APA approves Tupper Resort

[forest dweller]

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.

That is like the fourth assumption that you have made about people's motives that couldn't be further off the mark. My desire to have more wilderness exist is for the natural world itself. The fact that I hike, paddle and camp near there is secondary and not much of a consideration for me. I may never experience the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in person but that doesn't mean I don't care if it get's opened up for oil development.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

Forest I think that was in response to what you wrote:

"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."

The part about people in search of wildness implies for recreation or maybe hermitage! lol.

[forest dweller]

Forest I think that was in response to what you wrote:

"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."

The part about people in search of wildness implies for recreation or maybe hermitage! lol.

Fair enough, and I can see how it might be interpreted that way, but people who love nature and wilderness love it for more than the recreational side of it, which, I believe, some people don't understand. And that was in response to a question over why the desire for wilderness should trump the locals desire to develop. I should have asked why the thief robs the bank...because that's where the money is. Well, the borders of Tupper Lake is where the wilderness is - not many other places. It's not as simple as "I want to go camping there so leave it alone". It's for nature itself. The desire to go camping there is a secondary afterthought. I go to experience nature and I try to leave it as close to how I found it. It's not the same thing as if I demanded, "I want a Six Flags rollercoaster park there, locals be damned!"

[redhawk]

I'm curious. How many people understand that trees are necessary to remove carbon dioxide and produce oxygen? And that the forests actually help to control World Climate.

The argument here is how the resort will (and whether it will is pure speculation) affect a minutely small amount of people. When you put development versus forest and wilderness in that light then compared to the populations that if will ultimately effect in an adverse way the individual rights really don't hold a bit of water.

I would ask anyone who feels that something should or should not be done because it will affect them who they thought they were and what they thought made them special. There are thousands of people every year who for one reason or another have to find a new livlihood, often by moving to where the jobs are.

So explain to me why an individual or a group of individuals is so special that everyone should cater to their needs.

Also as far as the argument of why someone should have to move, rather then have resources destroyed to create a livlihood. The answer is simple. It's easier to move an individual then it is a forest.

Americans had no problem forcing the indigenous people who lived here off their land, so what's different now? When there is less unoccupied land and more people?

[fisher39]

forest_dweller, I hope that you and others that are upset about this put your energies into pushing for legislation to keep this from happening again. Personally, I'm not happy that this has gotten the green light, but my understanding of it is that it conformed to the law... which leads me to think that the law should be changed.

[Frhill]

I'm curious. How many people understand that trees are necessary to remove carbon dioxide and produce oxygen? And that the forests actually help to control World Climate.

The argument here is how the resort will (and whether it will is pure speculation) affect a minutely small amount of people. When you put development versus forest and wilderness in that light then compared to the populations that if will ultimately effect in an adverse way the individual rights really don't hold a bit of water.

I would ask anyone who feels that something should or should not be done because it will affect them who they thought they were and what they thought made them special. There are thousands of people every year who for one reason or another have to find a new livlihood, often by moving to where the jobs are.

So explain to me why an individual or a group of individuals is so special that everyone should cater to their needs.

Also as far as the argument of why someone should have to move, rather then have resources destroyed to create a livlihood. The answer is simple. It's easier to move an individual then it is a forest.

Americans had no problem forcing the indigenous people who lived here off their land, so what's different now? When there is less unoccupied land and more people?

I think a lot of people understand this. In fact, I’d bet there are people who have read this thread that understand it much better than you or I do. You make a valid point but it is based on some unsupported assumptions.

The first assumption is that development in the Park is going to destroy its ability to sequester carbon. It is important to remember that roughly half the park is already protected against development and logging. That’s a lot of mature forest for carbon sequestration. A second assumption seems to be that development of the remaining Park lands will result in large-scale removal of the forest. How likely is it that this will ever happen? Even the ACR is setting aside something like 3,800 acres of its Resource Management classified land to remain wild.This isn’t out of altruism, but to satisfy APA open space criteria. Any future developments will have to satisfy these as well. Remember too that some of the private land in the Park is already developed. It’s not like there are 3 million acres of privately owned virgin forest out there awaiting the ax. A report on Adirondack forests and climate (at usclimateaction.org) seems to indicate that managing forests (ie not leaving them as “wilderness”) is beneficial for carbon sequestration as it “promotes young and vigorous regeneration that sequesters significant amounts of carbon in biomass,” so a mixture of forest preserve and managed forest is most desirable. Without any data that address the above points, the assertion that the resort will have an adverse impact on a greater number of people than it will help doesn’t hold water. Without any real data the impact of this project and others like it on carbon sequestration in the Adirondack forest is pure speculation.

The issue of whether people should have to move to make a living has been discussed ad nauseum. We all have our own opinions on it. Again, your response seems to ignore the fact that it’s been necessary for many young Adirondackers to leave their homes in search of economic opportunity for generations now. I certainly had to, and that’s part of the reason why I’d like to see young folks have at least SOME local opportunity. I’d hardly characterize folks wanting a chance at some local economic opportunity as a group that feels “everyone should cater to their needs.” It might well be “easier to move an individual than it is a forest,” but doesn’t this picture change if we are talking about an entire community and not just one individual?

As to your last point: are past atrocities and injustices the benchmark for our current policies? Are you saying that because Indigenous people were forced off their land in the past that it’s ok to do so now with other groups? As an aside, the removal and erasure of the presence of Indigenous people from the land is always the first step towards “wilderness.”

The issue of setting a precedent has been a big part of this discussion. What if ACR sets a precedent for big failure? I think it highly unlikely that this project will ever succeed, if it even gets started. There is a lot of high-end inventory already on the Adirondack real estate market: so much so that people can find already-built properties in desirable areas for significantly less than what an ACR “Great Camp” will cost. This project gaining APA approval and then financially crashing and burning might send the best kind of message to developers waiting in the wings, one that says these kinds of developments in the Park are simply not economically viable. Call me cynical but I think the only way to stop widespread, large developments in the Park is to show that they can’t turn a profit. I think money is the only kind of “green” argument that will sway developers.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

Wow, that was a well thought out, well written and very convincing argument.

If these statements are taken as fact then the question becomes: has the APA thought about how a partially constructed or subsequently failed project will effect the environment and the local economy?

Folks in Tupper may end up worse off by making decisions based on a projcect that is doomed to fail. Such as buying or upgrading a home, spurning other career choices due to perceived opportunities close to home.

If the muni bonds fail that are financing the project it may also hurt the ability for local governments to borrow money in the future. I'd watch the language very closely to see if the town is also on the hook for the debt service.

[richard1726]

Tupper Lake is not Lake George V, Lake Placid V or even Long Lake V. It is more like Watertown, NY. Real estate is all about location and for many concidering a the second or third home, the market it is about bragging rights. My vacation home in Lake Placid, Cape Cod, or Okemo just doesn't have the same ring to it as "my vacation home in Tupper Lake". And I bet most of the people who live in or have a vacation home like Tupper lake just the way it is, there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

There are so many places that already have the "location" name recognition it seems inconceivable that Tupper Lake could compete with any success in the vacation home market. Maybe it could have in 1980 but not now with all of the competition. There are so many vacation home spots.
In the early 80s I spent so time in two very undeveloped "NOW" locations. St. Kitts and Manta, Equador. Both, at the time had no hotels and you were more likely to be bit by a monkey in the bars than enjoy your time on the beaches. Two men were actually bit by monkeys in our groupe of 90 men in Manta, (they had to get the rabies shot regimen for a couple of weeks). The country, St. Kitts had just hired a Madison Ave, NY firm to guide them through development, same in Manta. Both spots were undeveloped, Tupper Lake has already been developed first via lumber interests with by the looks of things with out much of a plan as was the custom years ago. It will be very difficult to reengineer the town to a Vacation Home market especially when development money will not be used to change the town scape, and not that it should be.

[chairrock]

Too many people.... such a political statement.....globally/////eh?

[Tyler]

I just saw this thread. I am extremely upset by the APA's decision. As a young person who has seen more and more wilderness destroyed every year in this park, my faith in it retaining a "wilderness" feel 40 years from now has been shaken.

I hope no one moves into these houses. Stop trying to ruin one of the last great wilderness areas east of the Mississippi.

If you want a revitalized economy, move to a place that has more jobs. The wilderness should be retained and kept forever wild. Don't destroy what makes this place special just to bring a few extra fleeting dollars here.

[DSettahr]

I've read bits and pieces of this thread, and while I've stayed out of it for the most part, there is one thing I'd like to comment on.

Much of this thread has been the weighing of economic needs vs. social and ecological needs, and which is more important. What hasn't really been addressed in any great detail is that all three of these needs are inexorably linked.

"Sustainability" has become a bit of a buzzword over the last decade, but it's still an important ideal that we, as a community, strive for. True sustainability is only reached when you have a combination of economic, ecologic, and social sustainability. If any one of these three aspects of sustainability are missing, then the other two are inevitably sure to fail sooner or later.

Put it this way: We need a strong economy in order to be able to fund protection of ecologic and social values. We need a strong ecosystem in order to protect the resources that we depend upon both economically and socially. And we need strong, well-defined social values in order to set up a system of management that protects both the economy in which we operate, and the ecosystems within which we live.

And to those who would say "If you can't afford to live in the Adirondacks, you should move elsewhere," I have this to say to you: If you really and truly value ecosystem preservation, this is a dangerous point of view that may actually work against your ideals in the long term.

The Adirondacks are a park, yes, but it's unique in that it's a park that also incorporates private property and a functioning economic system within it's boundaries. Some of the ecological protections in the Adirondacks are the strongest in the world, and that's awesome. But the Adirondacks are also a model of protection of both public and private lands together, a model which we can only hope that as we progress as a society, maybe other places will adapt for their own use as well. If, among all our protections of ecologic and social values, we don't also provide for protection of economic values, then other places are going to look at the Adirondacks and say to themselves "why should we adopt a similar system of protection for ourselves? Look at the Adirondacks and their system- no one can afford to live there. No sane person would agree to impose such conditions upon themselves."

If we make the Adirondacks not only a great place to visit due to protection of ecologic and social values there, but also a great place to live and work in thanks to a functioning economy, then we've been successful in truly facilitating sustainability within the park. And then it becomes much easier to convince other communities to adopt a similar style of managing and protecting values- including not only the social and economic protections, but the ecologic protections as well.

Specifically, will the Tupper Lake resort provide economic, ecologic, and social sustainability? It's hard to tell. There are valid arguments from all sides of the issue. It's interesting in that this is one of the first instances where a large project is being used in attempt to "jump start" a small towns faltering economy in the Adirondacks. Only time will reveal whether it's successful or not. And even if it's unsuccessful in fixing the local economy, in protecting the ecosystem on Mt. Morris, or in providing some of the social aspects we value about the Adirondacks, it can still find success in providing a valid learning opportunity that the Adirondack community may benefit from as a whole.

[DSettahr]

I just saw this thread. I am extremely upset by the APA's decision. As a young person who has seen more and more wilderness destroyed every year in this park, my faith in it retaining a "wilderness" feel 40 years from now has been shaken.

I hope no one moves into these houses. Stop trying to ruin one of the last great wilderness areas east of the Mississippi.

If you want a revitalized economy, move to a place that has more jobs. The wilderness should be retained and kept forever wild. Don't destroy what makes this place special just to bring a few extra fleeting dollars here.

Also wanted to comment on this real quick-

The resort is not being built on "wilderness" or "forever wild" land. It's being built on private property. Even if the resort weren't being constructed, the land still wouldn't be wilderness- it'd be open to timber harvesting, or smaller development projects if the owner(s) so desired.

To build such a resort on State-designated Wilderness or Wild Forest Land would require a constitutional amendment. Amendments are very, very hard to get passed- the New York State Senate has to vote in favor of it for two consecutive years, and then 2/3rds of the New York State population has to vote in favor of it.

Given that the State ownership of the Adirondacks constitutes approximately 47% of the park (roughly 2.7 million acres),, and that the vast majority of these lands are protected by the "Forever Wild" designation, I don't think there is any huge threat to the preservation of wilderness in the Adirondacks over the next 40 years. There's also easements to consider- many of these allow timber harvesting, but development is banned under the "Forever Wild" amendment. As of 2009, the State had about 600,000 acres of easements, meaning that roughly 3.4 million acres, or 58 percent of the park, is very strongly protected from development... and these numbers (particularly the easements) are steadily increasing. I don't think the park is in danger of losing it's "wilderness" feel any time soon.

Not that we shouldn't protect scenic values on private land in the Adirondacks as well! There are regulations in place in the Adirondacks that require protection of these values on private land, though, and for what it's worth, it's notable that 10 out the 11 APA commissioners that voted on this project were satisfied that these requirements are being met by this project. (Whether or not you agree that those requirements are sufficient in the first place is a different matter entirely, of course! )

[stripperguy]

I find all of this a very interesting study, D's analysis seems to be the most accurate of all the opinions I have seen thus far...

Will this private enterprise succeed and sustain?
Should we compare this to Brandreth Park? Granted, not quite the same set of variables, but Brandreth has been well cared for for over 150 years...

Or should this be compared to other private developments? Anyone been to Lake Lila or Little Tupper, or Henderson? In the overall scheme of things, these were quite temporary.

Or should this be compared to other commercial developments? Anyone been to Lows Lake or the "town" of Horseshoe? How long did Gaslight Village survive? How about Frontier Town?

My point in all of this is that private development does not necessarily equate to wanton destruction of the environment.

Again, time will tell whether this is just another failed effort, or a short term effect, or something that can truly benefit many for years to come.

[DSettahr]

Does anyone know what the likelihood of getting a public hiking trail up Mt. Morris out of this project is? As a hiking message board, that ought to be our main concern, anyways.

I had the opportunity about 6 years ago to climb Mt. Morris with the sister of the boy who disappeared on the mountain, who was granted permission annually to climb the mountain in remembrance of her brother. I foolishly did not take advantage of the opportunity though... at the time, I didn't realize the significance of who she was, nor the value of climbing a mountain that was closed to the public...

[Pumpkin QAAD]

Give it a shot and see if it works type experiments don't jive with the largest project ever approved.

The locals will be worse off and will blame the rich seasonal residents and It'll be because their local diner or dive watering hole is replaced with a sysco based menu of high priced "gourmet" food operated on a seasonal basis that they can't afford And still no sustainable LT employment opportunities.