APA approves Tupper Resort

[Frhill]

All very valid points. However the issue remains that Tupper Lake lies within the boundaries of a park whose stated goal is to preserve the resource for everyone (not just locals). It gives everyone a vested interest.

Yes you do have a stake in the matter, we all do.

Yes, PQ, that is correct. I still think though that communities should have the greater say because they have more at stake than you or I do. The stakeholder equation is not always equal.

Tupper Lake is within the boundaries of the Park, but what about the fact that the town of Altamont existed (as did many towns) before the Park was even created and the boundaries drawn? Or is this a non-issue in most peoples minds? Personally I think it's significant.

[Glen]

Glen,
The same story could be told about my grandparents (my grandpa was a WWI vet too), and I appreciate your point. However, I don’t think you are drawing a valid comparison. For one, your grandfather probably didn’t have a choice: the opportunity simply wasn’t there. Tupper Lakers have an opportunity on their doorstep in the ACR, a project which has OVERWHELMING local support. Why should they have to pass on this and move because folks like you and I want to preserve a viewshed or uphold our conceptualization of what “wilderness” is?

I still think that it is the height of arrogance for outsiders, many of whom are affluent, to tell locals that their economic opportunity is less important than aesthetics. I think communities should have a significant say in what development occurs there. I also think the outcome of this would have been very different if this project was proposed in say, Saranac Lake, where people are generally doing better than in Tupper. If communities want this sort of development, they should be able to have it for better or worse. To send some of the rhetoric back in the other direction: if you don’t like what a community is doing and feel that your “wilderness experience” has been compromised, too bad. Go somewhere else. This is my personal opinion, and I am happy to agree to disagree on this point.

To reiterate, I am NOT in favor of the ACR. I think it will fail miserably. But I also recognize that my financial well-being has nothing to do with the local economy, and I wouldn’t deign to tell others that they cannot have something they need when I really have no stake in the matter.

Frhill,

So we'll agree to disagree. I will add that as far as "Overwhelming Local Support", I think you would get the same if you offered good paying jobs and full employment by clear cutting the entire area. If people like me, who do have other options decide to go elsewhere, that doesn't help the local economies. We need to think beyond our own immediate interests and think of what this "Park" will look like 50 or 100 years from now. Development is generally permanent. Construction jobs are not. I admit my opinion is formed through an eye that has seen the ugly side of development.

Glen

[Commissionpoint]

All very valid points. However the issue remains that Tupper Lake lies within the boundaries of a park whose stated goal is to preserve the resource for everyone (not just locals). It gives everyone a vested interest.

Theres more to it than that though right? I think a lot of people get confused and start drawing comparisons to National Parks, and the rules that govern them. Really the two concepts are vastly different. The Adirondack Park is somewhat of its own model. Its a multi use park with both public and private holdings. Thats a pretty unique thing and I think it adds to some of the misunderstanding people have about what exactly it is. Its never going to be a place that halts all development as much as its never going to be a place that develops everything. It IS a place that both things can co-exist in a responsible manner. Neither developers or preservationists are ever going to get everything they want. Its not in the nature of the design to allow either idea to surpass the other. Thus there is never a total consensus on what exactly should happen in every proposed undertaking.

I support the Tupper Lake development (I guess thats pretty obvious at this point), but I am not willing to go so far as to call Mr. Cuomo or the APA board members shills for development. I support wilderness and wild forest lands too, and would go so far to say that its now time to remove Marcy Dam as its been severly damaged and repairing it is not in compliance with designated land use in that area. So its a very complicated set of issues.

Whats better for those acres outside Tupper? The current constant logging and cutting of skidder roads all over the place on that parcel, or the cessation of logging operations and replacement with responsible approved housing units with deed restrictions that disallow development along an established buffer? As it stands right now its being logged right up to state land borders. In the permit for development a healthy buffer that would prevent any such activity is part of the deal. I think its pretty simple to see that developing a few hundred acres of private land with the understanding the owners will become stewards for the few thousand remaining acres is a win for everyone.

Whatever happens I'd hate to see up go back to the days when we were literally trying to burn the APA out of Ray Brook. Thats probably a story for another thread though.

[forest dweller]

If communities want this sort of development, they should be able to have it for better or worse. To send some of the rhetoric back in the other direction: if you don’t like what a community is doing and feel that your “wilderness experience” has been compromised, too bad. Go somewhere else. This is my personal opinion, and I am happy to agree to disagree on this point.

To reiterate, I am NOT in favor of the ACR. I think it will fail miserably. But I also recognize that my financial well-being has nothing to do with the local economy, and I wouldn’t deign to tell others that they cannot have something they need when I really have no stake in the matter.

With regards to paragraph number one, as has been pointed out already a few times here, people in search of wilderness are having a harder and harder time finding it - it's a lot more scarce than communities with good economies are.

And in response to your second paragraph, how can you say that your financial well being has no effect on your local economy? You spend money in your local community, don't you? What would happen to your local community if you and your neighbors for some reason stopped spending money in the businesses in your community? Things are connected and interrelated.

[Frhill]

Frhill,

So we'll agree to disagree. I will add that as far as "Overwhelming Local Support", I think you would get the same if you offered good paying jobs and full employment by clear cutting the entire area. If people like me, who do have other options decide to go elsewhere, that doesn't help the local economies. We need to think beyond our own immediate interests and think of what this "Park" will look like 50 or 100 years from now. Development is generally permanent. Construction jobs are not. I admit my opinion is formed through an eye that has seen the ugly side of development.

Glen

Glen,

One thing we do agree upon is that construction jobs are not any kind of sustainable solution. But I don't think tourism is either. Those jobs are mostly low paying, low mobility, and seasonal to boot.

[forest dweller]

Theres more to it than that though right? I think a lot of people get confused and start drawing comparisons to National Parks, and the rules that govern them. Really the two concepts are vastly different. The Adirondack Park is somewhat of its own model. Its a multi use park with both public and private holdings. Thats a pretty unique thing and I think it adds to some of the misunderstanding people have about what exactly it is. Its never going to be a place that halts all development as much as its never going to be a place that develops everything.

You are right about this. I wonder whose brilliant (sarcasm, for those of you who cannot tell!) idea that was, being that the two ARE incompatible. I don't want the Adirondacks to be the suburbs - I already live in the suburbs. Nor do we need more mediocre places like the Poconos.

Regardless, the Adirondacks (and the APA) were created with the understanding that when in doubt lean more towards conservation. This APA ruling does seem to set a new precedent.

[Commissionpoint]

Glen,

One thing we do agree upon is that construction jobs are not any kind of sustainable solution. But I don't think tourism is either. Those jobs are mostly low paying, low mobility, and seasonal to boot.

I make quite a good living in the tourism industry. It affords me a very nice home and lifestyle. I know bartenders and waitresses who make close to 6 figures. So its situational. Making beds in a motel won't put you on the Fortune 500 list, but there are other jobs where you can do quite well and a lot of that icome can be pure cash in the case of those who make gratuities.

[Frhill]

With regards to paragraph number one, as has been pointed out already a few times here, people in search of wilderness are having a harder and harder time finding it - it's a lot more scarce than communities with good economies are.

And in response to your second paragraph, how can you say that your financial well being has no effect on your local economy? You spend money in your local community, don't you? What would happen to your local community if you and your neighbors for some reason stopped spending money in the businesses in your community? Things are connected and interrelated.

Responding to your first point, why should the desire for wilderness experiences trump opportunity for local residents? I'm not trying to be obtuse but I really do want to understand why some people think that their personal valuation of wilderness is more important than the views held by local community members?

I never said that my financial well-being has no effect on my local economy, but I see how you might have interpreted what I wrote that way. What I meant is that my personal financial situation is in no way dependent on my local economy. I put plenty of money into the local economy (through purchases, taxes, etc.) but I don't depend on it to make my living.

[Frhill]

I make quite a good living in the tourism industry. It affords me a very nice home and lifestyle. I know bartenders and waitresses who make close to 6 figures. So its situational. Making beds in a motel won't put you on the Fortune 500 list, but there are other jobs where you can do quite well and a lot of that icome can be pure cash in the case of those who make gratuities.

You are right, it absolutely is situational. I'd bet the vast majority of folks waiting tables and bartending in the Tri Lakes don't make anything close to six figures though. I'd also argue that jobs in tourism which afford a "very nice home and lifestyle" make up a relatively low percentage of that industry's workforce.

[forest dweller]

Responding to your first point, why should the desire for wilderness experiences trump opportunity for local residents? I'm not trying to be obtuse but I really do want to understand why some people think that their personal valuation of wilderness is more important than the views held by local community members?

Because wildreness, especially in the eastern United States, is a far more scarce thing than a decent economy. A person can go in search of a good job and a living if they have skills and find it somewhere in the northeast, but even though there are forests elsewhere in the northeast, the Adirondacks are the closest we have to true wilderness here in the northeast. So if it were a 50 / 50 split between a good economy and an abundace of wilderness I might get behind them building and developing right there, but it's not and so I cannot. I don't think environmentalists are being unreasonable to be the ones to ask the locals to consider this and go looking for work instead of bringing it to them at the cost of altering the backcountry.

[Commissionpoint]

Responding to your first point, why should the desire for wilderness experiences trump opportunity for local residents? I'm not trying to be obtuse but I really do want to understand why some people think that their personal valuation of wilderness is more important than the views held by local community members?

I must agree fully. Someone putting thier recreational pursuits above someone elses home and livlihood is beyond selfish. Your view is not obtuse at all. Thinking your favorite passtime is more important than someones home and family is obtuse.

You are right, it absolutely is situational. I'd bet the vast majority of folks waiting tables and bartending in the Tri Lakes don't make anything close to six figures though. I'd also argue that jobs in tourism which afford a "very nice home and lifestyle" make up a relatively low percentage of that industry's workforce.

I would tend to think those working at MLI or some of the higher endd places do close to that. My friend from school days who works at LPPB has been there 15 years, she would have left long ago if it didn't support her lifestyle. I do well because I am at the top of the food chain in my organization, and apparently people seem to appreciate what I do so I get a lot of business.

I'll check you guys later. One of those things the tourism industry affords me is an unhealthy addiction to classic cars. Today is a new starter and glow plugs for the '66 Mercedes 200.

[Frhill]

Regardless, the Adirondacks (and the APA) were created with the understanding that when in doubt lean more towards conservation. This APA ruling does seem to set a new precedent.

The Adirondack Park and the APA were created with minimal (if any) resident input. To see how few people were actually involved in the creation the APA, State Land Master Plan, etc., read George Davis' piece (chapter 17) in The Great Experiment in Conservation (Porter, et al). So the understanding to "lean more towards conservation" was an understanding between a select few parties, not between these experts and the populace of New York State in general or the residents of communities in the Park. This history is in part responsible for the resentment many Adirondackers feel towards outside interests.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

Desire for a wilderness experience trumping the desires of the local community is a change in the scope of the argument.

What we are talking about is preserving natural resources (Land, Water, Forest) versus exploiting them (even to a small degree) for economic gain.

If there was a regulation put forth that said 1 of the wild forest would be off limits to human wilderness experiences every year to preserve the resource I would be all for it.

Wilederness experiences, including peak bagging, hunting, kayaking are all forms of consumption albeit at different degrees and significantly less consumption and less permanant than condo developments.

So in my opinion offering the public a wilderness experience is an economic trade off with the resource. Is it less total and permanant consumption than what Tupper Lake wants, in most cases yes.

[Frhill]

Because wildreness, especially in the eastern United States, is a far more scarce thing than a decent economy. A person can go in search of a good job and a living if they have skills and find it somewhere in the northeast, but even though there are forests elsewhere in the northeast, the Adirondacks are the closest we have to true wilderness here in the northeast. So if it were a 50 / 50 split between a good economy and an abundace of wilderness I might get behind them building and developing right there, but it's not and so I cannot. I don't think environmentalists are being unreasonable to be the ones to ask the locals to consider this and go looking for work instead of bringing it to them at the cost of altering the backcountry.

But why does the fact that it's scarce make it universally valuable? Aren't there people who don't believe in wilderness? At its heart, "wilderness" is a construction, not a reality. Moreover it's a construction with a pretty particular history (and an exclusionary one at that) that is relatively recent.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

I get what you are saying, but I consider wilderness a lack of construction.

Once you start building it's very difficult to reverse course and go back to wildneress because then it becomes peoples homes. Then you have to exploit more land to make sure the people that have "always" lived there have enough jobs and so the vicious cycle continues.

Why does the project to save Tupper Lake have to be the largest one ever approved by the APA?