ARTICLE 78 LAWSUIT FORCES BIG TUPPER TO CLOSE

ausable skier wrote

My bad for using the L word (Liberal) before.  It is a dirty word of course.

If you read that attached piece "Protect" is not concerned with the global warming issue but is concerned with what they think are the really big issues of being against things like building a few dirt roads in the ADK Park.  They do not want one single tree cut down in the name of development.  They don't live here and their funding is not coming from the area so what do they care about jobs.  If people can't live in the park and move out that will make it a better place in their minds.

Your are missing the big picture here.

The builder wants to borrow the money from the local development authority(backed by NYS which is ultimately taxpayer money) to build a highly speculative real estate development where one of the main components is a marginal ski area lacking vertical, terrain, lifts, and snowmaking. Why can't they get loans from banks or private equity? Maybe because the project will not work? Why should the NYS taxpayer get stuck holding the bag for this?

Isn't this one of those government handouts everbody is complaining about?

ausable skier wrote

My bad for using the L word (Liberal) before.  It is a dirty word of course.

If you read that attached piece "Protect" is not concerned with the global warming issue but is concerned with what they think are the really big issues of being against things like building a few dirt roads in the ADK Park.  They do not want one single tree cut down in the name of development.  They don't live here and their funding is not coming from the area so what do they care about jobs.  If people can't live in the park and move out that will make it a better place in their minds.

I certainly won't claim to be an expert on the facts surrounding the ACR, but from what I've read, the environmental groups that opposed ACR did not oppose it outright, but rather were looking for a compromise that would result in a scaled-down version of the original proposal, that would have a smaller impact on the environment. In reality, I have to agree with many of those who believe that the original proposal was unrealistic from an economic point-of-view, even had it been built prior to the start of the "Great Recession". It just doesn't seem likely that they would have been able to sell all the units they proposed building. You need only look at similar developments in areas far less remote than Tupper Lake to see that.

And as far as the environment goes, you need only look at the recent situation of the moose in the Ausable in Wilmington to understand why the "eco-nuts" are driven to protect wilderness areas. Whether that moose would have survived or not on its own is probably debatable, but had there not been a road along that river, it's pretty safe to say that it wouldn't have died from a rifle shot.

i've seen where its claimed that Protect was not opposed to a scaled down project.   Then they go and publish statements like that piece in the paper linked here last night where they go on to say they oppose all development as a matter of course becuase if one project is approved it will lead to others and others.  These statements give away their true intent to stop any and all development in the ADK's regardless of the economic consequences.

If that moose was off some dirt road or probably just about any other road in the DAK's it probably would have ended without being shot but that Moose would have been just as dead by now - it just would have taken longer and been more painful for the Moose.

ausable skier wrote

i've seen where its claimed that Protect was not opposed to a scaled down project.   Then they go and publish statements like that piece in the paper linked here last night where they go on to say they oppose all development as a matter of course becuase if one project is approved it will lead to others and others.  These statements give away their true intent to stop any and all development in the ADK's regardless of the economic consequences.

I don't recall seeing that statement in the article the way you've worded it. I believe that what it actually said, is that they are opposing THIS permit because they if they don't, THIS permit could be used as a model for others.

and when the go on to say what they fear it is that someone will want to (horror of horrors) build a house and a dirt road to it

that would pretty much exclude any other development bigger than a house and that would equal any and all development - that is their ultimate goal

there is no way that people that live down by NYC and the suburbs woudl put up with crap that the state and APA make us up here go thru to do just about anything.  It cost me an extra $8 grand to build redo my septic system due the extra APA permitting processes that would not be required elsewhere.  And these Protect nutjobs if they had their way would make everything that much more difficult.  Would you like it if a lobbying group from 300 miles away told you what to do with your land?

ausable skier wrote

Would you like it if a lobbying group from 300 miles away told you what to do with your land?

First, the APA has been in existence since 1971, and anyone who has chosen to buy property in the Park since that time, does so with the knowledge that you are going to have to "deal with" the APA. It's a known quantity ... if you don't like it, you should consider alternate locations outside the park.

Second, as I've said previously in a separate thread related to the ACR, I wish there was an agency protecting the land where I live. A once rural suburban community, comprised of simple homes, farms, orchards and wooded areas has been transformed over the past 20 - 30 years into an over-built "community" (a term I use loosely), comprised of McMansions, mega-malls, strip malls every way you turn, and stamped out homes built so close together, you can practically spit from the window of one home into the window of the next. Flooding, once a problem only in a few small areas, has become a much more wide-spread problem, due to over-building. Traffic is a daily issue and what were once two-lane roads, are constantly being widened to four lanes to accommodate the increased traffic, with the land being "taken" from the property owners along these roads. Crime is an ever-increasing problem, with open doors and bicycles left out on the driveway being replaced by dead-bolts and pad-locked sheds. If that's the future you'd like to see for the Adirondacks, I can only hope that there are enough people out there who don't want that kind of future and will work to prevent it. Once that rock starts rolling down the hill, it can be very difficult to stop it. I've lived my entire life here, but as soon as my kids are out of school, I'll be leaving a contrail behind me.

And while you may have had to pay that one-time extra $8,000 for your septic system, don't think I'm not paying that, plus a whole lot more, on an annual basis in the form of property taxes to support all the infrastructure needed to support all of the development that's been done over the years. Retirees who have lived here all there lives, are being forced to sell their homes and move out because they can no longer afford to live here. The property taxes are staggering. Once the developers build the roads and related infrastructure and then move on, someone has to pick up the cost of maintaining that stuff over the long term. The promise of increased tax revenues and economic benefits always looks good on paper, but never seems to work out in the end. The Lowes in Ticonderoga worked out just great for that community, which is now left with a big empty box and parking lot.

I would gladly move into the Park, aware of the APA and the "problems" it may cause me, so long as the regulations it enforces are applied equally and fairly. If you believe that the APA does NOT apply those rules and regulations equally and fairly, a charge that has been leveled often, and probably is true, that's a different matter altogether. If that is in fact occurring, then someone needs to step in and "fix" that.

"I believe that what it actually said, is that they are opposing THIS permit because they if they don't, THIS permit could be used as a model for others."


This is a second grade arguement.    "you let Johnny go, so I should be able to go"    

No, the purpose of boards, reveiw committees, judges, statutes and zoning is to review each project on their own merit.   The problem is that Protect lost there and now uses a second grade argument and the system while costing the State Taxpayers (ME) money and the town/developer time and "unknowns" to win their fight.    

Again, not saying the Tupper project had any merits in reality. Based on all the facts or aruguments like snow making, lifts etc...this was likely a sophisticated roose that could have cost the town millions and benefited few.


Maybe at the crux of all of this is the question:  Do the ends justify the means?     Akin to the "24" show or real life waterboarding to get key information.     Society may be happy with the "ends", but we become divided and/or get super passionate about the "means" used to get to that end.    


Regarding dirt roads:  In Maryland, the cities are in dire need to get money to replace aging sewage infrstructure.   City Politicians (there are more of them, than rural) are pointing to rural communities with dirt roads/driveways.   Rather than raise fees on sewage system users,  they are asking for a "fine" or "tax" surgchage for every sqft of dirt road/parking area. They are using Google maps technology to map and measure the sqft as I type.     The only way to avoid the fee is to pave your dirt and put in a retaining pond to catch that run off. It does not matter if you can show that runoff from your dirt driveway does not enter the river system.   If passed, this will effectively stop all rural development and significantly increase the cost to live outside the city, an end goal of our govenor's "smart growth" program.  Another proposal wants to end septic systems entirely, eventhough there is no evidence to support working septic causes bay polution.  Theory has it that while this proposal will not pass, they will opt for an "impact fee" in the $10's of thousand dollar range.    Facts don't matter, money does.    Maybe coming to a town near you.  

ausable skier wrote

and when the go on to say what they fear it is that someone will want to (horror of horrors) build a house and a dirt road to it

that would pretty much exclude any other development bigger than a house and that would equal any and all development - that is their ultimate goal

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/533273/It-s-time-to-consider-the-merits-of-the-Protect-Sierra-Club-lawsuit.html

Here is the link to that article again. Please copy/paste word-for-word the exact quote you are referring to.



Face4Me, that was EXTREMELY well said. Thank you.

Face4ME, Well said. arthurmacdougall78 also well said.  This thread has drifted way off subject. Article 78 does not prevent mountain from opening.  Economics will. Just look to Front Street at Gore.

Posting this old thread for relevance to F4M's post.
http://forum.nyskiblog.com/Life-without-the-APA-photoshopped-images-td3103991.html

endoftheline wrote

This thread has drifted way off subject.

Crazy busy right now but if someone can figure out the point to break this thread apart from the original post it and I will separate.

tBatt wrote

Posting this old thread for relevance to F4M's post.
http://forum.nyskiblog.com/Life-without-the-APA-photoshopped-images-td3103991.html

Thanks so much for that ... I can't tell you how much time I spent, unsuccessfully, yesterday trying to find that image!!!!!

Thank you Face4Me and X.  Your points are well taken.

Just adding that I see no point in separating threads out, ever.

Face4Me wrote

ausable skier wrote

Would you like it if a lobbying group from 300 miles away told you what to do with your land?

First, the APA has been in existence since 1971, and anyone who has chosen to buy property in the Park since that time, does so with the knowledge that you are going to have to "deal with" the APA. It's a known quantity ... if you don't like it, you should consider alternate locations outside the park.

I remember my Grandfather bitching about the APA.....he didn't like the idea of "summer people" (people not from the dacks) telling him what to do w/ his land. He was born in a cabin on Edwards Hill Rd and lived on that road his entire life. The only time he went to a hospital was to die, he lived to the age of 88....a real mountain man

Face4Me wrote

 
Second, as I've said previously in a separate thread related to the ACR, I wish there was an agency protecting the land where I live. A once rural suburban community, comprised of simple homes, farms, orchards and wooded areas has been transformed over the past 20 - 30 years into an over-built "community" (a term I use loosely), comprised of McMansions, mega-malls, strip malls every way you turn, and stamped out homes built so close together, you can practically spit from the window of one home into the window of the next. Flooding, once a problem only in a few small areas, has become a much more wide-spread problem, due to over-building. Traffic is a daily issue and what were once two-lane roads, are constantly being widened to four lanes to accommodate the increased traffic, with the land being "taken" from the property owners along these roads. Crime is an ever-increasing problem, with open doors and bicycles left out on the driveway being replaced by dead-bolts and pad-locked sheds. If that's the future you'd like to see for the Adirondacks, I can only hope that there are enough people out there who don't want that kind of future and will work to prevent it.
 
 

this entire paragraph would've killed him quicker

campgottagopee wrote

Face4Me wrote

 
Second, as I've said previously in a separate thread related to the ACR, I wish there was an agency protecting the land where I live. A once rural suburban community, comprised of simple homes, farms, orchards and wooded areas has been transformed over the past 20 - 30 years into an over-built "community" (a term I use loosely), comprised of McMansions, mega-malls, strip malls every way you turn, and stamped out homes built so close together, you can practically spit from the window of one home into the window of the next. Flooding, once a problem only in a few small areas, has become a much more wide-spread problem, due to over-building. Traffic is a daily issue and what were once two-lane roads, are constantly being widened to four lanes to accommodate the increased traffic, with the land being "taken" from the property owners along these roads. Crime is an ever-increasing problem, with open doors and bicycles left out on the driveway being replaced by dead-bolts and pad-locked sheds. If that's the future you'd like to see for the Adirondacks, I can only hope that there are enough people out there who don't want that kind of future and will work to prevent it.

this entire paragraph would've killed him quicker

Ouch!!!

arthurmacdougall78 wrote

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/533273/It-s-time-to-consider-the-merits-of-the-Protect-Sierra-Club-lawsuit.html

Here is the link to that article again. Please copy/paste word-for-word the exact quote you are referring to.

a camp in DAKs is just another word for house whether its "great" or not. Everything out side a hamlet in the park is far flung.

Here is the quote

"shape how hundreds of thousands of acres of resource management lands could be developed in the future, with far-flung houses connected by a network of roads"

Roads don't just build themselves - towns, counties and the state build roads and that requires planning and review which is a local matter and not in the domain of Protect

Let's also note that the Tupper developemnt was not craving out roads in pristine wilderness miles from a town.  This development was in a designated hamlet or town which is a major distinction in the park as to where development can take place.

ausable skier wrote

arthurmacdougall78 wrote

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/533273/It-s-time-to-consider-the-merits-of-the-Protect-Sierra-Club-lawsuit.html

Here is the link to that article again. Please copy/paste word-for-word the exact quote you are referring to.

a camp in DAKs is just another word for house whether its "great" or not. Everything out side a hamlet in the park is far flung.

Here is the quote

"shape how hundreds of thousands of acres of resource management lands could be developed in the future, with far-flung houses connected by a network of roads"

Roads don't just build themselves - towns, counties and the state build roads and that requires planning and review which is a local matter and not in the domain of Protect

Please explain how the response above supports the statement you made before, quoted again below.

ausable skier wrote

and when the go on to say what they fear it is that someone will want to (horror of horrors) build a house and a dirt road to it

that would pretty much exclude any other development bigger than a house and that would equal any and all development - that is their ultimate goal

arthurmacdougall78 wrote

Please explain how the response above supports the statement you made before, quoted again below.

The newspaper editoral lays out Protects postion on why they must fight projects on the grounds that if approved it sets a precident.  The ARC development was not anywhere near the virgin back country that they talk about - they are fighting this because in some convulted way of thinking if this gets approved it opens up the vast unbroken tracts to a house or two and roads.  Their line of thinking is that we must draw a line in the sand at every project no matter how long it was reviewed, the APA vote count, the cost in jobs or tax payer money to fight the law suit.

The claim else where that they would agree with a smaller proposal but that too would set a precident and this editoral laid out their unwillingness to have developments set that precident so they are lying about a smaller resort development.

ausable skier wrote

arthurmacdougall78 wrote

Please explain how the response above supports the statement you made before, quoted again below.

The newspaper editoral lays out Protects postion on why they must fight projects on the grounds that if approved it sets a precident.  The ARC development was not anywhere near the virgin back country that they talk about - they are fighting this because in some convulted way of thinking if this gets approved it opens up the vast unbroken tracts to a house or two and roads.  Their line of thinking is that we must draw a line in the sand at every project no matter how long it was reviewed, the APA vote count, the cost in jobs or tax payer money to fight the law suit.

The claim else where that they would agree with a smaller proposal but that too would set a precident and this editoral laid out their unwillingness to have developments set that precident so they are lying about a smaller resort development.

There are a number of problems with your argument. For one, I'm not sure where you're getting "a house or two and roads." Last time I checked, ACR involved some 650-700 dwellings sprawled over at least a thousand acres of land. It is my understanding, as stated by Protect, that they are against the type of large-scale development that would actually be harmful to the environment. The claim that they would agree with a smaller proposal is not actually elsewhere- it is in the same article. Bauer very specifically describes the efforts his group put in toward a compromise that was not even considered by the developers of ACR.

I really don't see how you can directly say they are lying about that when they've provided considerable evidence to support this position and you have provided nothing concrete- the entire anti-Protect argument is "they're a bunch of meddling assholes," which, in my book, has nothing to do with the science behind environmentalism or the necessary due process of the law and the way our legal system works. Environmental groups support sustainable growth- building and the construction of communities in ways that have minimal environmental impact and provide the maximum return on investment for both the human population AND the environment. As far as the validity of the lawsuit goes, I don't see how the fact that the APA voted to approve the permits 10-1 is any kind of PROOF that the process was done properly and the vote was fair, unbiased, and uninfluenced by anyone either involved in ACR or with a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

As far as taxpayer money goes, I'm very happy that my tax money is going toward making sure the government agencies it funds are responsible and do their jobs correctly. If Protect really is wrong, they will lose the lawsuit and ACR will have a chance to prove itself economically. If Protect wins the lawsuit, I see that as conclusive proof that their argument was not at all frivolous or unfounded. As Bauer says in the article, it would be wonderful if everyone who is forming an opinion on the issue would actually read the entire lawsuit before judging it.