APA approves Tupper Resort

[Neil]

Any chance of keeping this discussion focused?

[montcalm]

Originally Posted by RichieC

I know a fellow who worked hard, built a business, and saved and finally was able to afford a house on Cazenovia Lake. Oh I know it isn't the Adirondacks, but it is prime real estate, and there are parallels, being lake front , etc. ANYWAYS, and this is how it is done, his taxes were about $8,000 a year. There were small increases and he arrived at $9,000, that was still ok. Then a few years later there was a major re-assessment, and his taxes went s to somewhere in the $16,000 range, this had become a hardship, as his income had not doubled. When it hit $24,000, and this was in the space of about 8 years, he could no longer afford the property and had to sell. Oh the local government didn't care one little whit that he was a third generation Cazenovia native…...he sold it to someone who could afford the taxes. WHO? a doctor from New Jersey now lives in the house he intended to die in. The proerty didn;t move, and he bought again with in the town. They gained a wealthy camp owner- and kept the original owner to boot! Yee haa! That can be considered "progress"!!!

This is who these developments are intended for, and once they come in, they'll start working the system and hiring their lawyers, and bending and breaking laws, and hacking away- till there is nothing but posted signs and stumps…

The people who foresaw the nature of the wealthy, and set up the park made it simple, just like our forefathers did with the constitution. Simple rules that are easy to follow and difficult to warp to your own ends. Forever Wild. You can go just about everywhere else in the country and do what you wish, build as high, cut down as much, pass laws that kick out the natives, raise taxes to take what only they can afford, prevent farmers from spreading manure because it smells… They eye the gem that is the Adirondacks, A state sized park a few miles from some of the largest cities on earth, and a gem because people like them have been prevented from messing with it.

So while I am not against progress, I am wary of the greed that is prevalent. And a gift to our great great grandchildren of an intact and healthy park, is a gift indeed, it will be a parking lot everywhere outside the blue line by then.

One mans vision of progress, especially developers should be approved with all caution. They only have one persons interest in mind. and it isn't you, nor me, nor his neighbors, last of all the natives- who are hoping for scraps of business as they drive through, or to run a lift, or plow a driveway...

Beware progress in an area that is irreversible. Send them someplace else, they can visit like the rest of us.

I like the story but I fail to see how this DOESN'T happen in the Adirondacks.

As far as I can tell, most of the locals don't live on the lakes and most couldn't afford to. Sounds a lot like the other situation.

The only difference now from the past is that instead of the < 1% owning entire lakes and great camps, the land around most lakes is ravaged with camps, which probably do more environmental damage than the estates of old, and which are still mostly in the price range only the upper middle class can obtain.

I didn't agree with developing Tupper. It seems to me it would have just benefit an elite few immensely and maybe trickled a bit to some locals, but by far and away, most of that money would have been pilfered.

[forest dweller]

Originally Posted by cityboy

From the article its seems that the Locals are justified in their us versus them mindset. They favor the project and the APA approved it yet its held up in court due the Sierra Club. If a 100 million a year organization based out of California isn't considered "outsiders" I don't know what is.

The locals think it's going to be a great deal for them...it may not be as good as they think...and the negative side effects may be everything environmentalists fear.

Even the opinions of latte sipping Manhattanites that only visit 2 or 3 times should be taken into consideration...the Adirondack Park belongs to everyone, especially all New Yorkers.

I'm wondering if being very needy clouds a person's judgement or ability to see the likely outcome of a situation, and / or if one just doesn't care when they are so needy.

When I hear talk about the locals what I really hear is, "We need it, we don't want to hear about any negative effects on a park we own more than you because we live here"

[WBB]

I am certain the “needy” people of the North County appreciate the wisdom of their betters from downstate who grace them with their presence once or twice a year. Like children these rubes need to be guided and sometimes scolded when they make the wrong choices. I recall a discussion on this very site years ago about cell towers being built in the Adirondacks. These locals actually thought they were entitling to the same modern conveniences as the rest of us. This is in spite of the fact that these towers would have intruded into my wilderness fantasy.
I hold no opinion about this project, but I do take exception to the condescending and dismissive manner in which the opinions and feeling of those people who make their home in the region are treated.
Until you do more than drive through these towns or spend more than a week at a State Camp Grounds you may want to temper your rhetoric. You have no idea what life is like in North County until you have lived there, dependent on the local economy to provide for your family. It is a hard way of life and one you cannot truly appreciate until you live it.

[adkman12986]

Originally Posted by WBB

I am certain the “needy” people of the North County appreciate the wisdom of their betters from downstate who grace them with their presence once or twice a year. Like children these rubes need to be guided and sometimes scolded when they make the wrong choices. I recall a discussion on this very site years ago about cell towers being built in the Adirondacks. These locals actually thought they were entitling to the same modern conveniences as the rest of us. This is in spite of the fact that these towers would have intruded into my wilderness fantasy.
I hold no opinion about this project, but I do take exception to the condescending and dismissive manner in which the opinions and feeling of those people who make their home in the region are treated.
Until you do more than drive through these towns or spend more than a week at a State Camp Grounds you may want to temper your rhetoric. You have no idea what life is like in North County until you have lived there, dependent on the local economy to provide for your family. It is a hard way of life and one you cannot truly appreciate until you live it.

Exactly PS I live here and have for 65 yrs now. Granted there are areas that need to be left alone and have little human encroachment however this property has been logged for years and continues to be logged today. It. is a piece of private property. Would you want to have someone from the north country tell you people down state what you can or can't do with your private property?
Local economy here is extremely poor with empty houses in town, bank repo's etc.

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by WBB

I am certain the “needy” people of the North County appreciate the wisdom of their betters from downstate who grace them with their presence once or twice a year. Like children these rubes need to be guided and sometimes scolded when they make the wrong choices. I recall a discussion on this very site years ago about cell towers being built in the Adirondacks. These locals actually thought they were entitling to the same modern conveniences as the rest of us. This is in spite of the fact that these towers would have intruded into my wilderness fantasy.
I hold no opinion about this project, but I do take exception to the condescending and dismissive manner in which the opinions and feeling of those people who make their home in the region are treated.
Until you do more than drive through these towns or spend more than a week at a State Camp Grounds you may want to temper your rhetoric. You have no idea what life is like in North County until you have lived there, dependent on the local economy to provide for your family. It is a hard way of life and one you cannot truly appreciate until you live it.

Would it then be fair to say that perhaps many of the people in the North Country should live in a place like Gloversville for a while to find out what it's really like to be "needy"? I see nothing dismissive or condescending on this thread, only stark facts. Painful? Yes. But in reality the residents of the Adirondack park in general are much less "needy" then a larger percentage of the country. There are people who cannot afford rent, food and other necessities. They have no hope of ever owning their own property. They would swap in a minute with those "needy" people in the North Country.

The economy has gone south for all but a few people. So, perhaps to create jobs we should open up the Adirondacks to logging as it was at the turn of the 20th century, and lets clear lots of space and open up development. That will create thousands of jobs and employ many New Yorkers.

I'm not a religous person, but deep down within me, I believe that whoever or whatever created this world did not do so for the sole benefit of man. Nor did He, She, It intend for all the natural resources to be laid to waste for the benefit of one species. But for some twisted reason, Americans seem to think the Constitution was written to allow them to do just that.

Incidently, I did live in the North Country for quite a few years. On the flip side, I also spent some time in some "third world" nations and there you will find textbook "needy". Compared to there, and to places in this country like Pine Ridge, SD, or Lame Deer, Montana, The North Country is an affluent paradise.

[WBB]

I feel you may have misunderstood my comment. The label “needy” has been used repeatedly by others to explain away the people of Tupper Lake who support the project. I am not the one who attached that label to the residents of Tupper Lake, hence the quotation marks surroundings the word. My point was that "needy" or not the people that live in the region are capable of forming their own opinions and should have the right with in the framework of the present system ie the APA to attempt to improve their situation.

I see as condescension when people attribute the motives for opposite views on the issue as being the result of “cloudy” thinking due to being “needy”.

As to true poverty I see it and work in it everyday. You don’t have to travel to Montana or SD, the east side of Buffalo provides me all I need to realize how fortunate I am. But even in those place the people who live there deserve the dignitary of not being dismissed because their views may differ because they are “needy”. That attitude strikes me as a bit paternalistic in a “we know what’s best for you” type of way.

[forest dweller]

I'm sorry, I meant no offense, yet I stand by what I said - desperate people don't think straight sometimes.

And while we are taking offense, I take offense to the group think many locals seem to have, always being defensive about the people that live outside of the blue line and their opinions as though they are not valid...and they always seem to want to do the OPPOSITE of whatever the majority of people living outside want...kind of in a spiteful sort of way.

Why can't people figure out how to compromise; smart, low impact growth and economic stimulus?

Though I fear that any positive change in the economy in the north country would come accompanied with a negative change to what most people love most about the Adirondacks.

[Limekiln]

Originally Posted by forest dweller

And while we are taking offense, I take offense to the group think many locals seem to have, always being defensive about the people that live outside of the blue line and their opinions as though they are not valid...and they always seem to want to do the OPPOSITE of whatever the majority of people living outside want...

Do you feel that people who live 5 hours away from your home, visit twice a year, and pay no local property taxes should be able to regulate what happens in your backyard?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Limekiln

Do you feel that people who live 5 hours away from your home, visit twice a year, and pay no local property taxes should be able to regulate what happens in your backyard?

Imagine how the people of Banff, Alberta feel living in a federal park when Ottawa is thousands of miles away, "down east".

Living in a park has its advantages and disadvantages.

Whether people living 5 hours away should or should not be able to regulate what happens in one's own backyard, not only can they but they are probably paid a salary (with benefits) to do so.

Forest Dweller mentioned sustainable development (I think he called it slow, low-impact). For an area such as Tupper Lke, where it looks like hard times have come to stay, I wonder if bright minds and perhaps some seed money could come up with a plan to stimulate the economy. Ie. In a way that doesn't involve simply harvesting raw natural resources with semi-skilled labor and shipping them away somewhere else (like overseas) for value-added transformation. Making money off of tourists seems, at best, to be very iffy and precarious.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Limekiln

Do you feel that people who live 5 hours away from your home, visit twice a year, and pay no local property taxes should be able to regulate what happens in your backyard?

I was going to stay out of this since I am an "outsider" but I would like to add something. I think some of the labels used for people were unintentional yet unfortunate. In most areas of NY there are zoning laws that dictate what one can do with their property. I am happy to know that if my neighbor was inclined to build a towering structure on my property line, he cannot do so without a variance and my approval. If he wants to build a berm that could possibly cause flooding to my property, I want to know I have recourse. As far as people living far away having influence, I get that, but I would think, and I don't know the details, that a lot of income taxes from downstate subsidize a lot of what goes on up north. So one could argue that this system is unfair and as long as people in the area don't mind large increases in taxes to make up for the subsidies, then the rest should butt out. The Park is a unique patchwork and these arguments have been around since the formation and will continue well beyond our time here. If all the private land in the Adirondacks were developed, you would lose most of the reason people go there (and spend $$$) and be vastly different. I know nobody is suggesting that, but think about the next 100 years, the growing population and subsequent demand for first homes, second homes and the related infrastructure. Death by a thousand cuts....

[forest dweller]

Originally Posted by Limekiln

Do you feel that people who live 5 hours away from your home, visit twice a year, and pay no local property taxes should be able to regulate what happens in your backyard?

If your back yard is in the unique situation of being within the Adirondack Park I do.

Redhawk mentioned humans not being the only species on earth...that is why my vote is for less development and more protected forested land - it's not only for me to have another place to camp, it's to give species that need lots of space to survive and thrive a fighting chance...specially when only forests within parks have any real protection nowadays.

I'd be OK with economic development in the downtown part of Tupper Lake, and any new needed homes / apartments to be not too far from there. No real need to grow outward. There has got to be a solution within those parameters that would please the majority.

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by Limekiln

Do you feel that people who live 5 hours away from your home, visit twice a year, and pay no local property taxes should be able to regulate what happens in your backyard?

YES!!!

Because often what an individual or group of individuals does can impact thousands of others.

While Americans in particular cling to the belief that they have the right to do whatever they want on their own property, they often conveniently forget that they may impinge on the rights of others. a simple example would be a person feeling that they have the right to play music as loud as they want. However if that interferes with their neighbors right to a little peace and quiet in their own house, then it's wrong. Or if they want to dam the stream on their property and in doing so it effects the flow of water to the people living downstream.

So yes, we need regulations and they often need to be made by people who are not directly affected either way. There's a word for that, I believe it's Democracy. The common welfare of the masses trumps the rights of the individual.

[redhawk]

Incidently I am incorrect in thinking that a few years ago the residents of Tupper Lake voted down a Walmart which would have helped economically? Wasn't it because they didn't want it to affect their way of life?

If that's the case it seems to me it's a matter of "give us help, but only on our terms."

[cityboy]

The article was pretty clear. The project was favored by a majority of Tupper Lake residents. It was overwhelmingly approved by the APA who is in charge of making sure it doesn't have a detrimental environmental impact on the Adirondacks. The project has been delayed 2 years because of a "spite" lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club. Town officials felt that the lawsuit was groundless and would ultimately fail. I only hope that the courts rule that the Sierra Club is liable for project expenses for the 2 year delay. I would think that would discourage any future frivolous lawsuits.

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by cityboy

The article was pretty clear. The project was favored by a majority of Tupper Lake residents. It was overwhelmingly approved by the APA who is in charge of making sure it doesn't have a detrimental environmental impact on the Adirondacks. The project has been delayed 2 years because of a "spite" lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club. Town officials felt that the lawsuit was groundless and would ultimately fail. I only hope that the courts rule that the Sierra Club is liable for project expenses for the 2 year delay. I would think that would discourage any future frivolous lawsuits.

First of all whether the suit is "frivolous" or not depends on whether the points the Sierra Club makes are relevant or not. Second, because the people in favor of the development call it a "spite" lawsuit does not mean it is. Obviously they are biased. As for the APA, nothing pure and honest about them. The developers track record (which included several convictions in other areas for misrepresentation on developments) should have been a red flag. For any agency to claim that the development would not affect the water quality over the years or cause erosion is incredoulous.

And just for the record, I am not a particular fan of the Sierra Club. Mostly because they have sold out when it has benefited them. But they also have put the kabosh on developers and corporations walking all over the environment in many cases.

So don't let personal prejudices against some organizations cloud reason.

[Frhill]

Originally Posted by redhawk

Incidently I am incorrect in thinking that a few years ago the residents of Tupper Lake voted down a Walmart which would have helped economically? Wasn't it because they didn't want it to affect their way of life?

If that's the case it seems to me it's a matter of "give us help, but only on our terms."

You're close. Saranac Lake mobilized to keep Walmart out. There were rumors of a Walmart coming to Tupper but I don't think anything ever came of it.

[Alpine1]

If I'm not mistaken the property in question (which is what this entire thread is based upon?) is private property.

Originally Posted by forest dweller

I'd be OK with economic development in the downtown part of Tupper Lake, and any new needed homes / apartments to be not too far from there. No real need to grow outward. There has got to be a solution within those parameters that would please the majority.

[cityboy]

Originally Posted by redhawk

First of all whether the suit is "frivolous" or not depends on whether the points the Sierra Club makes are relevant or not. Second, because the people in favor of the development call it a "spite" lawsuit does not mean it is. Obviously they are biased. As for the APA, nothing pure and honest about them. The developers track record (which included several convictions in other areas for misrepresentation on developments) should have been a red flag. For any agency to claim that the development would not affect the water quality over the years or cause erosion is incredoulous.

I have not heard too many kind words from Locals about the APA. In fact I'd say that they only thing they hate more than outsiders telling them what to do is the APA telling them what to do.
So if two groups with opposing interests agree on something then I think it is worthy of doing.

And if the APA doesn't have the Adirondacks best interest who does? The Sierra Club? Greenpeace?

[forest dweller]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but if I'm not mistaken the APA has been stacked with pro business people the way the Supreme Court has - I don't necessarily trust their decisions any more.