APA approves Tupper Resort

[Pumpkin QAAD]

I seen what happens when neighborhoods change and the old businesses go under because rents go up. I assume part of the local allure for the project is that it'll increase real estate prices in town and particularly commercial r.e. due to zoning restrictions. I was taking some literary liberties and generalizing quite a bit.

Im not really a seasonal resident, I get to the Daks 3 times in a year its a good year.

[Commissionpoint]

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.

I was wondering if you were ever going to say anything. Thank you for your, once again, thoughtful input on a topic.

How long did Gaslight Village survive?

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

Gaslight, in one form or another, was there for a long long time. It opened in 1959 and it was only in 2009 that the deal went through to start remediation of the site into an ecological park with visitor interpretive components and specific design to both restore West Brook and mitigate human impact through the installation of sedimentation pools to contain runoff from village streets. Quite an undertaking, and its aim is wetland restoration and public interaction and education.

So the same chunk of land in the Adirondack Park can indeed be adapted to suit the changing face of sustainability in Brendans model. This one in particular generated revenues and provided jobs for decades. Then the social and economic aspects of the sustainability model changed, and after some time and a lot of heated debate the land use was changed to reflect these changing values of the individuals in the community. So from roller coaster and bumper cars with cotton candy we go to a beautiful park with ponds and walking trails.

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.

Where exactly do you think the food in these 'dives and watering holes' is coming from now? If its not Sysco its US Foods. Neither do I think I can recall having seen a 'high price gourmet menu' based off what Sysco sells. That stuff usually requires sourcing rare and boutique food items from specialty purveyors. One of the most common expensive items I handle is wild mushrooms. The best ones come from local foragers, they just walk in the back door with a bucket and you buy from them. I have a guy I get lettuces from who grows stuff on his farm you can't buy in any store. I have another guy who will slaughter beef and will grow the stock the way you want and feed it what you want. There is a goat cheese lady, an herbs and spices lady, a maple syrup guy (who rides a Harley with gallons of syrup in the saddlebags on deliverys), and guy who runs an apiary I deal with regularly who makes honey you wouldn't believe. Thats what high end food is, not crap off a Sysco truck. Thats also a bunch of locals I give money to who all live and work a business and in most cases a regular job here in the Adirondacks. Just like me.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

I think sysco should be banned to save the environment.

Just having some internet fun don't get all Southeast side on me!

I only eat at pour jims they source all of their food "locally" from the frozen food "gourmet" section. Yum.

Seriously though I hate sysco menus. I'd rather eat a plate of raw fiddleheads.

[Commissionpoint]

Just having some internet fun don't get all Southeast side on me!

But, but.... I AM from the Southeast side of the park.

Now I gotta go buy one of those places in Tupper so I can go all Northcentral on everyone? Jeez people, make up your minds already, do you want these places to sell or not?

[adkman12986]

As a resident of Tupper Lake for over 40 yrs, I have seen this project devide the town's people One side hanging onto the hope that they will see economic growth that will allow their children to earn a living while still living in the area and the other that is scared that this project will fail and leave the town with the burden and expenses that it will leave behind. One thing that both sides do agree on is protecting the area from being another Lake George. Not that there is anything wrong with Lake George but people here just don't want the town to be that comercialized.

[Frhill]

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.

Excellent post, and a nice synthesis. Thanks!

I would like to comment on one facet of your argument regarding sustainability. You say "we need strong, well-defined social values..." My question is, whose values? This to me is one the great sticking points of this debate and many others regarding land use and the Adirondack Park. To be clear I don't think this question has a "correct" answer, but I am genuinely curious to hear what people think. I think a lot of the dissatisfaction within the Park is the product of local people feeling that their values are often given short shrift in these debates.

Related to this I'd also ask Tyler why he feels that his valuation of wilderness should be the privileged viewpoint? I've asked this a couple of times now and nobody has answered. Despite what many espouse, "wilderness" is not a universal concept. Why do many of us persist in thinking that wilderness-centric positions should invariably have the upper hand?

[redhawk]

Excellent post, and a nice synthesis. Thanks!

I would like to comment on one facet of your argument regarding sustainability. You say "we need strong, well-defined social values..." My question is, whose values? This to me is one the great sticking points of this debate and many others regarding land use and the Adirondack Park. To be clear I don't think this question has a "correct" answer, but I am genuinely curious to hear what people think. I think a lot of the dissatisfaction within the Park is the product of local people feeling that their values are often given short shrift in these debates.

Related to this I'd also ask Tyler why he feels that his valuation of wilderness should be the privileged viewpoint? I've asked this a couple of times now and nobody has answered. Despite what many espouse, "wilderness" is not a universal concept. Why do many of us persist in thinking that wilderness-centric positions should invariably have the upper hand?

Because if we continue to exploit the resources and develop it, there won't be any left. The world is out of balance. Today we have too many people, and the amount is heading us rapidly toward insustainability. And what little wilderness we have is disappearing at just an alarming rate.

I don't think it takes rocket science or and degree to figure that out. The last thing it takes to figure it out is a politician or a capitalist.

[Frhill]

Because if we continue to exploit the resources and develop it, there won't be any left. The world is out of balance. Today we have too many people, and the amount is heading us rapidly toward insustainability. And what little wilderness we have is disappearing at just an alarming rate.

I don't think it takes rocket science or and degree to figure that out. The last thing it takes to figure it out is a politician or a capitalist.

I get the ecological argument, and your response shows me that I haven't asked my question carefully enough. In a lot of these debates wilderness is elevated for its aesthetic, spiritual, and ideological qualities. Qualities that, despite their interrelation, are very different from scientific knowledge. Tyler's post talked about losing the wilderness "feel." Contrast that with the kind of hard data that was obtained by members of Adirondack Wild who did a rapid amphibian assessment at the ACR site. What I'm interested in knowing is why people think that these very subjective valuations of wilderness should be privileged?

As to your last points I agree completely.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

For us simple folks you want to know why the pro-wilderness position seems to occuppy the moral high ground in this discussion.

I would say that it is related the audience of this forum being mostly outdoorsy/nature type folks. Additionally, I think many people have moved from their "ancestral" homelands to find employment with the idea that areas within the park should remain as undeveloped as practical. Of course, that in itself is subjective as well.

Culture has also changed quite a bit as we grasp the issue that resources are limited and attempt to tackle the buzzword concepts sustainability. Just as this development sets a precedent on potentially making more residential land balanced with nature it also sets the precedent of development, which quite frankly scares people.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

By the way I must compliment several members on this forum. I'm very impressed with some of the writing and argument (ok..discussion) styles you all employ. I have a feeling there are quite a few educated, and/or very intelligent, folks that participate on this board.

Frhill, I'm very curious what your occupation or background is (I'm guessing Education or Law but I've been known to be wrong-however I still dispute that time.....sarcasm!!).

[Frhill]

For us simple folks you want to know why the pro-wilderness position seems to occuppy the moral high ground in this discussion.

I would say that it is related the audience of this forum being mostly outdoorsy/nature type folks. Additionally, I think many people have moved from their "ancestral" homelands to find employment with the idea that areas within the park should remain as undeveloped as practical. Of course, that in itself is subjective as well.

Culture has also changed quite a bit as we grasp the issue that resources are limited and attempt to tackle the buzzword concepts sustainability. Just as this development sets a precedent on potentially making more residential land balanced with nature it also sets the precedent of development, which quite frankly scares people.

Yeah, you could put it that way, as the moral high ground.

You're definitely right that this venue has a lot to do with seeing the prevalence of this attitude. I have found it to be pretty visible out in the real world as well, though it does seem like certain groups seem to tout it more than others.

[Commissionpoint]

One thing that both sides do agree on is protecting the area from being another Lake George. Not that there is anything wrong with Lake George but people here just don't want the town to be that comercialized.

The flip side of that is that we all here in Lake George don't want to see our town become another Tupper Lake. Not that there is anything wrong with Tupper Lake but people here don't want it to deteriorate to the point our only hope lies in the hands of outside developers.

[Commissionpoint]

Excellent post, and a nice synthesis. Thanks!

I would like to comment on one facet of your argument regarding sustainability. You say "we need strong, well-defined social values..." My question is, whose values? This to me is one the great sticking points of this debate and many others regarding land use and the Adirondack Park. To be clear I don't think this question has a "correct" answer, but I am genuinely curious to hear what people think. I think a lot of the dissatisfaction within the Park is the product of local people feeling that their values are often given short shrift in these debates.

Related to this I'd also ask Tyler why he feels that his valuation of wilderness should be the privileged viewpoint? I've asked this a couple of times now and nobody has answered. Despite what many espouse, "wilderness" is not a universal concept. Why do many of us persist in thinking that wilderness-centric positions should invariably have the upper hand?

Everyone has thier own personal interpretation of what is 'right' for the park, so therefore everyone also has an axe to grind. Loggers want to bitch about preservationists. Preservationists wat to bitch about develpoment. Backcountry skiiers want to bitch about snowmobiles. Hikers want to bitch about hunters. It goes on and on. There are very few park users who see much beyond what thier own values are, and frankly in a selfish manner, they couldn't care less about what other users want or get from backcountry experiences just so long as it doesn't interfere with what they get from it.

I do a little bit of everything here in the park. I hike, camp, hunt, fish, ski, snowshoe, and paddle. I own snowmobiles, an ATV, and a 32 foot fishing boat. I get to see users from all walks of life who are into all kinds of activities. Invariably they are all doing what ever it is they do and enjoying the park 'the right way', while those 'other jerks over there are screwing it up for all of us.' At the end of the day they all have one thing in common. They want to see the park protected so they can continue to enjoy it. Its 'protected' thats the subjective part. It seems no two groups have the same interpretation of what this means.

[randomscooter]

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.

Excellent post, and a nice synthesis. Thanks!

I would like to comment on one facet of your argument regarding sustainability. You say "we need strong, well-defined social values..." My question is, whose values?

I think the word "social" is pretty much the answer to your question. I think we're talking about the collective values of our society. That set of underlying values that we as a society share and on top of which we individualize.

And your comment that there is no "correct" answer is not only true, it is inevitable. The correct answer continually evolves. The engine for that change, for better or for worse, is powered by our mistakes, our recognition of those mistakes, and our desire to do better. We learn as we go. It's a process. Change doesn't happen quickly, not with 7 billion opinions to consider. But it does happen. How else can it really be?

The balance of DSettahr's post does a good job of summarizing the current direction of our societal values. Are we there yet? No. Will we as a society get there? Maybe. More likely that as we head in that direction our societal values will further evolve and alter our course, perhaps even in a direction that most of us do not yet see.

[redhawk]

I get the ecological argument, and your response shows me that I haven't asked my question carefully enough. In a lot of these debates wilderness is elevated for its aesthetic, spiritual, and ideological qualities. Qualities that, despite their interrelation, are very different from scientific knowledge. Tyler's post talked about losing the wilderness "feel." Contrast that with the kind of hard data that was obtained by members of Adirondack Wild who did a rapid amphibian assessment at the ACR site. What I'm interested in knowing is why people think that these very subjective valuations of wilderness should be privileged?

As to your last points I agree completely.

Actually I think wilderness needs to be sustained in order to support life on this planet. Plants and Trees are vital to life. They take the co2 out of the air and produce oxygen. As more and more of the forests get cut down for development, not just here but all over the world, the less oxygen that gets produced and the more co2that gets into the air, which brings about climate change, even to those who don't believe in it.

The more land that gets developed for housing and commercial use, the last fertile land we have to produce food. Eventually we will have more people and less food to feed them.

I don't see anything aesthetic in those reasons. It's inevitability.