State acquisition of some former Finch Pruyn land

[krummholz]

It looks like the state has bought up some of the land that was held by the Nature Conservancy. The last paragraph in this article pertains to the Boreas Ponds/Essex Chain tracts, which are going to be a much tougher sell..... It seems that public reaction is highly polarized as expected.

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise....html?nav=5008

[Dick]

More info:
http://www.adkhighpeaks.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=13423

Dick

[stripperguy]

Dick,
Thanks for the link...
And Peakbagr,
Thanks for the info...

[fisher39]

I like this "hybrid" approach. The fewer carrying costs for the state, and the more flexibility for land use (such as logging) the better. The most important thing for me is the conservation easement to prevent development.

FYI, here's an article in the latest Adirondack Explorer on the Gooley Club and the Essex Chain - http://www.adirondackexplorer.org/st...gooleyclub.php

[krummholz]

[QUOTE=fisher39;161029]The most important thing for me is the conservation easement to prevent development.


We definitely are in agreement on that one!

Thanks for the interesting article link.

[chairrock]

Well I guess that the club leasing Fish Brook Flow won't be stocking Canadian hybrids anymore, ending a 40 year tradition.
And I bet there will be negotiations on the price of the lease....

[adkman12986]

Originally Posted by chairrock

Well I guess that the club leasing Fish Brook Flow won't be stocking Canadian hybrids anymore, ending a 40 year tradition.
And I bet there will be negotiations on the price of the lease....

Conservation easements deffinately has some good points as well as the bad ones such as you have pointed out. Look what has happened to Little Tupper Lake with the Haritage trout.

[40dog]

seems like alot of money in a time of limited funds for ny.
state cant handle whats on there plate now.supporter of the non development ideas but sounds like a big expense while the state cant even keep lands and rest stops open they have now.does the state collect tax revenue now on this, after the purchase that will be gone if they do .these purchases dont sound good if they cant create revenue from them in some way like logging or special lease. protecting from development is great but the burden of debt sounds greater

[40dog]

where is the state getting this money

[TBPDPTI]

Originally Posted by 40dog

seems like alot of money in a time of limited funds for ny.
state cant handle whats on there plate now.supporter of the non development ideas but sounds like a big expense while the state cant even keep lands and rest stops open they have now.does the state collect tax revenue now on this, after the purchase that will be gone if they do .these purchases dont sound good if they cant create revenue from them in some way like logging or special lease. protecting from development is great but the burden of debt sounds greater

This was discussed in a similarly-based thread a short while ago. My basic opinion was that NY is in fiscal crisis mode, but the EPF is not to blame, as it constitutes a mere fraction of the issue of debt, etc. Simply fix the problems in Albany, and this is a moot point.

[fisher39]

Originally Posted by 40dog

seems like alot of money in a time of limited funds for ny.
state cant handle whats on there plate now.supporter of the non development ideas but sounds like a big expense while the state cant even keep lands and rest stops open they have now.does the state collect tax revenue now on this, after the purchase that will be gone if they do .these purchases dont sound good if they cant create revenue from them in some way like logging or special lease. protecting from development is great but the burden of debt sounds greater

My sketchy understanding of the arrangement is that a private company (ATP) will continue to hold the deed and pay the taxes, which is the killer carrying cost. With the exception of incidental expenses to facilitate recreation (patrols, trail maintenance, etc), this will be a onetime expense for the state, coming out of a fund intended explicitly for this sort of thing.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the above...

The problems arise when the state buys the land, and ends up bearing the costs in perpetuity. Of course this is a bad thing for the state taxpayers, but it is also a bad thing for the towns that are over the barrel because they have most of their eggs in one basket when it comes to property taxes.

I say do everything possible to keep private landowners holding the deeds and paying the taxes, and make it easy for them to sell the development and recreation rights if they so desire.

[40dog]

thanks fisher that was what i was looking for the just a little light on who was covering what in terms of future costs. though the costs to keep and maintain public land use is small compared to the budget crisis in ny. if you look closely we who enjoy the outdoors are taking a big hit when it comes to where to cut general costs . when the moose river rec area was closed this year early in the season.the lack of funds was only a small amount but loss of access was great.the state could have pulled money from elseware but they choose not to . we all would hate to believe new areas for hiking and sporting access are coming and then find the state cant find the money or workforce to maintain them . we the state will own the access rights but we the state wont be able to open them up for the future. Some may think im beating a dead horse on this point or topic but im not for anything that we will pay for and then be the victim of. i know this is the adk forum but all throughout the state this is becoming the case many refuse to accept the facts . We maybe gaining land in the daks but we are not honoring our obligations to new yorkers in other areas. many dayuse areas have lost their maintinance budgets and no fix is in sight as of yet. the next few years will be very rough for public access and land use. but some realy dont care its easy to forget once your out on the trail the daks are beautiful.