Some thoughts about paying for the Adirondack Park
Here are two basic questions that no one has ever answered to my satisfaction:
1. What does it cost communities to be surrounded by the Adirondack Park?
2. What does the state do to compensate those communities?
Let me wrestle with both of these questions one at a time.
Critics of the Park, the state's land purchases, and the Adirondack Park Agency say the first is a no-brainer: It costs a lot.
Communities lose the ability to develop, grow, and expand their economies. Investors and entrepreneurs are driven off by heavy regulation and APA bureaucracy.
Maybe so.
But when I compare communities inside the Park with rural towns outside the blue line, I'm not sure I can see a distinction.
Is Malone measurably more successful at attracting new investors and new citizens, when compared with Saranac Lake?
Is Tupper Lake doing better or worse than Lowville? And is the Park with all its rules the difference?
And how do you factor in the apparent economic benefits?
During the real estate boom, land values rose far more dramatically inside the Blue Line, at least in part because zoning rules made private land there more attractive.
There is also an arguable tourism and marketing advantage in being part of a gorgeous, protected area.
The bottom line? Yes, a lot of communities are struggling inside the Park.
But I'd like to see a really thorough study that quantifies how much of that is the Park's fault.
Which leads us to question two:
2. What does the state do to compensate Adirondack communities?
Obviously, the Adirondack Park's communities already get a certain amount of goodies for being inside the blue line.
The state pays full property taxes -- roughly $70 million a year -- on all its forest land, even though it demands almost no services.
(Most large private landowners receive tax breaks and don't pay as much.)
This money amounts to a payment of roughly $466 annually for every man, woman and child in the Park.
Taxpayers from across the state have also paid hundreds of millions of dollars developing tourism attractions in Johnsburg, Lake Placid, Newcomb, Paul Smiths, Wilmington, and elsewhere.
It's also arguable that the state chose to locate half a dozen prisons in the Park as a way to shore up employment.
The problem with all this "compensation" is that it has never been measured, or tied rationally to the state's social contract with Park residents.
As a consequence, when the state begins closing prisons, or threatens to withhold property tax payments, Park residents feel cheated.
But they can't point to a distinct breach of trust.
So here's my (entirely presumptuous) suggestion:
As a follow-up to their compelling APRAP study, the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages should wrestle with these questions.
What are the pros and cons of being inside the Park and what is the net cost?
And what is the fairest way to compensate communities that are shouldering the main burden of protecting this gorgeous resource?
The goal should be more honest, equitable and reliable social contract between the handful of New Yorkers who live within the Park and the 19 million New Yorkers who live outside.
posted by Brian Mann @ 1/29/2010 09:28:00 AM
51 Comments
51 Comments:
These are good questions. One fairly easy calculation related to cost is this. The state pays 70 million in property taxes. They (we) own about 6 million acres. So that is eleven dollars and sixty six cents per acre that the state pays. I just wrote one check to the town of Harrietstown for one acre I own there. It was for three thousand dollars. I wonder what the total amount of taxes that are collected on private land (the other half) within the blue line. It's gotta be a lot more than 70 million? Maybe not.
Paul -
Yes. And there also need to be good apples-to-apples comparisons of different types of land. Waterfront, backcountry, wetland, near communities, remote, etc.
It's a difficult accounting, but surely doable.
Brian, NCPR
Yes, I think since the land is pretty much split 50/50. There must be a pretty good mix of all these land types in each half. Obviously much of the state owned land would be extremely valuable if it were a private parcel. I sure would love to own the Great Range! My guess is since much of the state land was purchased to protect highly prized wilderness parcels that the half owned by the state is probably more valuable than the private half. It doesn't cost them very much to own it from a tax perspective. Perhaps publicly owned waterfront without development potential should be assessed the same as privately owned land with that potential. For example the assessment on a hundred feet of private waterfront on lower Saranac will always be way higher than 100 feet of sate owned land on the same lake. Maybe if they were treated the same way it would be fairer “contract”. Of course it will cost the state considerably more money. But that is paying for the potential that is lost as part of the “contract”. In exchange we gain the wilderness and its benefits. A big lodge on the edge of Avalanche Lake would be a super valuable place and it could shift a considerable tax burden from other lower income homeowners. The state should really “pay” for taking away that possibility.
I would also like to know what economic value having and being adjacent to Wilderness brings.
Surely there must be a way to quantify the benefits as well as the opportunity costs of our great experiment. What dollar-figure can we assign to the innumerable positive experiences the Adirondack Park provides?
Right. On the other hand, there's clearly an economic value to having public shorelines in the Park where tourism and local recreation are possible.
Which should be factored in somehow to this equation as well.
Also, how much more is private land worth on Upper Saranac BECAUSE it's surrounded by state land?
It's a tangle, but I'm convinced that someone could sort through it and come up with a real picture.
--Brian, NCPR
What bothers me about this discussion is that it tries to reduce everything to dollars. I'm reminded of Oscar Wild's observation "nowadays everyone knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".
This post has been removed by the author.
This is an important question. The "conventional wisdom" is that the Park would be thriving economical if not for the malevolent APA and its restrictions on unfettered development. But look at much of the rest of rural New York outside the Park. I've been through much of rural southwestern NY and it looks a LOT like the Adirondacks, only less beautiful and with fewer tourists. It is struggling in the very same way the Adirondacks is. The parts of NNY north of the Blue Line are really in any better shape than those inside.
The one thing that has to be kept in mind is that the main private sector part of the Park's economy is based on outdoor tourism. In order for outdoor tourism to flourish, there needs to be an outdoors that people are drawn to. Allow unfettered development and that will disappear. It will be nothing more than white elephants, cookie cutter housing and ugly big boxes built for people that want to be in an environment that said development will destroy.
That doesn't mean there should be no development, just that the restrained approach is completely justified, not only for quality of life (which is not exclusively dollars and cents) but also economically.
Western NY is like the Adirondacks but without the tourist economy. Destroy the tourist economy and we already know what we'll get.
Surrounding private land with state land certainly raises the value of the land (assuming it doesn't interfere with access) that is for sure. The real question if the park is for both people and “other wildlife” is what is the best balance of the two land types? Once you have that then you can do the calculations much more easily. It is a bit of a moving target now.
Someone should ask the people who performed the Adirondack Park Regional Assessment Project report. It really delineates the differences between in-park and out-of-park communitites.
Again, I agree that rural communities outside the Adirondacks are struggling with the same issues that we see in the Adirondacks. But I still think that it is fair to argue that the Adirondacks has some unique issues to deal with on top of that. These other places may also have unique issues they need to deal with. I don’t blame the APA, or any other state agency for any of these problems. The bottom line is that if the Adirondacks want to remain a place where there is a mix of wild and not so wild places then decisions need to be made. My comments regard where those decisions should be made not that they should not be made. At least 50% of the Adirondack park is already protected from development, DONE. On the other 50% you need to have clear and fair rules to govern what happens there, I agree with that. Whenever there is a value gained by someone, someone else may be at a loss. For example if I gain the opportunity to enjoy an acre of state land that is undeveloped, someone else is losing their opportunity to raise their family there, or even build an “ugly big box”. I agree with you Brian, I hate those places, but believe it or not some people like those places. Are yours and my values more important than theirs?
I'm not sure how much of the North Country's issues have anything to do with the APA.
Logging, as a big industry, died 100 years ago.
Mining did too.
Farming mostly fell apart in the 70s and 80s as big agribusiness consolidated everything.
Manufacturing, at the behest of WalMart and low low prices, went south, then overseas.
That left tourism. And when it became horribly difficult to get out of NYC by car, and when cheap air travel made it quicker to fly to Florida than to drive to the Adirondacks, and when the train system was allowed to die, it left the region cut off.
This has been going on a long time. I think the best thing the state can do is rethink its travel links. Higher-speed rail would be a huge help, attracting not just tourists and second homers, but people who are able to telecommute.
I agree. But I would guess, despite the talk of how to develop the "tourist economy", that many folks in these discussions do not want it to be easier to get to the ADKs. Brian Mann, would you like to see more people come to the Adirondacks?
Yes. We at least need a sustaining population of people age 20-45.
The current population isn't sufficient to keep our schools, fire halls, etc., in healthy shape.
Tourism and second home-ownership might be one piece of this, but certainly not all.
I think another really good question would be "What is the optimal sustainable year-round population for the Adirondack Park."
If we're at 150,000 now, then I'd see the right number would be somewhere closer to 200,000.
But I'm pulling numbers out of the air.
--Brian, NCPR
Brian, I think that is fair number. You have to start somewhere. I also think you need to know if the amount of available private land will continue to decline, even if slowly. This is one of the more unique problems for us. What do you think is a fair balance of public and private land? I would say that 50/50 is fair. What do you think?
This is kind of not related but since part of the title here has "paying for the Adirondack Park" I thought I would bring it up. I assume that many have heard that the DEC is still not considering charging any fees to hikers and paddlers despite the budget crunch (or collapse if you want). Why is this? Why do hunters and fisherman and snowmobilers etc. have to carry so much of the load. These are the kind of things that make many Adirondacker’s blood boil. And that leads to more of the animosity that I think only fans the flames of these “us vs. them” discussions. I hike and paddle as well as hunt and fish. I would prefer not to pay for any fees for any of it, but I don’t think it is fair now. There are far more hikers that need to be rescued each year than hunters in the ADK’s. What is going on?
I know it starts people's blood boiling when I mention taxes, but I've always thought an excise tax on hiker and paddler gear was a great idea for funding stewardship projects.
Fishermen and hunters already pay hefty excise taxes; so do snowmobilers. It strikes me as a no-brainer that those fancy tents and snowshoes (which I covet so much) should have a nickel tacked on for trail maintenance, etc.
--Brian, NCPR
Brian, I don't think the APRAP report was especially "compelling". The Assoc of Towns and villages hired the LA Group to make their case with seemingly foregone conclusions. This is the same LA group the ACR is using and making some highly questionable claims regarding economic impacts of this highly speculative, taxpayer financed project. I'd much rather see and outside company come in fresh and unbiased to make a compairison of in verus out of Park stats.
Brian,
Here you and I agree. I would love to see fees paid by hunters and fisherman and snowmobiles and ATV's and canoes (if we see it) etc. stay in the Adirondacks. Unfortunately, if they did tack on some new fees it will go in the general fund just like the rest. But if we could recover all that dough and use it for stuff related to that activity I am all for it.
"But I would guess, despite the talk of how to develop the "tourist economy", that many folks in these discussions do not want it to be easier to get to the ADKs."
Which I think is an attitude that has a lot more to do with the current predicament than any regulatory structure. There is no economic growth with constant population decline. But I don't see much effort from locals to recruit businesses or new residents.
Anonymous 1:30PM said...
"I'm not sure how much of the North Country's issues have anything to do with the APA.
Logging, as a big industry, died 100 years ago.
Mining did too."
Really. I beg to differ, Most of the major mines in the Park never really took off until WW2, Tahawus, Bartons, that big iron mine outside Star Lake. They darn sure didn't die out in 1910. Same for logging. I grew up in a town where everyones dad was either a miner, a logger or worked at one of the lumber mills or Finch or IP. That was the 60's, not the 1910's.
Brian- I never before gave any thought to the State owing those of us who lived or live in the park anything. Most of the people I knew who had a beef with the Park just wanted to be able to live like other Americans and to grow their businesses and communities.
I have to take issue, again, with the common thought that "the State" pays taxes on all those acres "they" own. Wrong, wrong, wrong. "The State" doesn't have a single solitary cent to it's name. Any funds used to pay taxes come out of our pockets. The more land "the State" buys, (with your money), the more of your money they have to take to pay the taxes on that land. In my mind the State including the Federal Gov't) shouldn't own ANY land beyond that the gov't buildings and military bases sit on. In NYs case the rampant and irresponsible buying spree Pataki went on, with the Legislatures help, was nothing short of insane.
Of course, whats done is done. But considering the State is taxing us to pay taxes on land it bought and holds and basically allows no use of and yet pays full valuation taxes on (for vacant land of course).....doesn't that seem wrong to anyone? IMO the State should either be taxed as though it were a private land owner (more taxes to pay higher taxes) or cease paying taxes altogether. Why is the State doing taxing us to pay us tax money? True, the whole State joins in these taxes, yet the whole State doesn't benefit from their taxes. It's wrong. The land should be sold or leased out. Log it, mine it, develop it. The current system is madness.
As for what Tupper or North Creek or Newcomb or Inlet or Schroon Lake could have been....does someone have a crystal ball in the closet we could borrow?
The APA may have been a good idea at one time but it seems to have outlived its usefullness, at least in its current form. The APA could do worse than look to the Tug Hill Commission as a model for how it should operate, providing technical support for park towns and villages. As it is, some park regulations seem less to do about the environment and much more about personal aesthetic tastes of APA commissioners. And that's know how it should be.
Park commissioners should be appointed by local governments or chosen in a park-wide election.
Brian Mann,
You mention Saranac Lake. But for every Saranace Lake, there are 20 Lake Pleasants. SL is a Park outlier. Census data shows that Hamilton County is the most sparsely populated county east of the Mississippi. Not saying that everywhere in the park should be like SL, but there does need to be a happy medium to ensure job opportunities and sustainable communities.
Paul,
Hiking and paddling are more politically correct than hunting, fishing, or snowmobiling.
In 1865 there were some 4,000 sawmills in New York State, one hundred years later there were fewer the 200 - today, maybe fewer then 50.
Source: http://www.newyorkhistoryblog.com/2009/11/books-adirondack-lumber-capital-of.html
Point conceded, partially, on mining:
Source: http://www.mii.org/stateinfo/NYminerals.html
"The mining industry achieved its greatest extent during the 19th and early 20th centuries. ... In the mid-20th century, mining in New York State generally declined. WWII brought a resurgence in iron mining and a 19th century iron mine was reincarnated as an ilmenite (FeTiO3) mine..."
On logging and mining and industry in general within the park: during the 19th century lumber barons denuded the area that was to become the park. Men bought the land, stripped it of the valuable timber and then didn't pay the taxes. The land reverted to the municipalities and nobody wanted it. Forest fires raged across the park in the summer, spring run-off flooded areas downstream and then the rivers dried up in the summer causing problems for the canal system.
Some of the best iron ore in the world came from the Adirondacks but with modernization of the steel industry cheaper ore from Minnesota made equally good steel.
The Adirondacks are a geographic backwater in terms of transportation accessibility, and other services.
You can put an industrial park in Newcomb but who wants to bring an industry there when areas that are much closer to markets and an available workforce.
The great value of the Adirondacks is in the wilderness, solitude, natural beauty, etc. People need to understand that and learn to develop business models around around that. To that end better high-speed internet access is critically important to the development of business (in hamlets) throughout the park.
a short solution:
hold the 911 trial at gabriels correctional facility-
possible bennefits:
1-charge a modest admission fee to the general public. (local hotels, pubs, retaurants can have televised trial superbowl style for those unable to obtain the coveted seats in the temporary gabriels courtroom)
2-the short influx of people and cash will help. (think winter carnival style, beer cozies, coffe mugs, PORK BBQ, and of course t-shirts - "i was supposed to get 100 virgins and all i got was this crappy shirt" )
3-the remote location should prove advantageous for security
4-execution and disposal of the terroists after they are found guilty can be easily and cheaply taken care of with a short hike and a push off one of the many high peak drops.
5-wildlife get to feed on the carcasses hence no visitable gravesite for islamic "martyrs"
(appologies and thanks to the local bears)
6- albany politicians can take heed or suffer similar fates.
anything i missed?
come on lets make lemmons into lemonade
Anonymous said...
In 1865 there were some 4,000 sawmills in New York State, one hundred years later there were fewer the 200 - today, maybe fewer then 50.
Source: http://www.newyorkhistoryblog.com/2009/11/books-adirondack-lumber-capital-of.html
January 29, 2010 11:30 PM
Anon- there are more than 50 sawmills in St Lawrence county alone! In 1865 you had little tiny sawmills, just like the Amish and all the guys with bandmills have today. They died out and got replaced with the bigger mills. As lumber prices rose the smaller mills made a come back. I'd bet money there are at least 5,000 mills across NYS today, and I don't bet money on much of anything.
You're also apparently not aware that the vast majority of wood products go for paper products, not lumber.30 years ago there were at least 4-5 huge mills receiving wood from the Park alone. Probably there were more I'm not aware of.
Do some research with "The Northern Logger" or some other regional wood products concerns. I think you're way off base.
Brian, Going back to the numbers. I see that most folks on this blog think that the main asset in the park is the wilderness. So like you they feel that tourism should be the main focus of economic activity. I agree this is a huge part. With that said, what do you see as the numbers we could support for the "weekend" population. As we grow the tourist economy we will see these numbers continue to steadily rise. I think I read somewhere that the year round population in Provincetown MA is 3000. The summer weekend population is 60,000. What will the numbers for the park look like in a booming tourist economy that we are hoping for?
I'd like to see hiking permits and all watercraft including canoes to carry registrations (fees). The same goes for horses. You should have to "register" every saddle that is ridden off your own private land. I live north of the blue line and it disgusts me to see these weekend cowboys using our local snowmobile trails for free. These trails are maintained by the fees snowmobilers pay. Snowmobiles ride on snow covered ground leaving the actual ground underneath untouched (for the most part). Horses due 100 times the damage or more. For free. Hikers in the Adirondacks they also cause more trail wear than a snowmobiler does. For free.
Loved your post Brian. I hope to talk about more of these issues too on my new blog.
Hikers, kayakers, canoeists...all the people using the State lands and waters for "free" should be made to buy a land use permit once they hit 16 yoa. If a fisherman has to buy a license to not catch fish, a hiker should be forced to do the same thing.
Excise taxes of sporting goods equipment (hunting/fishing/trapping) are paid under the Pittman-Robertson Act. I believe it started in the 30's or 40's.Sportsmen have been paying their way for decades. It's the "Sierra Club/Adk 46ers" turn now.
re: requiring a use permit to enjoy STATE land and the great outdoors-
are you f-ing kidding me?
what if i promise to close my eyes and hold my breath, can i get a cut rate for not fully enjoying the experience?
the prime resource that the adk park offers without a doubt is open space/widerness.
once that is lost it's not easy to get back.
so for the sake of being able to live in the park it seems most suggest that an industry, or commercial developement is the answer, so that people that choose to live in the park can have a place to work and make money in order to live there.
maybe if you intend to live in the woods you can't expect to have all the catchings of a subburban community.
if you want a big box store- go live in malone and drive into the park. if you're lucky (clever) enough to come up with an idea where you can make money while living in the park, and keeping in mind respectfull use of the land and water then bravo.
this is why wilderness all over the planet remains wilderness-- because its tough to exist there and expect to be able to run down to the corner and get chineese food and a blockbuster video.
the chcoicce is the people-you want jobs and civilization within a 10 min. drive, go live in a city.
you want to be able to conoe and find that secret stash of cranberries for the thanksgiving table, i suggest living in the woods.
if you want both? then become a professional (doctor, lawyer, stockbroker- you choose what) and then you can afford to live in the burbs and buy that second house in the wilderness.
me? i'm a carpenter that hates developement, can't afford to live in either place, but will be damned if i have to buy a permit to walk in the woods, conoe, ride a horse-mule or goat. even if i lived on long island and drove up here i pay my state taxes and for that i expect to use my states "outdoors"
many of you sound like you're bitter you cant have it both ways. you don't want second home owners, but you want their business. you dont want logging but you need employment. you split hairs over who is using what, for what purposes. you hate the apa, but you don't want boathouses and septic systems on lake shores.
to me, and i made a big assumption, that if you want to live in the park you must be self sufficient, relying on little that involve the trappings of "town life". you may not have home depot to buy building materils. you may not have a paved road. you may not have broadway theater. most of all you can not charge people to walk in the woods, or horseback ride whether you're a weekend cowboy, or full time amish-- from which, by the way, i hear no complaints.
live simple, provide for yourself, give the extra to those that need it , and laugh your ass off when you trade an egg for a fur coat from the soon to be mass exodus from this country's starving "rich city" people. or you can let them eat their coveted money.
the great experiment has run amuk...
those that thought of it miscalculated the true desire of those who claimed they wanted to live surrounded by nature. turns out they only thought they did.
and the ones who do not have nature outside their window seem to value it more?
is that why "city people" try to controll the land use whithin the park?
"park people" resent the outsiders influence, but want outside money.
people in hell want ice water
Nice language Pete. Maybe next time you can put the beer down before posting some filthy garbage like that here.
harrold-your asumtions are not correct. i don't drink. don't smoke. used only one curse word--kinda. hell doesn't count.
fought in two wars, earned one purple heart and a bronze star, married to one woman. i volunteer in my community's habitat for humanity.
excuse the previous rant, but i've earned it twofold. when i can afford little more, i'll be damned if someone is gonna charge me to walk in the woods, swim in a lake, or stare at a sunset from any of the mountain tops, even if it's a token payment. see ya on the trail harry.
People in the park are sick and tired of state bureaucrats telling them what they can and can't do with their property. Why is that so hard to understand?
Pete, seems to me since I have to buy a license to hunt my own land , fish my own ponds, trap my own predators, ride an ATV or snowmobile, etc. that it's only right hikers, canoeists, etc pay their fair share.
You can be damned if you want, but right is right and wrong is wrong. Simple as that.
take a stand, instead of standing in line.
if you don't think somethings right- don't subscribe to it.
if you get a license to ride an atv soley on your property that's foolish. you stock your own pond? then why do you need a license?
if i could look out at marcy peak from my doorstep do i need to pay an additional usage fee? maybe
we are here at this juncture in this country because we were led here, and now we don't like the destination. maybe we should try to take the lead instead of following?
let me ask anyone else- how far of my already unstable rocker am i?!
or are we all doomed to be suckers.
"I'd bet money there are at least 5,000 mills across NYS today, and I don't bet money on much of anything."
In God we trust. All others must have data. The earlier post gave a cite. Please reciprocate.
Pete'
I was the first one in the blog to make the suggestion that we consider a fee for hikers so they pickup some fair share of the burden. But you know I see your point. It is crazy. I just don't know how we can make it so everyone fairly pays. It does cost money we can't really get away from that.
Anonymous said...
"I'd bet money there are at least 5,000 mills across NYS today, and I don't bet money on much of anything."
In God we trust. All others must have data. The earlier post gave a cite. Please reciprocate.
January 31, 2010 1:03 PM
How could I possibly do that? There are no numbers for that. I'm basing my guess on my travels over 6 counties in the past few years. I can name off at least 45 mills- Amish and private bandmills- within 45 miles of my home. Extrapolate that across the whole state and figure it yourself.
Pete, apparently your views and conscience will allow you to do things I could not. That's besides the point anyway. The point is the law requires that private landowners, TAXPAYERS, buy licenses and permits to use their own land and for other taxpayers to hunt, fish, snowmobile, etc. Many of those people "take" no more than a hiker, rafter, or canoeist. In fact, the hikers, mountain bikers, etc. do a huge amount of damage to the woods.
So, why do the politically correct hikers, rafters, etc get a free pass?
"Extrapolate that across the whole state and figure it yourself."
No.
re: bret-
not sure i understand-
"The point is the law requires that private landowners, TAXPAYERS, buy licenses and permits to use their own land and for other taxpayers to hunt, fish, snowmobile, etc. Many of those people "take" no more than a hiker, rafter, or canoeist."
please tell me again in another phrasing. are you saying as a "permitted" hunter i can "take" hikers and canoeists?
"So, why do the politically correct hikers, rafters, etc get a free pass?"
if they are politically correct i guess they would buy permits..no?
or am i misunderstanding?
wouldn't the incorrect ones (like you are insinuating i am) be the ones getting the free passes?
i don't want to flog a dead horse- never even flogged a live one but- at what point as residents of a town, state, or country, are we allowed to appreciate the simple act of recreation, as TAXPAYERS of a town, state, or country, without the additional fees imposed by the superior "politically correct" ?
tell me again in another way please, and that can be my last reading/posting of this matter.
thanx.
Good points, but you need to add the lost revenue from pushing more and more sportsman out of the blue line back into the rest of the state. In many cases sportsmen are no longer hunting or fishing because the lost weekend of sharing times with each other is being abandoned with each new conservation purchase. Maybe let’s look at all the lands outside the park and create an exchange program. For every acre given back to municipality or sold off in a public auction, the Park would receive those monies not to purchase, but to maintain infrastructure of what it currently owns. The last thing is to start charging a season state wide hiking pass, at the present time only sportsmen licenses pay for the price of programs for the State. (the rest is on the shoulders of the tax payers)
Good points, but you need to add the lost revenue from pushing more and more sportsman out of the blue line back into the rest of the state. In many cases sportsmen are no longer hunting or fishing because the lost weekend of sharing times with each other is being abandoned with each new conservation purchase. Maybe let’s look at all the lands outside the park and create an exchange program. For every acre given back to municipality or sold off in a public auction, the Park would receive those monies not to purchase, but to maintain infrastructure of what it currently owns. The last thing is to start charging a season state wide hiking pass, at the present time only sportsmen licenses pay for the price of programs for the State. (the rest is on the shoulders of the tax payers)
No Pete, you're missing what I mean it seems. It's simply this, sportsmen have been paying their way for decades license fees, taxes, etc. Meanwhile the politically correct hikers, rafters, etc. get a free pass- they suck money out of the system rather than put anything back. Trailhead maintainence, Ranger services, signage, damage to the lands, etc. Is a $20.00 license going to kill them?
My opinion is that unless you have a hunting, fishing, trapping license or are riding a registered snowmobile, ATV, boat, etc. you should have to buy a license to use State lands. That or lower or do away with the outrageous fee's charged to hunters, fishermen, trappers, snowmobilers, boaters, etc.
Anonymous said...
"Extrapolate that across the whole state and figure it yourself."
No.
February 1, 2010 10:55 AM
You seemingly have no grasp of what constitutes a "sawmill" in say 1860, 1900, 1945 or 2010. Look into the history of mills and sawmilling beyond your site listed and you'll see that most mills have been little 3-4 man affairs, not the gigantic modern mill you seem to envision. Your stats are based on an inaccurate premise. We've actually come partially back to what existed a century ago.
"People in the park are sick and tired of state bureaucrats telling them what they can and can't do with their property. Why is that so hard to understand?"
I can't speak for everyone, but it is hard for me to understand this sentiment because they choose to live in the Adirondack Park... which comes with all sorts of amazing benefits and opportunities... and it also comes with certain responsibilities and limitations.
Choosing to live here and complaining about the restrictions and regulations always struck me as odd. It is like choosing to live in a gated community and whining about the presence of a home owners association.
As someone who just moved to the park, and made substantial sacrifices to be able to make it work, I see living here more as a privilege, than a right.
The homeowner's association analogy is flawed as homeowner's associations are ultimately accountable to the residents of the community whereas the APA is not accountable to Park residents.
Also, there has been an exodus of people from the Park. I think it's likely that some of those leaving are sick of the APA's heavy-handness.
The Park faces a seriously problem with regard to having sustainable communities that are able to provide basic services. The exodus of residents has contributed to this problem.
Yeah, it is not a perfect analogy, but the focus of it wasn't on home owners associations or the APA, it was on the people who choose to live in a place with known characteristics that bother them... and then do nothing but complain about it.
That is a sentiment I'll never quite understand.
And while I'm sure people have left the park in part because of the APA, I am equally sure that people have moved to the park in part because of it. The reason I am sure about the latter is because I am one of them.
So scapegoating the APA as the reason for declining populations and poor local economies strikes me as off the mark. Especially when a lot of rural communities who are not under the umbrella of the APA are experiencing the exact same problems.
I'm not against the APA per say. But I do think if the APA is going to continue to exist it needs to:
1. be more accountable to Park residents. Perhaps by having APA commissioners being chosen by local government or through park wide elections.
2. Be more consistent and reasonable in their regulations. Regulations that focues solely on aesthetics and have no environmental impact should be discarded. What difference does it make how big Lowe's sign is? Or whether someone has a flat roof boat house?
3. Terminate employees guilty of misconduct. The attorneys who cause the Maye and Lewis messes were never disciplined. Also was anyone ever fired for the computer pornography and sexual harrassment scandals? All in all too much controversy for such a small agency.
Post a Comment
<< Home