|
bubo
Apr 13, 2009, 5:55 PM
Post #126 of 217
(9245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 16
|
CapedCrusader wrote: Bubo.....again, pay attention to the details.
You know what... I've just had enough of you. I've tried to understand where you're coming from but I’ve had enough. You started this thread, you dumped your problems here and now you have successfully made an enemy congratulations.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 13, 2009, 5:57 PM
Post #127 of 217
(9245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
CapedCrusader wrote: curt wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: In reply to: Well, if climbers do anything, they should probably just sue Kent and the other landowners for a prescriptive easement across their land. Obviously, such an easement has defacto existed for years--and probably can not simply be withdrawn. Curt First Curt, we're ready for that. But a prescriptive easement for what? to climb? That's not possible. Successfully suing for a right-of-way across land might be possible, although it's not likely. Further, as I wrote on gunks.com several days ago, litigation minded climbers might pause to consider there is a whole lot of climbing out there on private land that is not closed. The current closure is a consequence of an expression of entitlement in the form of the ridge zoning law. The next closure could well be a consequence of an expression of entitlement in the form of litigation against landowners who choose to close their land. Well, keep in mind that you are the one who has turned this zoning restriction into an unnecessary conflict between climbers and landowners--not me. The only reason to sue for a prescriptive easement is because you are already being a jackass towards climbers. You probably should have thought this through a bit better, prior to taking action that not only won't work, but may actually work against you. CapedCrusader wrote: Also, the other day you mentioned you were a Life Endowment Member of the Mohonk Preserve. As a fellow Life Endowment Member, if you get back this way from Arizona, I'd be happy to take you around to visit with some of the Preserve neighbors I'm talking about. Thanks. I may just do that. By the way, I agree with the others who opined that this zoning restriction sounds like it was a direct response to the Bradley development and was intended to prevent future plans for that type of high-density development. Curt Yeah, well Curt, Jackass is in the eye of the beholder and as I've mentioned before I'm not expecting to win any popularity contests among climbers...
Well, in that case, you're succeeding brilliantly. However, quite apart from winning any sort of popularity contest, I would think that you would at least like people to be somewhat sympathetic to your position. It's fairly clear that your actions are driving most people in exactly the opposite direction.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 13, 2009, 6:09 PM
Post #129 of 217
(9235 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
curt wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: Yeah, well Curt, Jackass is in the eye of the beholder and as I've mentioned before I'm not expecting to win any popularity contests among climbers... Well, in that case, you're succeeding brilliantly. However, quite apart from winning any sort of popularity contest, I would think that you would at least like people to be somewhat sympathetic to your position. It's fairly clear that your actions are driving most people in exactly the opposite direction. Curt
Seconded, for something like the 50th time. Not sure how he isn't seeing that, but it's clear that he isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
apeman_e
Apr 13, 2009, 6:31 PM
Post #130 of 217
(9232 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2008
Posts: 212
|
After reading the restrictions you posted, I can whole-heartedly say I support the zoning laws. Do you really want to see developers permanently change the landscape? Didn't you buy your gunks property because you loved the natural setting?
Also, I'm just curious- how much less (%) do you think you property is worth now that it is less attractive to developers? I don't really expect an answer, but it would give all of us an idea of the plight you and the "little old ladies" are facing.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 13, 2009, 6:47 PM
Post #131 of 217
(9217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
apeman_e wrote: After reading the restrictions you posted, I can whole-heartedly say I support the zoning laws. Do you really want to see developers permanently change the landscape? Didn't you buy your gunks property because you loved the natural setting? Also, I'm just curious- how much less (%) do you think you property is worth now that it is less attractive to developers? I don't really expect an answer, but it would give all of us an idea of the plight you and the "little old ladies" are facing.
Actually, I think he said somewhere that the idea wasn't to sell to developers but to sell to the Preserve at developer rates. It's my understanding that the landowners don't want to develop the land so much as they want to sell it for the higher rates for preservation purposes.
Also, he noted somewhere that values may have decreased from about $750k to something like $450k. I may be getting some of the numbers mixed up.
To be clear, because I know it sounds as if I'm supporting him here (clearly, I haven't been), but I'm not necessarily coming out in support with this post. I just wanted to clarify what I think he's already said.
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
Apr 13, 2009, 7:12 PM
Post #133 of 217
(9200 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
|
Kent says: "retr, I believe that once the sense of entitlement many Preserve members have to privately held land is fully understood, then fair minded Gardiner residents, at least those who are not Preserve members, will rally and vote to restore some semblance of fairness to the conduct of town government."
This is an interesting comment, which suggests a truly Byzantine strategy: bait climbers into making inflammatory remarks by closing the access (and making misleading/incomplete assertions about what's going on), then turn around and use those inflammatory remarks against the zoning law and try to get the law repealed/amended.
It doesn't strike me as all that likely to succeed, but it might have a better chance of success then trying to raise funds from Gunkies by alienating them. Threatening to sue for a prescriptive easement would play right into Kent's strategy . . . .
Of course, for maximum impact, Kent would have to omit all the posts that have been even partially sympathetic to the homeowners' situation.
ps: FWIW, I think the chances of successfully suing for a prescriptive easement are virtually nil. Such easements are generally obtained by landowners who have a long history of using a portion of their neighbor's property as a means of access to an otherwise land-locked property (i.e., one with no road frontage). Extending that concept to climbers who have no legally-recognized property right in the "landlocked" area in question (i.e, the lower nears) seems far-fetched, at best. Worse, the lower nears cannot fairly be said to be inaccessible (rap or descend at the end).
Last, but by no means least, if climbers start arguing that anytime access has been allowed for a sufficient length of time, they therefore obtain some right to continue the access even when the owners seek to revoke access, no owner in his/her right mind will grant access again.
So let's not get carried away with talk about suing the landowners for access. It's not going to work, and it would be a really bad idea to even try.
(This post was edited by retr2327 on Apr 13, 2009, 7:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bubo
Apr 13, 2009, 7:53 PM
Post #134 of 217
(9164 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 16
|
“Byzantine Strategy” LOLOL that’s too funny
I totally agree with not getting carried away with talk about suing for land access. I have no problem respecting his land rights. Also if I am supposed to be in favor of land preservation, shouldn’t I also be willing to put backing development restrictions before my access to a few routes? Like you stated, there are other ways to get there.
And I gotta confess… I think I remember even doing one of two of them… and I’ve need climbing at the gunks for 15plus years, if they are what I think they are, I cant justify putting development restrictions before access to them.
I think after reading the threads it seems that the restrictions are pretty sensible. I don’t want the land right in front of the cliffs developed. And I really don’t understand why someone who moved there would even consider it.
(This post was edited by bubo on Apr 13, 2009, 7:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
donaldm
Apr 13, 2009, 8:22 PM
Post #135 of 217
(9134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2006
Posts: 8
|
I climb in the gunks every weekend i can...I love the place...
for me this is simple....
I've read the zoning code, agree with all of it and thank god the code is in effect.
Also, I have no problem what ever staying off the privately held lands...
And i hope the code doesn't get watered down in the future...
(This post was edited by donaldm on Apr 13, 2009, 8:23 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bubo
Apr 13, 2009, 8:24 PM
Post #136 of 217
(9127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 16
|
bump 
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 13, 2009, 9:04 PM
Post #137 of 217
(9087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
I was hardly being serious about suing Kent or anyone else for access across their land. I certainly have no interest in doing that. I only made the comment to point out that Kent is certainly not getting most people behind him by his actions--he is merely alienating them.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Apr 13, 2009, 9:06 PM
Post #138 of 217
(9084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
Unless climbers are allowed to climb I hope that the price of real estate drops through the basement.
You want to make money invest in stocks now. Land is a gamble larger than stocks in areas where zoning is unrestricted. Now that it's restricted it's not worth so much.
I like it this way.
I've seen land that people sell for gazillions only to raise the tax base in the area. In the end it drives their own relatives out of the same area that the family owned for the last 200 years. Hard work makes money not cheap land only to sell when the market is "rich"
Dump it while you can. It's not going to get much better now is it?
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Apr 13, 2009, 9:28 PM
Post #139 of 217
(9074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
First the disclaimers… I have never been to the Gunks, I’m not familiar with any of the parties, places or organizations involved. Next for the indications of my expertise… I do own property, I have owned land in an absolutely un-zoned area as well as within a covenanted suburb. Last for my snippy comment before I start – as for the person who had the property for 120 years, who owned it before that? Were they fairly compensated or were they kicked off to the reservation?
My main point is this – there is no guarantee with property. In fact, much of the “current” economic issues stems from a misperception that there is. If the road that is less than one half of a mile from my house gets expanded then my property value drops. If the park near by stops hosting a noisy activity then my property value goes up. If a major employer leaves town or goes under, value drops. If the local school wins a national award for excellence, value increases. There are many, many, many things that go into property value including zoning and regulatory environment. Property is not a low risk investment. Property value is not guaranteed.
When conditions change for the worse - too freaking bad. That $750k you thought it was worth, just an estimate. An item truly only gets value when it is sold. If the OP can get more money for the property by creating a false sense of urgency then good for him. I wouldn’t try that, it seems the more successful way would be to get on the “more powerful” side of the problem (i.e. the people who supported the passing of the rules). My guess is that there is money to be had there, if you can get the right sales pitch.
And lastly, I never trust someone who is “protecting” others out of some noble sense. “Show me the money”.
|
|
|
|
|
donaldm
Apr 14, 2009, 11:01 AM
Post #140 of 217
(8985 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2006
Posts: 8
|
Really well put..
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Apr 14, 2009, 12:34 PM
Post #141 of 217
(8965 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
It was the GCC getting involved that put the climbers at odds with the landowners here.If you don't think a 25 foot height limitation affects land values adversely,you're just plain wrong.The norm in most communities is 35 feet.I frequently have to get waivers even for that limitation.
I'm all for land preservation when the people who want to "preserve" come up with the going price for the land.Pidgeonholing people into selling at reduced prices through legislative manipulation is dead wrong.
That visitor center isn't over 25 feet tall?
You know the difference between a developer and the preserve?The developer wants to build something 35 feet tall....
I love the self righteous nature of people like Happi who think they should be able to dictate how long a landowners driveway should be.
How long is the "driveway" to the Mohonk Mountain House?
|
|
|
|
|
donaldm
Apr 14, 2009, 1:15 PM
Post #142 of 217
(8941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2006
Posts: 8
|
I never commented on any of this but since you bring it up...
Check the "definitions" portion of the Gardiner zoning code. As is typical in most zoning codes building height for gable type sloped roof buildings is measured from average finish grade to mean distance from eave to peak of roof.
If you lay that out (which as an architect i have done countless times), 25' height will give you a 2 story building w/ 8' ceiling heights and a roof pitch over 4 in 12 and a reasonable building width and be under 25' as measured by the code....
it is true most codes allow 35' from average finish grade to mean distance between eave and gable but unless you want to produce a mcmansion, its excessive and communities are starting to torque this dimension down in their codes...
I don't expect you, or kent to agree with me on any of this...
And i don't care.
I think its a really well constructed code and am glad its there.
(This post was edited by donaldm on Apr 14, 2009, 1:16 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bubo
Apr 14, 2009, 1:44 PM
Post #143 of 217
(8922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 16
|
There are times when climbers just amaze me…
I gotta confess, sometimes when I go to the cliffs or a climbing part talking to climbers makes me nuts, I know… and I’m one of them. You either end up talking about what they did or what they want to do, or how well they climbed this route or that route.
But then there are times… like when you see people run to help out in a rescue thinking nothing of carrying a rescue litter down to the carriage road, doing trail work or lending a hand to help someone they have never meet dislodge a stubborn rope.
It sounds totally corny but dignity like still impresses the crap out of me.
And I think I see that same type of attitude regarding this situation. To sum up what I have read on this thread…
Most climbers agree with the zoning law and back it, and if the price tag of backing the zoning law is having a portion of the cliffs closed off then that’s the way it is.
For me that shows a ton of class.
Someday, when I grow up I wanna be just like you guys.
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 14, 2009, 1:56 PM
Post #144 of 217
(8911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
Retr…..I’m not baiting climbers.
Expressions of entitlement in the form of trespassing on private land, threatened lawsuits against landowners, and support for the confiscatory ridge zoning law will of course rally many Gardiner town residents to say enough is enough. Accordingly more land may close. More people may vote for a fair minded town board in this fall’s election, or the one after that, or the one after that.
Toast, changing market conditions are not at issue here. Everyone expects markets to fluctuate. Everyone expects zoning regulations to change to a degree over time. If zoning regulations were approximately the same across town, or reasonable on the ridge in any way, there wouldn’t be a problem. No one however, expected the majority to abuse regulatory authority and exploit a tiny group of landowners to such a great degree. As I’ve mentioned many times before, such abuse of regulatory authority doesn’t build community, it destroys it.
Also Toast, from afar, like you, I wouldn’t trust anyone either. That’s why I’m inviting people to come meet the neighbors. Come visit me for a day. I’ll take you around to meet the neighbors of whom I speak. Werner Wustrau, even in his seventies, is still quite spry and he would be happy to walk his land with you and tell you what he thinks. After meeting Werner and some of the other neighbors, then see if you want to report back here about the greedy profiteering people who own land on the ridge. Then report back here about why these people who are actually quite kind, humble, and gracious should sacrifice so much while you yourself should sacrifice so little.
Someone, tell me again, why should the few dozen landowners on the ridge shoulder such an enormous burden for the other 5,000 people in town, for the 10,000 members of the multi-million dollar Mohonk Preserve, for the 1,000,000 members of the multi-billion dollar Nature Conservancy?
As for pissing off climbers with the land closure, as I mentioned on gunks.com, it’s my opinion that fair minded climbers, aware of all the facts, will recognize the conduct of the Preserve as predatory. They will recognize what the town has done with the zoning law as grossly unfair. They will recognize the best way to develop relationships with landowners is to respect private property, including land closures. Additionally, they will recognize the closure as a necessary, albeit inconvenient, consequence of the ridge zoning law.
The other climbers, those who think they are entitled to climb on private land, those who think saving the land, by screwing the neighbors, for life, is a good thing, they are the core of the problem, the belly of the beast, and the most direct cause of the closure. I don’t really mind pissing them off.
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Apr 14, 2009, 2:13 PM
Post #145 of 217
(8895 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Don't know where you work Donald,but in every community I build in the 35' is measured to peak,not mean of peak and eave.Almost no one builds eight foot ceiling anymore except low end tract.One nine foot ceiling,and one eight on F2 is seventeen feet,plus two floor systems of one foot each is nineteen feet.I've built 72 new homes,and never put a 4/12 or anything near that low in our mountain climate,but in a twenty four foot deep building,which is also just low end tract,there's four feet plus the raised heel,and you have just barely enough to get the house 24 inches out of the dirt.
A stock truss is steeper than 4/12.You can not build a two story house 28 feet deep and meet that requirement.
That height defines low end construction,which in turn means low end lot pricing.No one pays 150,000K for a lot,or more,to build a house that costs less than the lot.
|
|
|
|
|
bubo
Apr 14, 2009, 2:36 PM
Post #146 of 217
(8867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 16
|
CapedCrusader wrote: Retr…..I’m not baiting climbers.
That’s good news…
donaldm wrote: I climb in the gunks every weekend i can...I love the place... for me this is simple.... I've read the zoning code, agree with all of it and thank god the code is in effect. Also, I have no problem what ever staying off the privately held lands... And i hope the code doesn't get watered down in the future...
I agree 100% with this quote, I have no argument with you Kent. And I think you have no argument with the vast majority of climber as well.
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
Apr 14, 2009, 2:39 PM
Post #147 of 217
(8859 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
|
Kent:
Thanks for the reply, which makes some very valid points.
"Why should the few dozen landowners on the ridge shoulder such an enormous burden for the other 5,000 people in town, for the 10,000 members of the multi-million dollar Mohonk Preserve, for the 1,000,000 members of the multi-billion dollar Nature Conservancy?"
This is the heart of the problem, and it's a real one. But it did not really originate with climbers as such, at least not directly; if it had, it surely would have tried (with doubtful legality) to include some provision requiring access. That's what climbers, as climbers, want. Preservation, on the other hand, is a more widely shared value, one that many climbers are likely to support, but that is also -- obviously -- shared by a majority of the Town, or this zoning law would never have passed. So taking it out on the climbers still seems of questionable morality and of questionable utility.
Which is why this part - "they will recognize the closure as a necessary, albeit inconvenient, consequence of the ridge zoning law" still just seems false. It wasn't necessary, even though the emotional response that made it likely is understandable. And it doesn't seem like it will be productive or, as a practical matter, sustainable. Not because some legal challenge would succeed (it won't), nor because the owners don't have the right to close it (they do), but because it's difficult to see how this closure can really be enforced, year after year, with so many climbers coming up to the Gunks who never read sites like this.
But that's not my problem, and not my fight: I'll stay off the land.
|
|
|
|
|
donaldm
Apr 14, 2009, 2:51 PM
Post #148 of 217
(8849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2006
Posts: 8
|
I work 30 miles from the gunks...I have about 10 local communitites zoning codes on my shelf and they all measure to the midpoint of eave to ridge when determining building height.
Any Architect could work w/ the Gardiner zoning code and produce a very good looking, affordable residence in the SP District that would be in context with its surroundings.
8 foot ceilings/4 in 12 roof pitches can and do exist on higher end residences, unless you specialize in tract homes and then thats another story...you could go steeper than that and still meet the code.
Also, don't forget flat roofs would give you the full 25' for use. A combination of flat and pitched roofs well put together would work well in this area.
There is no question the code in the SP district is complex. Stock building answers probably won't work well here. That goes with the territory as far as i'm concerned. See Toast in the Machine on point comment.
But enough of this...I agree w/ the code. I have no interest in walking on the lands in question. Theres still plenty of great climbing at the gunks.
(This post was edited by donaldm on Apr 14, 2009, 2:53 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 14, 2009, 3:05 PM
Post #149 of 217
(8841 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
Donald wrote: "Any Architect could work w/ the Gardiner zoning code and produce a very good looking, affordable residence in the SP District that would be in context with its surroundings."
Donald, I'll write a bit more later in response to some of your remarks, but for the moment I'll simply say, no architect could produce a very good looking house in a SP-3 because, under the law, no building is allowed in SP-3.
|
|
|
|
|
donaldm
Apr 14, 2009, 3:09 PM
Post #150 of 217
(8836 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2006
Posts: 8
|
as it should be
|
|
|
|
|
|
