on the ridge have not deprecated because of zoning, but if there is depression through the ridge it is for other reasons. And this is why ridge neighbors [as a whole] who Kent has wrongly misrepresented and has "thrown under the bus" are paying the same kind of tax as they always have. Kent makes another specious point.

Originally Posted By: GOD
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.


I ask that the moderator remove Kent from the forum, he is an exaggerator and a trouble maker for property owners on the ridge making statements that can not be verified.

I would also advise that the Mohonk Preserve revoke Kent's "Mohonk Preserve Life Endowment Member[ship]". He is adversarial to the Preserve [slandering them as an "Evil Empire"] and their neighbors and has no business on the property.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 04:54 PM



Hahahahahahahaha.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 09:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent


Hahahahahahahaha.


I just got a call from the zoning board of appeals. They told me that they are aware of the arguments that Kent is making. Foremost, I was informed that these arguments have to do with the most sensitive areas for what should be considered drastic change or heavy development. Second, I was told that it is extremely unlikely that the new zoning laws have changed anything in relation to development in the most sensitive areas. The major change is there is more hoops you have to jump through. Third, I was told that over all he has heard of no property owner complaining that the new zoning has driven their property values down, he is not aware of any case like this on an individual bases. He also states that is it is patently impossible to see that property values have changed because of the new Zoning on the ridge.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 10:12 PM

Kent wrote the following complaints about the Preserve:


Originally Posted By: Kent
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 are now done with Kent's Zoning arguments because they relate to nothing we can find that makes any sense, other than to create confusion. We can now deal with number "4. Their failure to pay property taxes as promised by Smiley family members at the inception of the Mohonk Trust."
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 11:14 PM

Kent has the following problem with the Preserve. "4. Their failure to pay property taxes as promised by Smiley family members at the inception of the Mohonk Trust."

There are two parts to Kent's argument.

As far as the Smiley family promising to pay taxes through the Mohonk trust, that there needs to be promises so you can create a diversion to then be legally allowed to create a tax exempt organization is false. Mohonk can do whatever it wants to do; this is the United States of America we are living in, not communist China. It is because the Mohonk Mountain House could not pay taxes and were going bankrupt that they formed a tax exempt origination for the Preserve. They could have sold off the property and made a huge profit, there is great honor in what has been done by the Smileys and we can see that, we need to be thankful and not bite the hand that feeds us and act as brute beasts.

Failure to pay tax as a tax exempt organization for public use is a good thing. If the state owned it we would not pay taxes either. If the Jehovah Witnesses owned it, it would be tax exempt and we would not be allowed to use it. If Kent owned it, by his own admission no one would use it but him and his friends the same way he now uses the Near Trapps. If land reverts back to a state, as it were, back in time to what it was before anyone built on it, to be like one of the small towns in the middle of PA, is there then a tax burden? Kent wants to assert new laws that no one would vote for and no one has voted for, to put restrictions on tax exempt originations that are paralleling what the government does. If the Preserve should pay tax so would government entities like Colleges, Hospitals, Fire, Police, Water companies and SUNNY New Paltz. Should what we want to support pay tax to us? Should one Hospital pay tax to another Hospital? Should one College pay tax to another College? Should one empty space pay tax to another empty space?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 11:24 PM

Kent wrote the following complaints about the Preserve:

Originally Posted By: Kent
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 "2. Their seeming propensity for mismarking property lines." If property lines are mismarked then they can be marked back. However, if there is confusion with deed language then there is confusion at the property line. That's life, deal with it.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 11:25 PM

Kent wrote the following complaints about the Preserve:

Originally Posted By: Kent
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 "5. Their lawsuit against the Town of Gardiner to avoid paying property taxes." They lost the case, so what's to talk about? Nothing.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 11:32 PM

Kent wrote the following complaints about the Preserve:

Originally Posted By: Kent
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 "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."

There is a big difference between building a tent and building a house, and what good is it to have a Preserve if no one can camp out and use it? That makes no sense. What other options are there? Furthermore, they can transfer it to whomever they wish, it is a free country.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 09/30/11 11:38 PM

*
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 02:07 AM

Touching The Void - (1 of 11)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjD6Y_YMxZg

Touching The Void - (2 of 11)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=UXzDd6wpnW8

etc.

Wingsuit proximity flying in Switzerland and Norway - By Jokke Sommer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNqx8XZIWnI&feature=related


Matterhorn Proximity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkdg-W8gK5I

Huber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX6xkcHHXYY&feature=related

Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 03:55 AM

Woe to thee, Simon Magus! woe to you,
His wretched followers! who the things of God,
Which should be wedded unto goodness, them,
Rapacious as ye are, do prostitute
For gold and silver in adultery.
Now must the trumpet sound for you, since yours
Is the third chasm. Upon the following vault
We now had mounted, where the rock impends
Directly o'er the centre of the foss.


Wisdom Supreme! ow wonderful the art,
Which Thou dost manifest in Heaven, in earth,
And in the evil world, how just a meed
Allotting by Thy virtue unto all.


I saw the livid stone, throughout the sides
And in its bottom full of apertures,
All equal in their width, and circular each.
Nor ample less nor larger they appear'd
Than, in Saint John's fair dome[1] of me beloved,
Those framed to hold the pure baptismal streams,
One of the which I brake, some few years past,
To save a whelming infant: and be this
A seal to undeceive whoever doubts
The motive of my deed. From out the mouth
Of every one emerged a sinner's feet,
And of the legs high upward as the calf.
The rest beneath was hid. On either foot
The soles were burning; whence the flexile joints
Glanced with such violent motion, as had snapt
asunder cords or twisted withes. As flame,
Feeding on unctuous matter, glides along
The surface, scarcely touching where it moves;
So here, from heel to point, glided the flames.


"Master! say who is he, than all the rest
Glancing in fiercer agony, on whom
A ruddier flame doth prey?" I thus inquired.


"If thou be willing," he replied. "that I
Carry thee down, where least the slope bank falls,
He of himself shall tell thee, and his wrongs."


I then: "As pleases thee, to me is best.
Thou art my lord; and know'st that ne'er I quit
Thy will: what silence hides, that knowest thou."


Thereat on the fourth pier we came, we turn'd
And on our left descended to the depth,
A narrow strait, and perforated close.
Nor from his side my leader set me down,
Till to his orifice he brought, whose limb
Quivering express'd his pang. "Whoe'er thou art,
Sad spirit! thus reversed, and as a fence post
Driven into the ground," - I in these words began;
"If thou be able, utter forth thy voice!"




Posted by: oenophore

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 10:41 AM

The picture suggests that a number of barefoot soloists have cratered upside-down.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 01:22 PM


You may be onto something oenophore.

This photo suggests that the "Wolf" [whose belly is full of *stones* in the previous story] can no longer "speak" at the moment because he and "that wreched crowd" have been made by "O Supreme Wisdom" human fence posts face down. Their sin was that they have "prostituted" the "things of God" [The Shawangunk Ridge] for their rapacity [i.e. TheFreeDictionary "3 Subsisting on live prey" desire to eating little red hood [the climbing community] and grandma [the property owners]].

The flames from heal to toe in Dante's Infoerno Canto XIX are now *signs* of devine judgemnt upon these posts, where upon these kicking feet would "burst ropes".
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 01:35 PM

Donald, you're pretty whacky. I'm not going to waste my time with a play by play rebuttal of your nonsense. Instead, I have a challenge for you.

In one of your many posts above you chose two political appointees, the Gardiner tax assessor, and a Gardiner Zoning Board pf Appeals member to buttress your claim that the zoning law has not reduced property values of Mohonk Preserve neighbors. Rather than use such highly biased sources, why not choose professional real estate appraisers?

Here's my challenge. I'll bet you $1,000 that the value of my land has depreciated by at least 10% as a direct consequence of the zoning law. The values with and without the zoning law will be appraised by three professionals who have no affiliation with the preserve or any landowner. It would be best to bring in people from way out of town really. The loser will have to fork over $1,000 and also pay the fees of the appraisers, which will run about $1,500 altogether. So we each would have to put $2,500 into escrow before the appraisals.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or are you going to prattle on for another ten pages?

Edited to add: As you have already revealed your litigious character, you'd have to previously agree to not sue the appraisers or whoever holds the escrow funds should the appraisals not go your way.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 01:41 PM

Here is a second challenge. You have stated you will sue for adverse possession of the land in the Nears. I will indemnify those landowners against any claims made against their property, so I'll be footing the bill for any lawsuit you bring for either adverse possession or prescriptive easement.

I can't think of anything more effective at inspiring more ridge landowners to close their land. So, please, as you say, have at it.

I challenge you to sue me or any other landowner in Gardiner for either prescriptive easement or adverse possession.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 01:47 PM

*
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 02:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Donald, you're pretty whacky. I'm not going to waste my time with a play by play rebuttal of your nonsense.


Come on Kent, play the game you started. You listed 6 points of contention and DP has countered them. His point about you wishing the tax laws of the US were otherwise is spot on.

To make your challenge more interesting, the winning bet should be paid to the Preserve Acquisition fund, so that they can pay market rates for land acquisitions as you've stated as one of your goals. The winner gets bragging rights.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 03:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Here is a second challenge. You have stated you will sue for adverse possession of the land in the Nears. I will indemnify those landowners against any claims made against their property, so I'll be footing the bill for any lawsuit you bring for either adverse possession or prescriptive easement.

I can't thing of anything more effective at inspiring more ridge landowners to close their land. So, please, as you say, have at it.

I challenge you to sue me or any other landowner in Gardiner for either prescriptive easement or adverse possession.


By your own admission, there is nothing that the Property owners or you want but to keep the lands closed for your own personal interests. And that's fine, my point was, as I said before hypothetical:

Originally Posted By: page 15
What is going on here, what has been going on here is an argument of ethics just as much as it is about legalities. Kent and company are arguing that the Preserve respects neither ethical nor legal ideals. My crossing over has to do with revisiting those ideas to see the weight of the moral, ethical and legal values in these things. We are not talking about climbing. I believe we are arguing a grey area and need to come to grips with it. My point in arguing has more to do with the observing of that position as to what kind of legal or ethical tone it has to it. That the idea of viewing the Preserve as an "Evil Empire" is an idea that has nothing to do with anything we can attach anything to, that it is illogical.


I have not thought about a lawsuit either personally or literally. But there is nothing to lose, seeing that there is nothing that can be changed to appease the situation while you heap up slanderous false allegations against the Preserve or the Smiley family! I disrespect you for that.

There is absolutely nothing to lose. For example, you propose that the zoning laws be challenged. There are married couples who I personally know of, who work in the town, who have been on the ridge for over 30 years, that love and hate the new zoning laws together, aside from the fact that the old zoning laws were not that much different than the new zoning laws. That is, I was told that it is extremely unlikely that the new zoning laws have changed anything in relation to development in the areas of your specific concern by someone who is familiar with your arguments in the town halls and before their boards, who works for the Zoning Board of Appeals! Specifically, that irregardless of what zoning the zoning laws stated or had not stated before, it was stated to me that what your specific concerns for development are so hostile to the ridge that the chances for their approval would have been extremely slim at best even back then. Now, that is not something I said, and it speaks from a mind that is consistent with what is the mind of the people of a number of at least greater than 50%, of the people on the ridge who want to keep things as they are. The zoning laws are not going to be changed nor do they represent a new way of thinking, but a more accurately defined statement of what has been here all along, these are scared lands. That is what I was told. Again, these are not my ideas Kent, I am just repeating to you what I was told in my own words from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Furthermore, to get more to your point, a lawsuit for perspective easement by and for Donald Perry would have nothing to do with either the climbing community, nor the Preserve, but rather a demonstration of certain established laws and ethics deemed as most appropriate in similar cases. And therefore why not here by me or in other places by anyone else? In other words, when I have been crossing a piece of property for over 30 years and one person now says "You can't do that anymore because you are part of an Evil Empire, this is pure evil!". I reply, "No Sir, you are mistaken, you are part of an evil empire, and I will prove it so.".

So be a man of your word. Indemnify all the Trapps property owners in writing with your lawyer and send it to me at my address already named above. As well as have a contract written up that you will cover all legal fees for the said property owners, you can name your property as collateral if you wish. As well as have them sign off on it, that they are in agreement to have you represent them financially in these matters.

Then once I receive the paperwork from you I can commence a lawsuit against you personally rather than against the actual property owners per say. I don't have a problem with that, thanks for offering. Let me know if you want to fax it.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 03:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Donald, you're pretty whacky. I'm not going to waste my time with a play by play rebuttal of your nonsense. Instead, I have a challenge for you.

In one of your many posts above you chose two political appointees, the Gardiner tax assessor, and a Gardiner Zoning Board pf Appeals member to buttress your claim that the zoning law has not reduced property values of Mohonk Preserve neighbors. Rather than use such highly biased sources, why not choose professional real estate appraisers?

Here's my challenge. I'll bet you $1,000 that the value of my land has depreciated by at least 10% as a direct consequence of the zoning law. The values with and without the zoning law will be appraised by three professionals who have no affiliation with the preserve or any landowner. It would be best to bring in people from way out of town really. The loser will have to fork over $1,000 and also pay the fees of the appraisers, which will run about $1,500 altogether. So we each would have to put $2,500 into escrow before the appraisals.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or are you going to prattle on for another ten pages?

Edited to add: As you have already revealed your litigious character, you'd have to previously agree to not sue the appraisers or whoever holds the escrow funds should the appraisals not go your way.


Originally Posted By: Kent
I'll bet you $1,000 that the value of my land has depreciated by at least 10% as a direct consequence of the zoning law. The values with and without the zoning law will be appraised ...


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?

Posted by: chip

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 03:40 PM

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.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 03:55 PM

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?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 04:03 PM

"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.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 09:30 PM

*
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 10:23 PM





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

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 10:49 PM

Originally Posted By: chip
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.


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.
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 10:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Here's my challenge. I'll bet you $1,000 that the value of my land has depreciated by at least 10% as a direct consequence of the zoning law.


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.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 10:54 PM





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.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 11:18 PM

Kent wrote the following complaints about the Preserve:

Originally Posted By: Kent
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.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/01/11 11:57 PM

Originally Posted By: tradjunkie
... 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.


According to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Kent's arguments have to do with subdividing in the dark green zones. My argument is the same as that of the Zoning Board, that what Kent has been proposing to them would not have been accepted even before the new Zoning laws were defined more specifically. In other words The Zoning Board of Appeals told me that the town would not have approved what Kent had in mind anyway, even before the new Zoning laws spelled it out.

Therefore when Kent talks about changes in Zoning he is not explaining that there was old zoning in place which had not yet been fully defined in writing but was still enforced nevertheless. That is what I was told.

But again, the point of the argument only counts for something if the Preserve is behind it. The Zoning Board of Appeals AND the Tax Collector's office, people who live on the ridge under Millbrook, said that the new zoning is virtually the same as the old zoning, ultimately. And that this is something property owners want up there. They all know each other under Millbrook. I know them; they hate development, so it's a no brainer. If you do not believe me go park your car there and watch what happens, or else try and ring some door bells. You won't be talking to anyone but the state police and your car will get towed.

Preservation is on the minds of the people on the ridge. They bought the property for solitude. Kent and his friends have concerns that have nothing to do with the majority of ridge owners, that want preservation, and this is why the zone was there before and that is why it is there now, and this is why it will always be there even if the Preserve completely disappeared.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/02/11 12:30 AM

The bottom line is that people like Kent want to convince us that they are in the majority when they are the minority. Traditionally people have not bought on the ridge to develop. It is only in the last 25 years that there has been any kind of competing interest in living up here.

Another way to look at it is that Kent's arguments, that the Mohonk Preserve is at fault for preservation rather than development is a contradiction by the fact that preservation and the Preserve has made a reason for development next to it in the first place. Kent would not have so much a reason to build if it was not for the Preservation. He is biting the hand that feeds him. The very same thing that is giving him new opportunities, this he is attacking. Untimely he is asking the unreasonable, and that which is contrary to the very nature of things to begin with.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/02/11 02:06 AM


If Kent was ever to succeed it would only be in the final sense that he would leave behind his name as a curse. No one likes development, to see an end to sacred places, not even those who make it happen. In the end they realize it was a sin against mankind, that they and everyone else that they convinced of that sin needs to repent of.



"I would here utter words still far more bitter,
Because your avarice afflicts the world,
105 Trampling good men and vaulting evildoers.

"You are the shepherds the evangelist meant
When he saw 'she who sits upon the waters'
Fornicating with the kings of earth.

"She is the one born with the seven heads
110 Who from her ten horns begot all her strength
So long as virtue was her bridegroom's pleasure.

"A god of gold and silver you have fashioned!
How do you differ from idolators
Except they worship one god — you a hundred?
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/02/11 02:26 AM

________________________________________
John Muir, 1838 - 1914

1872 photo by H. W. Bradley and William Rulofson
Born: 21 April 1838, Dunbar, East Lothian, Scotland, UK
Died: 24 December 1914, Los Angeles, California
Daniel Muir was a strict and religious man who was fond of the lash, and son John was a spirited and curious boy who was its frequent recipient. By the time the Muirs moved to Wisconsin in 1849, John could recite the entire New Testament and most of the Old but was fond of hunting birds nests and fighting. The family established Fountain Lake Farm near Portage, Wisconsin, then moved to Hickory Hill Farm. Muir attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison for several years but never advanced past freshman status due to his eclectic class choices. In 1864, possibly in fear of the draft, he left for Canada where he and brother Daniel worked in a lumber mill on Lake Huron. In 1866 Muir took a job as an industrial engineer in a carriage-parts plant at Indianapolis, an accident there drove a tool into one eye causing blindness for several weeks. Taken aback by that he set out on foot towards the south, seeking the "wildest, leafiest, and least trodden way I could find". He intended to continue into South America but came down with malaria in Florida and booked sea passage to San Francisco. He immediately went into the Yosemite Valley, working there for a season as a shepherd, then built a cabin such that Yosemite Creek went through one corner. After reading from a battered volume of Ralph Waldo Emerson for three years he was delighted when Emerson visited Yosemite. They spent a day together and Emerson offered Muir a teaching position at Harvard, which was declined. In 1878 Muir married Louisa Strentzel and they moved into a large home on her family's orchard. Muir was devoted to the family and the farm but it clearly wasn't what his spirit needed so after six years his wife would "shoo him back up" to the mountains for a while and he devoted most of his time at the farm to writing. In 1890 Muir attempted to have Yosemite transferred to the custody of the National Park Service, and in 1892 he formed the Sierra Club. In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt came to Yosemite with his entourage but asked Muir to show him "the real Yosemite". The two left the others and spent a day together and a night under the stars, waking to fresh snow; in 1905 Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove were transferred to the federal park system. His final battle was to block a dam that would flood the Hetch Hetchy valley, which Muir felt was even more stunning than Yosemite, to provide drinking water for San Francisco. Roosevelt saw that no action was taken, William Howard Taft suspended Interior Department approval of the project, but Woodrow Wilson authorized the dam in December of 1913. He was profoundly disheartened by this development, and the following year he came down with pneumonia.

Watch this movie about these "waters" from Canto XIX and the other Yosemite Valley that was lost to development at http://wn.com/Hetch_Hetchy



Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/02/11 03:36 AM

P.S. Kent, I need the papers for the easement lawsuit you are going to send to me notarized for each signature.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/02/11 05:43 AM

The other day I spoke to JM who was largely influenced by arguments like Kent's. After I talked to him he realized there was more to the story and that he was relying on half truths. Opposing the Preserve could eventually lead to problems. If the Preserve was taken over by the State, it is possible that it could go the way of limited use or no use. Dealing with the state is impossible; for the most part they don't like rock climbing and see it as a problem. Look at the Palisades for example:

Originally Posted By: Palisades Interstate Park Saturday, 18 July 2009


The Palisades Interstate Park Superintendent,

Michael, I have reviewed your rock climbing proposal and also discussed with our legal counsel. Unfortunately we are still of the opinion that rock climbing on the palisades posses too large a risk and liability. Our counsel has significant concerns regarding liability with from both injury and a response perspective. We have already had past litigation on a portion of this issue that was not favorable to us. Additionally, in order to climb the palisades, the approaches tend to be either very close to the lower road or require access over the steep talus slopes, both of which offer significant hazards to the climbers or other park users. Also, while the rock of the palisades is quite hard, it also has significant fractures which result in frequent rock falls/slides most minor but some significant. There have been three in the past 4 years large enough to bury the lower road under 5 plus feet of rock and in one case took out the road entirely. It is not uncommon for us to have to pick up fallen rock off the road.

For these reasons it is not reasonable for us to open the palisades cliffs to rock climbing. If you have any questions I would be glad to respond or discuss them with you.


I admit that you cannot climb everywhere on the Palisades, but you can climb is some places, but climbing there is off limits EVERYWHERE!!! How would you like to face arrests and jail time for climbing this incredible crack???, I know I would!!! I want to go there right now!!!

Keep ignoring accusers and adversaries of preserved lands and the lies they spread and that is what we could potentially end up with, people like Kent running a Park. Why take chances. Support the Preserve and other people will to. Standing up for it, and "K.I.S.S." is the rule that needs to be applied here.



If you click on the images you can zoom in on them.

Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/02/11 05:48 AM

One argument I have heard about the Preserve is it costs too much. However, think about how much you pay at the rock gym or how much you pay at state parks. In comparison we are getting a great deal here, so there is no reason to complain.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/02/11 01:07 PM

NICKELBACK - FAR AWAY (English - Espa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqg53rQMQpE&feature=related

THANK YOU MOHONK PRESERVE, WE APPRECIATE YOU
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 03:36 AM

changed post
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 04:57 AM

Originally Posted By: donald perry
I was told be a very reliable source that Kent approached the Mohonk Preserve to sell parts of his property. These parts extend out like fingers into the Mohonk Preserve Property, and are of no value, except to the Preserve. It was after Mohonk expressed to Kent that they had no interest in purchasing these parcels that Kent started his anti-Preserve campaign.

What this implies to me, seeing that all his arguments are based on nothing, is that Kent has been employing "strong arm tactics" against the Preserve with arguments that he knows have no validity in an effort to become such a nuisance that the Preserve will purchase these properties just to stop Kent from using his "strong arm tactics" and cutting off accesses to the South Side of the Near Trapps.

I believe that Kent has been using me, you, his neighbors, the Town of Garndenier, and those who argue with him and read his posts or have been cut off from accessing the Nears only for the purpose of crating pressure on the Preserve in the hopes that they will cave in and buy these fingers of property.

We have been duped into buying the story that Kent has an argument. This is the very reason why he says there is nothing he wants from us so we may cross over under the Near Trapps. Rather he wants something from the Preserve, he wants to make money and he thinks he has found a smart way to do it.

This kind of behavior represents one who is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing. Those who cooperate with this kind of behavior are criminals. Thanks but no thanks to that, I would rather walk around. Those who do these acts need to repent to God, to the Town of Gardenier, their neighbors, the Preserve, the Smileys and us, for using us as pawns in these devish games. It is not going to work anymore.

Keep the Trapps closed, we like it like that, it's much better this way. And tell your friends that they need to be ashamed of themselves, they are no different then you are.

Out with the truth Kent! Confess and be a man! You should be ashamed of yourself!

The right thing to do would have been truthful all along. Then at least I could have some respect for you. But rather then do that you decided to sell your soul to the Devil, you lied, you slandered, you cheated, and you robbed from us whatever you could. And I am sure you would have done much more if it was in your power, if it would line your pockets with money!

Quoting for history.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 05:24 AM

*
Posted by: oenophore

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 10:04 AM

Post #60711 is the eleventh consecutive Donald Perry post in this thread, the string ended by retroscree. This must be a Gunks.com record.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 10:42 AM

8
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 01:03 PM

Originally Posted By: oenophore
Post #60711 is the eleventh consecutive Donald Perry post in this thread, the string ended by retroscree. This must be a Gunks.com record.


Don, it might be time to get a personal Blog going for yourself, or ask for a "Don Perry Forum" here at Gunks.com for you. wink
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 02:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Rickster
Originally Posted By: oenophore
Post #60711 is the eleventh consecutive Donald Perry post in this thread, the string ended by retroscree. This must be a Gunks.com record.


Don, it might be time to get a personal Blog going for yourself, or ask for a "Don Perry Forum" here at Gunks.com for you. wink


Yea, I erased the last post. How far backwards do you think I should go?
Posted by: oenophore

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 03:07 PM

What I would suggest is that if there is additional material to be posted to a particular thread by the same poster within the 24 hour deadline for editing, that material be appended to the end of an extant post, even if that makes that one post very very long. Many consecutive posts within a thread all in a short time get a WTF reaction out of readers.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 03:50 PM

I was told be a very reliable source that Kent approached the Mohonk Preserve to sell parts of his property. These parts extend out like fingers into the Mohonk Preserve Property, and are of no value, except to the Preserve. It was after Mohonk expressed to Kent that they had no interest in purchasing these parcels that Kent started his anti-Preserve campaign.

What this implies to me, seeing that all his arguments are based on nothing, is that Kent has been employing "strong arm tactics" against the Preserve with arguments that he knows have no validity in an effort to become such a publicity nuisance with losses in support and income that the Preserve will purchase these properties just to stop Kent from using his "strong arm tactics" cutting off accesses to the South Side of the Near Trapps etc.

I believe that Kent has been using me, you, his neighbors, the Town of Garndenier, and those who argue with him and read his posts or have been cut off from accessing the Nears only for the purpose of crating financial pressure on the Preserve in the hopes that they will cave in and buy these fingers of property from him.

That we have been duped into buying the story that Kent we should believe a lie that he has an argument. This makes sense in that this would be the reason why he says there is nothing he wants from us so we may cross over under the Near Trapps. Rather he wants something from the Preserve, he wants to make money and he thinks he has found a smart way to do it.

This kind of behavior represents one who is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing. Those who cooperate with this kind of behavior are criminals. Thanks but no thanks to that, I would rather walk around the Near Trapps. Those who do these acts need to repent to God, to the Town of Gardenier, their neighbors, the Preserve, the Smileys and us, for using us as pawns in these devilish games where there are financial losses. People believe these things, I have talked to some people who have stopped supporting the Preserve based on Kent's lies. Kent has been successful in hurting the Preserve and causing them financial loss.

Keep the Trapps closed, we like it like that, it's much better this way, now that we know what is really behind all this. And tell your friends that they need to be ashamed of themselves too, they are no different then you are.

The right thing to do would have been truthful all along. Then at least I could have some respect for you. But rather then do that you decided to sell your soul to the Devil, you lied, you slandered, you cheated, and you robbed from us whatever you could so you could line your pockets with money.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 04:03 PM

Originally Posted By: oenophore
What I would suggest is that if there is additional material to be posted to a particular thread by the same poster within the 24 hour deadline for editing, that material be appended to the end of an extant post, even if that makes that one post very very long. Many consecutive posts within a thread all in a short time get a WTF reaction out of readers.

What I would suggest is that Don edit himself a bit. He basically posts the same thing 5 times, deletes then all, then reposts another 5 times with the same stuff. It really does dilute his attempted message, as do the video and music posts and the quasi-religious parables.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 11:42 PM

Donald do you have that camisole top in men's sizes? I'm thinking I need it to climb Disco Death March.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 10/03/11 11:43 PM

eh what the heck, I'm not a big dude..I'll take a large.
Posted by: donald perry

Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! - 04/13/12 12:35 PM

mummert wrote: "In case you're counting, you don't speak for me." In the context of "I have got no more desire or tolerance [to hear ant-Preserve posts] …"

mummert wrote: "…the MPNA … they have some valid complaints relating to the Gardiner zoning issues, and the degree to which the Preserve influences those issues. Case in point -- (sorry this ramble is so long, and perhaps not quite on point, but I hope Scott and Julie enjoy the detail) … the lot abutted the Preserve and there was some disagreement about where the actual property lines were. …I would love to have a second home near the Preserve, I ultimately decided there were too many negatives …"

From Donald: Gardner was the one that called in the Preserve to help them more succinctly define zoning laws already in place. Gardner comes to their own conclusions without the Preserve. If there was no zoning there would be nothing to stop property owners whose only concern is to increase the values of their own properties by pushing their homes ever further up the hills into the talus.





It is a crime against all thing sacrosanct when invaluable natural resources are consumed for personal profits, and some people either just never get it or cannot help themselves, who will even form associations to the cause to try and justify themselves! This is madness! This can be no different than flooding Yosemite or any other diminishing losses we have seen over the years, it's wrong, it is a crime. Someday that damn will be drained and that damn golf course will be removed.





The resources of the shawangunk Mountains are limited, they need to be preserved from people who will exploit them. It is wrong to allow them to be used up by those who would like to take advantage of them only for their own personal gain. You want to develop your property and increase it's value by diminishing natural resources?, do you think this is a smart idea?, think again. Climbers are not the only ones who don't like development; Gardner does not like it either.

Furthermore, how are poorly defined property lines all that have to do with the Persevere? This problem has been used against the Preserve by one associated property owner repeatedly only for personal gain. You did the right thing by not purchasing such property where the lines are not clear to start off with, but it would have been an ever greater mistake to buy such property and then malign the Preserve to try to gain an advantage as you seem to suggest as appropriate behavior.