Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

APA approves Tupper Resort

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TCD View Post
    I was also responding to the suggestion above (not yours) that any land which borders wilderness is wilderness. Obviously illogical - I could as easily say that any land that borders a strip mine should be strip mined.
    The wildlife that roam the forest don't know the difference between wilderness and private property if there is no difference in the forest but who owns it.

    And, with regards to your latter suggestion, I wonder if the wildlife in the boreal forest surrounding the tar sands strip mining in Alberta feel the same way?

    Yeah, the difference is private property should not give you the right to do anything you want. Mankind goes way too far in the name of private property as far as I'm concerned.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TCD View Post
      Certainly a good point. I was also responding to the suggestion above (not yours) that any land which borders wilderness is wilderness. Obviously illogical - I could as easily say that any land that borders a strip mine should be strip mined.

      To your point, though - certainly if the planned development of the private land is shown to damage neighboring state land, that should be prevented / mitigated. But that's what the 7 year (!) review process was about. In 7 years of searching, that problem was not found. Folks here are reacting as though this project was just proposed last week, and was approved "off the cuff" with no reviews.
      I think I beg to diuffer aboput no problem being found. If I remember right there was/is a huge concerns about the effect of the runoff on the lake and the long term damage it will do.

      In spite of that, because of the economy the wh**es allowed politics to be the deciding factopr and not the facts.
      "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

      Comment


      • #18
        Sounds more like an opinion to me.
        A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

        Comment


        • #19
          Yeah, definitely not your father's APA.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by forest dweller View Post
            Yes redhawk, but now it has been approved and there may be little we can do about it but I feel like we're taking this "lying down". This is bad enough but if it sets a precedent and opens the door for more the Adirondacks may be in trouble. It makes me angry. And I'm not even sure it will do anything for the economy of Tupper Lake.

            All I know is the state better be ready to balance this out FAST by purchasing what the Nature Conservancy has been holding for them and designating it WILDERNESS, regardless of what the crybaby regressives want. The land BORDERS wilderness - it IS wilderness.

            I just think they did this the wrong way. Tupper Lake is not Lake Placid - the town is a downright eyesore and money would have been better spent redeveloping older already developed areas, especially in and around the ski area.
            After 7+ years of review nobody is taking anything "lying down". Seems you got to the party very late, in fact, after it was over. Should you have had real concerns about this project you would have discovered it long ago and not after the fact, and not on a discussion forum. Your plattitudes may comfort you, but in reality if you had the concern you express you would have known about this long ago, and might have been able to voice your opinion at a time when it was relevant and constructive instead of besmirching the process and the people who participated in it.

            Additionally, I find your comments about the 'eyesore' the community of Tupper Lake is to be offensive. That town is a home to many people, and some of those families have lived there for generations. Just because they aren't financially able to give the town a facelift to comply with what others think is appropriate doesn't give anyone the right to condemn the community as an "eyesore". You should walk a mile in thier shoes before you make a blanket statement about the quality of the place those folks call home. I bet most of them would be less than impressed with your characterization.
            .

            Originally posted by TCD View Post
            Reminder...this is private property. Your house is a scar on your property, shall we bulldoze it because there is some wilderness nearby?
            +1
            Last edited by Commissionpoint; 02-07-2012, 01:59 PM.
            Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

            WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!

            Comment


            • #21
              Perhaps the new developements will in time end the "eyesore".

              Comment


              • #22
                First of all, my friend, I knew about this since it was first proposed. But / and it is apparent that the APA and the DEC and hundreds or thousands of desperate people living in the Adirondacks had NO interest in hearing or considering anything the opposition had to say. Second, the downtown area of Tupper Lake IS an eyesore and stating that is not an attack on the people that live there. I acknowledge that they may not have the resources for beautification and development of their downtown area, which is why I made the suggestion to try and find a way to fix up the downtown area as an alternative to this, for tourism and economic development. And as far as private property goes the APA DID NOT do their job here - no matter which side of this you fall on.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ADKHUNTER View Post
                  Perhaps the new developements will in time end the "eyesore".
                  That's a possible risk. I say that because successful development and economic activity brings more demand for successful development and economic activity. When people are there and they have money they will want things and if given to them it will bring more people and money. That is when you have to go back to the very very basics and remind yourself that you are in the Adirondacks. So I feel this genie ought not be let out of the bottle to begin with. People cannot be trusted to do the right things. Bare in mind this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    FD, I wasn't suggesting that you weren't entitled to your opinion, far from it. What I was suggesting is that you have a rather obtuse view of the issue. The Adirondacks are a mixed use area with both public and private land holdings. I think you are confusing the two. The APA actually did its job properly for once. It weighed the rights of the property owners to develop within the model designated for the area against the possible negative impacts such development would cause. The did this in an objective manner which was in accordance with the oversight authority they are granted by the NYS legislature. Condemnation of the outcome of the application is fine, but its just talk. Its not going to make anyone go back and change the decision. You can get up on your soapbox all you want and cry foul and say the APA are a bunch of shills for development if you want, thats your right. The truth of the matter is that the board in its current form is a very balanced group of individuals with a variety of backgrounds who are not working on the behalf of some mysterious big money organization. Thats just delusional conspiricy crazy talk. I think the fact that it was an almost unanimous decision on the part of the board (only 1 dissenting vote) illustrates that there was overwhelming satisfaction by the board members that the project met the requirements for appropriate development. You don't have to agree, but casting aspersions on Tupper Lake and the APA is a poor way to go about presenting your point of view. If you were a little more open minded you might be able to understand how development projects like this have often benefited communities like Tupper and have helped the folks living in these towns achieve a better quality of life.

                    Try going to an APA meeting sometime before you say they aren't doing thier job properly. Make a donation to the Tupper Lake Chamber's Village Beautification Fund if you'd honestly like to see things improve there. Otherwise, stop talking crap about things you obviously don't understand.
                    Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

                    WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Seems like Forestdweller might not have known Tupper Lake in more difficult days. Back in the early sixties the mills were closed..the ski area to follow. It was indeed a very sad looking area but populated with people who were willing to work hard and cared.

                      I applaud the Wild Center and hopefully the new project to form a basis for a new local economy!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        This may bring some temporary construction jobs. Will the skills required even come from the people in Tupper Lake or will outsiders benefit more? After this is built how many permanent jobs will remain as a direct result of it and what will they pay? Just seems to me that people come out in support of it but it's quite possible they won't benefit from it - either directly or indirectly. And you may say that the APA did a good job here, but I have spoken to people from Adirondack Wild, the Adirondack Council and Protect the Adirondacks and they believe that the APA did not follow the law in approving this. Perhaps that is wishful thinking on ALL of their part, but then tell me - WHY hasn't anything of this scale and magnitude ever been approved of by the APA before since it's founding? Could it be that it's because the organization was founded to simply not allow something like this to go through?

                        And like I said earlier, people may benefit from this and the economy may pick up - at the expense of the environment in the Adirondack Park.

                        And tell me one more thing - HOW will the APA justifiably say no to everybody else who comes along requesting something similar?

                        It's funny, when it comes to conservatives they love to tell a person on unemployment that they shouldn't receive unemployment for a long time and they should pick up from where they call home and go to where the work is, but when it comes to a bunch of hippies trying to protect a beautiful and rare place, hell we have to stay right here and bring the jobs to us - Adirondack Park be damned. That is what you call wanting it both ways.

                        The sad thing is when things aren't good people's thinking and vision becomes muddy and cloudy and outrageous things don't seem as outrageous.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Read the history of Tupper Lake..it might be enlightening as far as the town and the perception of wilderness.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            What does the perception of wilderness mean? That since it was once logged that it can never be considered wilderness again even if the forest grew back?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by forest dweller View Post
                              This may bring some temporary construction jobs. Will the skills required even come from the people in Tupper Lake or will outsiders benefit more? After this is built how many permanent jobs will remain as a direct result of it and what will they pay? Just seems to me that people come out in support of it but it's quite possible they won't benefit from it - either directly or indirectly. And you may say that the APA did a good job here, but I have spoken to people from Adirondack Wild, the Adirondack Council and Protect the Adirondacks and they believe that the APA did not follow the law in approving this. Perhaps that is wishful thinking on ALL of their part, but then tell me - WHY hasn't anything of this scale and magnitude ever been approved of by the APA before since it's founding? Could it be that it's because the organization was founded to simply not allow something like this to go through?

                              And like I said earlier, people may benefit from this and the economy may pick up - at the expense of the environment in the Adirondack Park.

                              And tell me one more thing - HOW will the APA justifiably say no to everybody else who comes along requesting something similar?

                              It's funny, when it comes to conservatives they love to tell a person on unemployment that they shouldn't receive unemployment for a long time and they should pick up from where they call home and go to where the work is, but when it comes to a bunch of hippies trying to protect a beautiful and rare place, hell we have to stay right here and bring the jobs to us - Adirondack Park be damned. That is what you call wanting it both ways.

                              The sad thing is when things aren't good people's thinking and vision becomes muddy and cloudy and outrageous things don't seem as outrageous.
                              Debate is good, its a good way to communicate our own views, and get those of others.

                              You mentioned 3 organizations. The Council, Protect!, and ADK Wild. Unfortunately, and you may not have known this, but with the exception of The Adirondack Council you are backing your views with the opinions of radical organizations. Yes, they are radical environmental extremists. While they certainly have a right to thier views, its not like anyone really takes them seriously. The leadership of Protect! and Wild in particular are cast offs from legitimate groups who found thier radical views so unplaltable and thier methods so unseeming that in some cases they were asked to step down as to not sully the good names of real groups trying to represent real views of Park residents and visitors alike. Thats when they formed thier own groups under the guise of caring about the environment, when in fact they only reperesent thier own narrow views of what is acceptable and don't want to hear about any other possibilities. Thats not debate, thats not discourse, thats totalitarianism, and its why they have been marginalized to laughable status in local decision making. Unfortunately they are good at disguising thier motives and unwitting folks get sucked into thier BS thinking they are helping the situation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

                              You make an error in suggesting the APA has never approved a project on this magnitude before. I suspect you don't remember Keene Valley or Lake Placid before 1980. I suspect you have no idea what or where Green Harbor is, didn't see NCCC before the expansion, or remember what the PSC campus looked like before the Waterfront Center, Buxton, New Cantwell, Essex House, Franklin Hall, Hillside or the Weill Library was added. (those are the names of several commercial buildings on Lower St. Regis Lake bordering NYS lands which collectively equal a few hundred thousand square feet)

                              Clearly you haven't considered the restaurants, grocery stores, mechanic shops, gift stores, and other commercial establishments which will soon take up residency in Tupper (hopefully occupying and refurbishing the downtown district) after new homes are built and the people that live there start creating demand for such things. Those are not only jobs, but good jobs and entrepreneurial oppertunities for Tupper Lake residents. Maybe the best chances anyone there has had since, as Yellowcanoe said, the mills closed 50 years ago.

                              Dont' drag conservatives or hippies into this. Its not part of our discussion here, and last I checked neither the national conservative movement nor the longhair tie-dye party have infiltrated the APA or DEC. We don't discuss those types of politics here not only because its against forum rules, but because in most cases that type of politics have no place in our discussions and only serve to create rancorous discourse which is unproductive.

                              For the record, I actually live in the Park, and have for my whole life. I went to high school here, went to college here, and have worked my entire career here. My judgement hasn't been clouded or muddied by hard economic times, and I consider myself lucky to have not been affected by the current recession as much as some. I don't advocate slash and burn, clear cutting, unchecked development, or bulldozing forest lands. I do however advocate for the rights of private property owners to do what they like with thier property so long as they conform to the regulations and guidelines set out by the APA and DEC. In my area we have a third layer of oversight called the LGPC. If you can meet all the requirements those agencies demand before building or developing you are ok in my book and so is your project.
                              Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

                              WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by yellowcanoe View Post
                                Read the history of Tupper Lake..it might be enlightening as far as the town and the perception of wilderness.

                                http://tupperlake.net/TupperLakeHistory.htm
                                Thank you Yellowcanoe for the very cool link. I learned some things I did not know before from reading from those pages.

                                My perspective of wilderness is that its manmade in the lower 48. True wilderness has been gone for generations and what we have now is a facsimilie created by those who had the forethought to set aside lands for those who came after them to enjoy. True wilderness is a hard thing to find in modern times and is most likely only existant in places like Alaska, Siberia, and the Yukon.
                                Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

                                WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X