|
CapedCrusader
Apr 14, 2009, 3:16 PM
Post #151 of 217
(9296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
retr wrote: "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."
In the opinion of many landowners it's necessary as part of a campaign to draw attention to the law so it gets fixed. That you don't agree with that opinion, or you don't agree that it will be effective, doesn't make it false. Anyway, thanks retr for respecting the closure and for engaging in a reasoned discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 14, 2009, 3:19 PM
Post #152 of 217
(9293 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
donaldm wrote: as it should be
Yes, well Donald, therein lies the rub. I'd like to see it preserved too, but the burden should be shared. Are you willing to share the burden?
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Apr 14, 2009, 3:29 PM
Post #153 of 217
(9277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
Again, I don’t know the people involved, and frankly don’t care if they are the Dali Lama or Berni Madoff. I think that we are talking money here so the phrases “fair minded board”, “grossly unfair”, and “screwing their neighbors for life” don’t help my understanding.
If I may ask, how much devaluation are we talking here? Excluding general market conditions, the specific zoning changes reduced land value by an estimated what per acre (and percent)? Are the owners looking for a cash compensation for the reduction or are they looking at the price on the table offer between them and the preserve?
I assume by “share the burden” you mean cash. How much?
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 14, 2009, 3:31 PM
Post #154 of 217
(9274 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
I'll respond later Toast. Have to go for now.
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
Apr 14, 2009, 3:50 PM
Post #156 of 217
(9257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
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 Obviously, such an easement has defacto existed for years--and probably can not simply be withdrawn.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. I didn't want to see Bradley's project either, or any other like it, but as I've mentined many times now, the law goes way beyond that. I only included exerpts. It's 110 pages long altogether. I'm outta here for a while.
So you are opposed to developing, but you'd like the withering old man to be able to subdivide into small lots for developers...
|
|
|
|
|
donaldm
Apr 14, 2009, 3:53 PM
Post #157 of 217
(9250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2006
Posts: 8
|
I would be perfectly wiling to donate to a fund that purchased the lands in question for their fair market value today.
I'm not interested in contributing to make up the difference between todays fair market value and the speculated value of the lands fully developed that assumes the benefit of a sellers market environment, a developer friendly planning/zoning board, and the previous zoning code.
I know we would strongly disagree on this point... i'm not trying to change or argue with your position.
I think Toast in the Machine put it very very well regarding land speculation....While I sympathise with elderly people who based their retirement nest egg on a land speculation, but I don't feel i have any obligation to share the burden for their plight. I think they should go after who ever was advising them, if any.
And as I have said, I personally find lots of climbing for myself without having to set foot on the lands in question.
I also suspect, the lands are worth more than you think...that the fact that intensive development cannot take place adds value. But that is only a speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
elwood54
Apr 14, 2009, 4:12 PM
Post #158 of 217
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2005
Posts: 101
|
Kent,
I feel for you, honestly. It sucks that the value of your property has dropped. It sucks that you're still taxed at the old rate (btw, that's bs. they should seriously reassess your property). It also sucks that millions of people are out of work. It also sucks that hundreds of millions have had their retirement accounts cut in half. Life's not fair. You're just mad because you feel that you've been wronged and are looking for others to compensate you for your loss.
The ridge line should be protected. An undeveloped SP-3 sounds fine to me. Should climbers be repsonsible for paying an old market rate for some of these properties? I'm not so sure. If these old timers' retirement plan was this one investment, then they didn't diversify and took an unnecessary risk. Whether they held the property for 120 years or not. No one should base their retirement on one investment like this. How is it any different than a Citibank lifer investing only in Citi stock and loosing their entire savings? Should ATM users be forced to pay for their losses in the market?
Look man, the value of your property is lost, but the ridgeline is safe from development. Yes, the shoulders of the few are burdened for the good of the many. People getting screwed happens all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
bubo
Apr 14, 2009, 4:14 PM
Post #159 of 217
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 16
|
I think this thread has reached it's end
|
|
|
|
|
donaldm
Apr 14, 2009, 4:25 PM
Post #160 of 217
(9210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2006
Posts: 8
|
Agreed
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Apr 14, 2009, 5:15 PM
Post #161 of 217
(9177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
cracklover wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: f I may ask, how much devaluation are we talking here? Excluding general market conditions, the specific zoning changes reduced land value by an estimated what per acre (and percent)? According to Kent's post on page 4, the property value loses half to two thirds of its pre-zoning value. GO
Not all building lots are equal in value. He is valuing each of the two tracts he could now sell with the price of the smaller tracts he could sell before. So, part of the solution would be to charge more for each large tract than he would have charged for each of the smaller ones. The total amount he could sell it for would probably be less, but it is not clear to me that it would be as large a loss as stated.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 14, 2009, 7:07 PM
Post #162 of 217
(9142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jrathfon wrote: 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. I didn't want to see Bradley's project either, or any other like it, but as I've mentined many times now, the law goes way beyond that. I only included exerpts. It's 110 pages long altogether. I'm outta here for a while. So you are opposed to developing, but you'd like the withering old man to be able to subdivide into small lots for developers...
And therein lies the ultimate flaw in Kent's logic. Unless the landowners in question were actually going to sell out to developers who would then subdivide and build in the now restricted areas, the values of the properties in question would not be the inflated figures that Kent and his friends now believe they are somehow entitled to.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
RockRalph
Apr 14, 2009, 8:31 PM
Post #163 of 217
(9101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2009
Posts: 2
|
Kent, no wonder you don't climb anymore...how could you find the time...
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Apr 14, 2009, 9:13 PM
Post #164 of 217
(9071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
retr2327 wrote: ...taking it out on the climbers still seems of questionable morality...
You have a really weird idea of morality.
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
Apr 14, 2009, 9:32 PM
Post #165 of 217
(9057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
|
You're probably right; that was not the best word choice available. Keeping climbers off of your land because you're pissed off at preservationists/ Town of Gardiner voters in general is hardly some great moral issue.
It does seem petty and mis-directed, however.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Apr 14, 2009, 9:49 PM
Post #166 of 217
(9049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
retr2327 wrote: You're probably right; that was not the best word choice available. Keeping climbers off of your land because you're pissed off at preservationists/ Town of Gardiner voters in general is hardly some great moral issue. It does seem petty and mis-directed, however.
Well, that may be.
But I think Kent has a good point in that the cost of conservation should be absorbed fairly equally by the whole society. I think this action is how he's trying to make his point.
In general, I think this situation is kind of ironic. Almost any time you hear about increased user fees people go through the roof with indignant outrage but, apparently, as long as the cost is on someone else they seem to think it's perfectly okay.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Apr 14, 2009, 10:19 PM
Post #167 of 217
(9030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
I agree that the example that was used earlier with lots used some questionable assumptions. That is one reason I wanted the OP to clearly state the loss per acre.
Given the earlier example, and using a more “optimistic” rate, the lot is divided into 2 areas of 7 acres each. These would fetch 300k each (using the same current realtors.com offerings as a guide). This nets 600k. The remaining 11 SP3 acres could be donated and valued at 475k. This erases the tax burden on the sale of the 600k leaving more money in the property owner’s pocket than if the property was divided into 10 lots and sold for 750k.
Who pays for it? We all do, in lost tax revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
chrisb
Apr 15, 2009, 1:44 PM
Post #168 of 217
(8955 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2005
Posts: 62
|
I think an important constituency NOT yet mentioned in this discussion is the vastly more numerous valley land/homeowners. Ridgeline views are a pretty major selling point in the area surrounding the cliffs; those land/homeowners would likely (definitely?) see their property values decline if the ridge properties were subdivided and developed. l wonder how much input/influence those stakeholders had in the new Gardiner zoning law?
Kent--I can sympathize with the ridge landowners, to a certain extent. It does seem as though you guys are being targeted (especially when property tax values haven't been reassessed, what a farce), which makes me wonder about the valley landowners and their role (if any) in this ordeal.
On the other hand, I must admit that your posts (here and elsewhere) do make it seem as though you (collectively) are aiming to sell to developers and subdivide, protestations for the preservation of the ridge aside. This makes folks uneasy, I'm sure.
Additionally, there is the issue of area history or ethic, if you will: it's not as though there are thirty completely obtrusive and wildly profitable developments cluttering the ridge and now, suddenly, Gardiner is saying no to further development/profit/retirement security. There seems to be (to my admittedly poorly informed point of view) a pretty well established history of ridge preservation. Is this a valid legal argument? Of course not. But we all know that "legal" is not necessarily "right". And I think the preservationist history of the area is what sets folks teeth on edge when Kent et al start complaining about not being able to subdivide and develop lots.
Lastly, Kent is absolutely right about the GCC: they have totally dropped the ball and are a poor representation of the Gunks community. I've witnessed Kent (on gunks.com) trying to engage the GCC, to no avail. At the very least, this should be a wake up call to the climbing community that we need a strong, membership-based, and accountable representative body. We have lost part of the finest crag in North America and are now the laughingstock of climbing communities in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 15, 2009, 2:05 PM
Post #169 of 217
(8942 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
shockabuku wrote: retr2327 wrote: You're probably right; that was not the best word choice available. Keeping climbers off of your land because you're pissed off at preservationists/ Town of Gardiner voters in general is hardly some great moral issue. It does seem petty and mis-directed, however. Well, that may be. But I think Kent has a good point in that the cost of conservation should be absorbed fairly equally by the whole society. I think this action is how he's trying to make his point. In general, I think this situation is kind of ironic. Almost any time you hear about increased user fees people go through the roof with indignant outrage but, apparently, as long as the cost is on someone else they seem to think it's perfectly okay.
If the land is sold to the non-profit then both the non-profit and the town lose money. The non-profit loses because it spent money to purchase the land. The town loses money due to the lack of taxes being paid on the land (thus, the residents must now pay a higher tax rate in order to be held harmless).
- In the instance where the property is sold at full value, then the government gains in the short term as a result of up-front taxes paid on the sale of the land. Once that up-front revenue is spent, then the govt (most likely the town) begins to lose as a result of the land being owned by a non-profit (i.e. - it is no longer taxable). When this happens, the residents lose out because they must now pay a higher tax rate for the same services.
- The owner benefits over the short term, with the medium and long term benefits varying based on opportunity costs (i.e. - unknown market fluctuations)
- The non-profit loses over the short or medium term (depending on depreciation) but gains over the long term (as depreciation expires and the benefit of not paying taxes is realized).
In order to share equally, the cost to all parties needs to be examined, not just the land owners. It's always a zero-sum game, and there's always at least two sides to the story. In this case, it seems there are many sides.
While I've been primarily railing against Kent for his methodology and poor use of political tools, I also don't believe for an instant that he's taking into consideration everyone's contribution here. And to be fair, I agree that he's losing out at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
2dogs
Apr 15, 2009, 8:01 PM
Post #170 of 217
(8861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2009
Posts: 1
|
kent what i find surprising is your many sentiments on"community" when you're here less then part time. the gunks is your 2nd home. i'm bored with the current discussion. lets hear about your home in Connecticut and your Connecticut based business.
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 15, 2009, 8:56 PM
Post #171 of 217
(8826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
I haven't had time to respond to some of the other posts above yet, but for the moment I'll respond to just this one.
It's interesting that people not only are in error about what I'm thinking but also where I'm living. I do own a company in CT yes. My primary residence however is in Gardiner. I work remotely sometimes and drive in sometimes. In some years I rent an apartment in CT, but am not doing so currently. Any other details you'd like to know?
Wanna have a beer tonight at the Brau? :)
|
|
|
|
|
kam6also
Apr 15, 2009, 9:23 PM
Post #172 of 217
(8811 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2007
Posts: 25
|
What I want to know is if I go to the Gunks in May am I going to be able to climb or should I go somewhere else? I'll be in Syracuse for a week.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Apr 15, 2009, 9:39 PM
Post #173 of 217
(8800 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
kam6also wrote: What I want to know is if I go to the Gunks in May am I going to be able to climb or should I go somewhere else? I'll be in Syracuse for a week.
There are miles of legally climbable cliff left - you should be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Apr 15, 2009, 10:10 PM
Post #174 of 217
(8792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
kam6also wrote: What I want to know is if I go to the Gunks in May am I going to be able to climb or should I go somewhere else? I'll be in Syracuse for a week.
this closure is approx. 150 feet of cliff* - yes, less than one rope length - and the access trail to the remainder of the cliff. All this means is that getting to climbs on the southern half will take a little longer with a little bit more walking, and out of around 1000 documented routes, you can't climb about 4 of them.
[*: yes, technically it's about 900' total when you include the closed section of the Bayards, but there's no worthwhile rock climbing on that choss heap.]
(This post was edited by marc801 on Apr 15, 2009, 10:14 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Apr 15, 2009, 11:56 PM
Post #175 of 217
(8765 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
These areas in the Near Trapps have been relatively neglected until the last few years, when there has been a renaissance led by Dick Williams. I think the majority of climbers have not visited these areas, know little or nothing about them, and so won't feel at all deprived by their loss. Those who think that there is no climbing in the middle of the Near Trapps won't be terribly inconvenienced, since it it no big deal to walk along the top and descend if you are heading for the climbs around Main Line.
The newer climbs have all been done without any fixed gear, and so there can be protection challenges even on moderate routes. Climbers used to finding a fixed pin when they can't get in a decent-sized cam may not enjoy these routes anyway.
All in all, these aren't the sort of thing a first-time Gunks climber is going to head for; there are so many classics is the Trapps and Northern Near Trapps to do first. Certainly there is no conceivable need to postpone a visit to the Gunks because of these closures.
I think there are about 8 excellent single-pitch routes that are now closed to climbers, and the ability to traverse the cliff base doing good first pitches has now been eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
