|
|
|
|
sosure
Apr 16, 2009, 12:08 AM
Post #176 of 217
(6587 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 40
|
I sat back and watched this thread, and the parallel thread at gunks.com, for a while. I swore I'd never post to rc.com again, but I can't help but opine: Ken you are a giant douche.
The only meaningful distinction between Gardiner and the thousands of other square miles of uninteresting and generally low-rent property in the Catskills or upstate NY is its proximity to the preserve. Your land is worth only slightly more than nothing solely because your neighbor has chosen to grant the public access and not develop its holdings. Rather than sit back and be grateful that you have quiet enjoyment of your property and the peace of mind of knowing that a subdivision isn't going in next door, all you can do is kvetch about the hundreds of thousands of dollars you might otherwise imagine in your pocket. That the Wustrau heirs are today deprived of the opportunity gain maximum profit on increased consumer demand for access to the preserve when for each and every of the last 120 years they chose to NOT develop their parcel isn't worth a sigh, let alone a tear.
I'm not going to cry for you any more than I might cry for some native Indians who might wish they could have the land back to build a Casino. Your problem isn't that climbers weren't aware of the horrible plight you have suffered at the hands of a parasitic preserve and subservient town government. Your problem is that you are so narcissistic that you cannot see that no one is ever going to make your private greed their personal cause. In the end, you will succeed only in inconveniencing a lot of nice people and creating a legacy for yourself roughly as unflattering as your fellow CT douchebag, Ken Nichols.
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 16, 2009, 12:46 AM
Post #177 of 217
(6568 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
Pretty typical sosure, and why we closed the land.
|
|
|
|
|
sosure
Apr 16, 2009, 1:28 AM
Post #178 of 217
(6556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 40
|
CapedCrusader wrote: Pretty typical sosure, and why we closed the land.
And why you should lose it in a taking.
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 16, 2009, 1:30 AM
Post #179 of 217
(6554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
I don't have time to spar right now sosure, but perhaps, when you get a chance, you could elaborate on why we should lose it in a taking. I'll reply when I get a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
bubo
Apr 16, 2009, 2:30 PM
Post #180 of 217
(6465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 16
|
Kent,
Why are you still posting?
There are a lot of people who back the re-zoning law 100%. And I have not heard anyone say that they will not respect your wishes to stay off your land.
Although I find your replies here on the board insulting and argumenative, you still have no problem with me repsecting your rights as a land owner.
It sure seems to me that this matter is closed, and this thread died awhile ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 16, 2009, 3:14 PM
Post #181 of 217
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
rgold wrote: 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.
All good points, but what about those who aren't new and really like the end of the Nears and were looking forward to getting on these newer routes?
[/whine] 
|
|
|
|
|
kam6also
Apr 16, 2009, 9:26 PM
Post #182 of 217
(6382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2007
Posts: 25
|
Any suggestions for a first time Gunks climbs / bouldering. Someplace that will be easy/(er) to access. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get a partner and the least I'd like to boulder or hike.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 16, 2009, 9:32 PM
Post #183 of 217
(6378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: rgold wrote: 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. All good points, but what about those who aren't new and really like the end of the Nears and were looking forward to getting on these newer routes? [/whine]
Climbing at the end of the Nears (as Rich has pointed out) is unaffected by this closure--only Kent's relatively insignificant piece of choss is.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Apr 16, 2009, 10:00 PM
Post #184 of 217
(6362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
sosure wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: Pretty typical sosure, and why we closed the land. And why you should lose it in a taking.
Wow, we should send you off to another country with a government that holds your views. Personally I would rather shoot you in the face than support taking someone's property because you don't like their response to a zoning law or the fact that they want to sell it for half a bizillion .5 acre lots for wall to wall low income or high income housing.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Apr 17, 2009, 1:33 AM
Post #186 of 217
(6313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
"Gmburns2000 wrote: what about those who aren't new and really like the end of the Nears and were looking forward to getting on these newer routes? [/whine]
As I said, there are lots of good short routes scattered throughout the length of the Near Trapps, not just at the ends. Eight of those routes, including one really excellent 5.9 pitch (By the Toe Direct) are now off-limits. I sympathize with your whining; I feel the same way, and I at least have had the chance to do those routes.
The whole thing is, I suppose, the way minorities fight for their rights in a democracy. The zoning regulations were arrived at in a legal way. The landowners are making use of their legal opportunities to try to make enough noise to bring pressure on Gardiner to make some changes. Whenever a minority group stirs things up in order to bring attention to a perceived injustice, they run the risk of creating a counterproductive backlash in a bid for support.
It is too soon to tell whether this particular strategy will work to the benefit or detriment of the landowners. I personally don't agree with Kent about many things, but I respect his integrity, his articulateness in advancing his position, and his persistence in pursuing the only remedies he can find. These are qualities we admire in climbers when applied to their climbing projects; we are not so happy when we find ourselves on the losing end of a proposition many feel we have little ability to influence anyway. I'm not supporting him, mind you, but I'm not bashing him either. I hope we all find a way out of this mess.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Apr 17, 2009, 11:12 AM
Post #187 of 217
(6275 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
CapedCrusader wrote: I'll respond later Toast. Have to go for now.
I patiently and respectfully await your reply.
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 17, 2009, 12:33 PM
Post #188 of 217
(6256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
Hi Toast.
Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience. I gave a talk yesterday and so have been prepping for that rather than writing for this.
Your previous question...In reply to: "If I may ask, how much devaluation are we talking here?"
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.
In the zoning law development process, landowners asked for a compensation clause in the law. One that would allow for a predetermined, mutually agreed upon objective appraisal process wherein if the law cost the landowner more than a certain amount, then the town would have the option of either compensating the landowner or allowing the landowner to build under the old zoning law, which was already the most restrictive in town. This suggestion was ignored.
Donald wrote In reply to: "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."
Well, that's the problem. 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.
In my mind, a fund to whcih those so motivated, could contribute money to the degree of their motivation, which would be used to purchase land on the ridge at market rates would be a good way to go for landowners, climbers, and the rest of the community. This of course with the current zoning law amended to address some of the inequities ot the old zoning law with some resaonable additional restrictions.
Elwood said In reply to: "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."
Yeah, people do get screwed all the time, but they also do what they can to be sure those who did the screwing are called to account and they do what they can to receover their losses.
As for the ridge being safe from development, it's not. Zoning laws change. The land is safe from development for now. That's why those that would use this law to try to protect the ridge wish landowners would up and die about now. Why? A landowners death is the event most likely to trigger a sale. Oft times land is sold or conservation easements are sold upon a landowners death so that estate taxes can be paid. Once the town or Preserve own the land or purchase a conservation easement only then will the development rights be extinguished in perpetuity.
That's the brute core strategy. Restrain the land for as long as possible in the hopes that the landowners, many of whom are already pretty old, will die while it's restrained. Then cheap land can be had, and everyone can go rock climbing. Woohoo!!
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 17, 2009, 12:42 PM
Post #189 of 217
(6252 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
Sosure, you seem unable to engage in a civil discussion. It seems like last year you ran away and hid under a rock after being schooled by some of your elders on why you dropped your second. Now you show up with an intense rant. Seriously, you might want to choose a different sport. One where a great discrepancy between your confidence level and your skill level, won't get you and/or your partner killed. Try croquet. It's relaxing, and no one's going to get hurt when you eff it up.
And Bubo, isn't it kind of oxymoronic to post up and whine about why a thread hasn't yet died?
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Apr 17, 2009, 12:46 PM
Post #190 of 217
(6251 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
Rich, thanks for the kind words.
Although we often disagree, because of our mutual respect, had it been up to us, we would have been able to hammer out a reasonable, workable law, and then we would have gone climbing. And never in a million years would any land have been closed.
(This post was edited by CapedCrusader on Apr 17, 2009, 1:02 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sosure
Apr 17, 2009, 1:20 PM
Post #191 of 217
(6234 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 40
|
shockabuku wrote: sosure wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: Pretty typical sosure, and why we closed the land. And why you should lose it in a taking. Wow, we should send you off to another country with a government that holds your views. Personally I would rather shoot you in the face than support taking someone's property because you don't like their response to a zoning law or the fact that they want to sell it for half a bizillion .5 acre lots for wall to wall low income or high income housing.
In my country, this is the law: Kelo v New London SCOTUS 2005. Love it or leave it, bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Apr 17, 2009, 1:48 PM
Post #192 of 217
(6216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
CapedCrusader wrote: Donald wrote In reply to: "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." Well, that's the problem. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
Apr 17, 2009, 2:31 PM
Post #193 of 217
(6198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
|
At this point, I don't see a lot of point in noting that Kent's actions have "all the earmarks of merely a profit motive"; he's pretty much conceded that this is about recovering the differential between prior (developable) value and current (highly restricted) value. And it's not as if there's anything wrong with "merely a profit motive"; that's certainly their right, and I wonder how many of us, contemplating retirement, would really choose to donate the land at a substantial sacrifice rather than sell it to the highest bidder.
If you really think you would be willing to give up $100,000 in the name of preservation, then step right up: I bet Kent knows some landowners who would be happy to make a deal.
That said, Kent's remarks about the unfairness of the estate tax seem -- again -- somewhat overstated. From the IRS website:
________________________________________________
"The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death (Refer to Form 706 (PDF)). The fair market value of these items is used, not necessarily what you paid for them or what their values were when you acquired them. The total of all of these items is your "Gross Estate." The includible property may consist of cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, annuities, business interests and other assets.
Once you have accounted for the Gross Estate, certain deductions (and in special circumstances, reductions to value) are allowed in arriving at your "Taxable Estate." These deductions may include mortgages and other debts, estate administration expenses, property that passes to surviving spouses and qualified charities. The value of some operating business interests or farms may be reduced for estates that qualify.
After the net amount is computed, the value of lifetime taxable gifts (beginning with gifts made in 1977) is added to this number and the tax is computed. The tax is then reduced by the available unified credit. Presently, the amount of this credit reduces the computed tax so that only total taxable estates and lifetime gifts that exceed $1,000,000 will actually have to pay tax. In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans."
_______________________________
Long story short, landowners with a taxable estate under $1,000,000 don't have to worry (and I believe the figure is going up, IIRC). So again, we're not talking cat food diets. And the good new is, since the restrictive zoning has reduced the value of the land so much, the chances of exceeding $1,000,000 in taxable value have been greatly reduced . . . .
Small consolation, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Apr 17, 2009, 5:42 PM
Post #194 of 217
(6157 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
sosure wrote: shockabuku wrote: sosure wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: Pretty typical sosure, and why we closed the land. And why you should lose it in a taking. Wow, we should send you off to another country with a government that holds your views. Personally I would rather shoot you in the face than support taking someone's property because you don't like their response to a zoning law or the fact that they want to sell it for half a bizillion .5 acre lots for wall to wall low income or high income housing. In my country, this is the law: Kelo v New London SCOTUS 2005. Love it or leave it, bitch.
I'd still rather shoot you in the face.
|
|
|
|
|
RockRalph
Apr 17, 2009, 7:58 PM
Post #195 of 217
(6127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2009
Posts: 2
|
I appreciate that everyone is frustrated. I can understand that Kent is because the value of a piece of land that he bought (probably over-priced at the time) isn’t worth its potential because of the new zoning laws. I also sympathize with the climbers that are now being denied access to a small piece of the cliff (which has always been private) or inconvenienced by the additional time that it will take to access the routes at the far end of the Near Trapps.
All of that being said, maybe all of this is truly a blessing in disguise. For many years Kent has terrorized the cliffs with his attempts to woe the young lady climbers with gifts and gab (I know the gab part is almost hard to believe, but it’s true).
At this point, Kent will probably not be spending much time at this cliff this summer.
You know what this means, this could be my chance…
Gotta go, must stock up on presents and cheesy small talk….
(This post was edited by RockRalph on Apr 17, 2009, 8:04 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sosure
Apr 17, 2009, 8:45 PM
Post #196 of 217
(6104 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 40
|
shockabuku wrote: sosure wrote: shockabuku wrote: sosure wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: Pretty typical sosure, and why we closed the land. And why you should lose it in a taking. Wow, we should send you off to another country with a government that holds your views. Personally I would rather shoot you in the face than support taking someone's property because you don't like their response to a zoning law or the fact that they want to sell it for half a bizillion .5 acre lots for wall to wall low income or high income housing. In my country, this is the law: Kelo v New London SCOTUS 2005. Love it or leave it, bitch. I'd still rather shoot you in the face.
Yeah but you won't. You'll just talk about it. On a chatboard. Bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Apr 17, 2009, 9:29 PM
Post #197 of 217
(6092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
I don’t know the motivations of you or the town and, for the most part, think that speculating on the reasons is a not of a benefit. I am simply trying to expand the dialogue so that as much as I can, I could hopefully point some of the parties towards alternatives.
Would an amendment to the zoning law that allowed for donations to be valued at prior taxed amount (the higher of the value) be of use? It may be that the city places a “buy” offer on the table for the prior taxed amount, which would certify as the value of the land. Another way could be that the city removes the zoning restrictions only for the donation to a preservation charity. This would then be used as the value for tax credit purposes. The SP3 land could then be donated and a tax credit at the highest level could be achieved by the current land owners.
Would a solution like this help?
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
Apr 17, 2009, 9:57 PM
Post #198 of 217
(6081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
|
While I appreciate the effort to think outside of the box, and work out an agreeable solution for all concerned, I have a suspicion the IRS would take a dim view of such transactions (if they ever heard of them, of course) . . .
I seem to recall that a similar effort, involving donating one's used car at an artificially increased value for tax purposes, got shot down when the IRS looked into it.
For my own outside the box (and off the wall) contribution, I offer the following:
a) I'm convinced that, over time, enforcing this closure is going to seem like a huge PITA to the landowners, the police, and Kent;
b) I also don't think that asking for donations to buy out the owners will reach the necessary sums;
c) charging for access on a daily pass/seasonal pass basis might prove fruitful, but would be impractical if you had to hire someone to implement the scheme.
So: what about a "Nears private land" addition to the Gunks passes, just as you can now add biking rights, etc? Those who are sympathetic to the landowners and/or willing to pay for the privilege could do so; those who are opposed can hike and rap down. The existing system and its rangers could check passes, collect the fees, etc.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Apr 17, 2009, 10:45 PM
Post #199 of 217
(6064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
^^ Why would the Mohonk preserve want to use resources (rangers etc) and accept the liability of an area that is not theirs? total waste of $$ for people that are being a pain in their ass.
Personally I think a) people will not care about missing Kent's little cliff chunk b) Walk right on through the path to the other side unless it's enforced... not sure Kent's gunna post a guard lol
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Apr 18, 2009, 2:37 AM
Post #200 of 217
(6034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
sosure wrote: shockabuku wrote: sosure wrote: shockabuku wrote: sosure wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: Pretty typical sosure, and why we closed the land. And why you should lose it in a taking. Wow, we should send you off to another country with a government that holds your views. Personally I would rather shoot you in the face than support taking someone's property because you don't like their response to a zoning law or the fact that they want to sell it for half a bizillion .5 acre lots for wall to wall low income or high income housing. In my country, this is the law: Kelo v New London SCOTUS 2005. Love it or leave it, bitch. I'd still rather shoot you in the face. Yeah but you won't. You'll just talk about it. On a chatboard. Bitch.
It was an expression of sentiment, not a threat. I would have thought you could understand the difference. I guess not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
