Does NCPR want to "pauperize" the people of the North Country?
Corrected: Mr. Dicker points out, accurately, that he said "pauperize" and not "pulverize." I've corrected this word throughout the text.
Fred Dicker is one of Albany's most influential conservative journalists, host of a closely watched AM radio talk show and a political writer for the New York Post.
On his show Friday, Mr. Dicker argued that there are
"extremely wealth elitist types from the New York City area who have a vested interest in pauperizing the people of the Adirondacks to benefit themselves, their second and third homes, their property ownership. It's a class warfare against the people of the Adirondacks."
His guest, Essex farmer Salim "Sandy" Lewis, replied, "Mr. Dicker, you're only 100% right. I'm astounded to hear you say it. But I want to make it clear to you. I know who they are."
"Tell us!" Mr. Dicker urged.
Pretty exciting stuff. So who are the villains of this "plot for the pauperization of the people of the Adirondacks," to quote Mr. Dicker?
"The lead of this started with Nelson Rockefeller," Lewis began. Which is pretty standard fare.
The Republican governor has never been popular with those who disapprove of the Park Agency and its rules.
Mr. Lewis then went on to blast Peter Paine from Willsboro, president of Champlain National Bank and one of the co-creators of the modern APA.
All very fine and good, but it's sort of old hat, ancient history. Those bones have been chewed pretty well since the 1970s
Mr. Dicker wanted fresh meat: "We only have about three minutes, so get to the heart of it, if you would!"
Then Mr. Lewis popped his guns at one of the true villains, the nefarious, the underhanded...NCPR?
"They formed these charities and there are a number of them, and one of them sadly -- and you better give them time -- is Brian Mann, Ellen Rocco, and Martha Foley at North Country Public Radio. They're in the middle of this. These charities draw from the same anonymous donors."
Yikes. That's pretty strong. Nonsense, of course, utterly ridiculous, but exciting.
I always feel a little awkward responding to stuff like this. It's just that silly. But I suppose it's necessary to clarify a few points.
1. Mr. Lewis is apparently convinced that NCPR is part of some cabal, but he has never questioned the accuracy of our reporting. He's always welcome to do so.
2. The largest source of income for North Country Public Radio is local memberships, from North Country people -- the vast majority under $100. The second largest source of income are local businesses who purchase "underwriting" on our airwaves.
3. Mr. Lewis is correct that some of our major donors are also donors to or members of environmental groups. We have a "firewall" between fundraising and our journalism that is completely impervious. There is no fudging of this line, none.
4. I love complicated, thorny, controversial stories. NCPR wants those stories from me. If I ever find evidence of a plot to "pulverize" my neighbors in the Adirondacks, we will claw and fight to be the first to tell you about it.
But that story has to be factual and fair. AM talk radio blather, ad hominem attacks, and conspiracy theories won't cut it.
Your thoughts and comments are welcome below.
posted by Brian Mann @ 2/06/2010 07:49:00 AM
103 Comments
103 Comments:
Extremely wealthy elitist types from the NYC area? Wouldn't that include Sandy Lewis, ex-Wall Street guy who was chased out of the financial "industry" for some sort of hanky-panky?
Full disclosure, I am a supporter ($100/yr) of NCPR and I used to be a member of the Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks. I am NOT a member of Protect the Adirondacks! because I wont join any group with an exclamation point in its' name.
Brian,
I don't see an ad hominem attack here. Has Lewis or Dicker called you a name or simply implicated you in attempts to restrain development in the ADK? If it's the latter, then it's not ad hominem.
It's unclear what either mean by "pulverizing" and I guess the vagueness serves their motives. In fairness though, NCPR reporting is protective of the Park and so are you. (No?) Lewis is correct in suggesting that NCPR isn't part of a prodevelopment faction. It's pretty clear that there are shared interests (i.e. preservation of the Park) among NCPR reporters, donors (including myself) & patrons of NCPR. I agree that this "meeting of the minds" doesn't constitute a cabal but you (we) should be honest about our preferences regarding the Park.
JPM
First posted is dead on.
In addition, it started way before Nelson Rocka-feller, read Oliver's War, and the fate of the Town of Brandon.
How did something like the Sierra Club do so well and the APA fail?
Who's the present day John Muir, ala Adirondak?
I've been watching Burns' National Parks series. Are there parallels to be drawn?
Obviously, Lewis feels emboldened by his recent victory, and now he's on the war path. I guess that's to be expected, but it's transparent to me....
I don't subscribe to Mr. Lewis plot theory completely. However I do feel there is a definite "us vs. them" mentality at both the APA/DEC level, the RCPA/AMC/Etc and most certainly at the residential/native/"poo' white trash" level. There is a very, very real disconnect between the elite environmentalists/big dollar/NYC types and the working man of the area.
Call it what you want, but it's been around for as long as I can recall. I don't think there is an intentional bias on the part of either side, it's probably just perspective.
I will admit there are times I'm completely baffled at a report I hear on NCPR that seems to run counter to what I have seen, see or experienced. That doesn't mean (my rants when angry aside!) I think there's a genuine attempt to "pulverize" anyone. It's just perspective and getting "the other side" to understand the others perspective can be very difficult.
Does this make all donors to NCPR members of the same cabal?
Exciting. I've always wanted to be on the inside of a nefarious scheme.
They would have gotten away with too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!
Can this be the same Sandy Lewis who was convicted of a felony stock manipulation case in 1986? And the same one who got a pardon from Bill Clinton?
WOW! What's Fred Dicker doing consorting with a known felon?
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/04/business/wall-street-innovator-is-indicted.html?pagewanted=1
There's nothing funnier than really rich people like Lewis talking about elitism.
Except the poor people who believe he's on their side.
Search for and read the op ed he (Lewis) wrote in the Times, if you really want to read irony!
...hmmm...for some reason Brian's post and the comments prompted me to renew a lapsed subscription.
Actually efforts to protect the Adirondacks from development go all the way back to Verplank Colvin. Is there a problem with wealthy folk buying up ADK property for recreation homes, driving up land value and making the palce expensive for ordinary ADK residents? Yes, and it is a repeat (albeit) on a larger scale) of the Great Camp days. Is it a secret plot? No.
How clever of you people at NCPR to cover your tracks by hiding behind small donors and local businesses when your only real (necessary) source of operating funds is those elusive wealthy elitists from downstate.
Now we know that your fundraisers only need to last about 5 minutes. Just long enough to open the envelopes containing those huge elitist-written checks.
Seriously, though... most of the wealthy out-of the-area types in my corner of the Adirondacks are the ones hell bent on developing the land, not chasing the people out of the park. After all, someone needs to mow the lawns and scrub the toilets at the new condo projects.
Proud to be a member of the resident supported NCPR cabal, but I'd be pleased to see the elitist (non resident) NYC money that supports the RCPA (now call Assoc to Protect the Adirondacks) and the Adirondack Council go away. These are, at best, groups of affluent NIMBY's (not in my backyard) mansion owners who take the position that they have their little piece of paradise and don't want anyone else to get theirs! The former RCPA cost NYS residents hundreds of thousands of $$ defending against their frivolous law suits.
Totally off topic but I would like to clarify that ADK(capitalized) is the abbreviation for Adirondack Mountain Club....please use Adk's in future comments.
Read on ... is this why Mr. Lewis is a "farmer" now.... Seems like a presidential pardon doesn't take aaway all guilt...
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-51817.pdf
I listened carefully to Dicker's show, and he did not say NCPR wants "pulverize" the people of the North Country. He stated that it is his belief that there are "extremely wealthy elitist types from the NYC area who have a vested interest in PAUPERIZING the people of the Adirondacks to benefit themselves, their second or third homes, their property ownership, it's a class warfare against the working people of the Adirondacks". The APA is the tool of these enviro/elitists. For once someone (Lewis) with financial means and an arrogance to match theirs fought them, and won. There are those who care nothing about the ability of long time year round residents to make a living, and the regulatory actions of the APA to prohibit the reasonable use of private property seems designed to drive the working man from the park.
Pauperize, not pulverize, sir.
This is Fred Dicker, who conducted the interview with Sandy Lewis that's being discussed. Just to be clear, the word I used was indeed "pauperize'' -- as in turning into paupers -- and not ''pulverize'' when describing the effects of the APA on the people of the Adirondacks. The difference between the two isn't all that great but paupers are available to serve as winter watchmen and summer servants, which of course is what the North Country elitists prefer to use them for.
An example of a large New York City donor type that NCPR shares with the Adirondack Council is John Ernst, Chairman & President of Bloomingdale Properties, Lexington Ave. Manhattan. Ernst is also owner of the 12,000 acre exclusive private forest preserve and Elk Lake Lodge and a long time Adirondack Council Board member. He clearly has some influence on NCPR programming as he has been a frequent guest on NCPR shows. Adirondack Council used to hold board meetings in Manhattan but have apparently ceased that practice to avoid the negative perception that their organization is controlled by wealthy Manhattan types like Ernst, (as they certainly are) as Sandy Lewis claims. Also, Adirondack Council is a frequent sponsor of NCPR programming. Perhaps the firewall between your NCPR donors and NCPR news stops the most blatant bias, but it’s hard to believe that stories that would put your large donors and sponsors in a poor light are not treated with “special sensitivity” at NCPR. Sandy Lewis has the true nature of the Adirondack Council pegged corectly. They are a property ownwers association for the wealty with a green front as cover.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi folks -
I just listened back to the interview and Fred Dicker is, of course, correct.
He said "pauperize" and used the word twice.
I listened to the interview twice and for some reason heard it as "pulverize."
More to follow in a second comment, but I wanted to make this correction in a stand-alone post.
--Brian, NCPR
A couple of responses to specific points here:
1. Someone pointed out that John Ernst, a donor to NCPR, a major landowner in the Park, and a major donor to NCPR has appeared repeatedly on our airwaves. This is accurate. He has co-hosted an annual show on literature.
2. Someone wrote, "Perhaps the firewall between your NCPR donors and NCPR news stops the most blatant bias, but it’s hard to believe that stories that would put your large donors and sponsors in a poor light are not treated with “special sensitivity” at NCPR."
If this is true, it's a very serious accusation -- it's not just 'oh well, that's how the world works.'
It's an indictment of our professionalism, our ethics.
It's also a complete misread of how NCPR works as an organization.
One of the reasons people support us so generously is that we're very, very comfortable making people angry.
So here's a challenge to everyone who believes that we do exhibit a sort of soft bias.
Do your homework.
Go to NCPR's search engine.
Use it to review our environment stories, our economic stories, our land use and property right stories.
Look for examples (or patterns) of bias.
If nothing else, go back and listen to my first story about Sandy Lewis.
www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/11532/a-farmer-s-legal-feud-with-the-apa-could-set-new-rules-for-agriculture-in-the-adirondack-park
See if you think I treated him unfairly.
--Brian, NCPR
Lewis is a hero for his principled stand against the APA and their constant grab for more control. He's done all who are or may be subject to APA jurisdiction a great service. One of the root issues in his dispute, brought out at the end of the Dicker interview, is the APA's practice of requiring every permit they issue to contain a clause that expands the APA's future jurisdiction over any new activity at the project area. This insideous regulatory expansion has no basis in the APA's enabling legislation. It is the APA self- expanding and self-empowering. It is this kind of behavior by APA that so infuriates and antagonizes those who must deal with them. Sandy stood up against their power grabing bullying practices.
Lewis is correct about the ulterior motives of the wealthy Manhattanites and their plan for the Adk's and it's people, afterall who would know better how such a mind set works?
How is Lewis any different now that he's a "farmer"?---
could it be the aspect that he chooses to use immigrants for his labor pool so as to spare the locals from being pauperized? How magnanimous of him to spare us.
I hear alot of praise of Lewis for winning against the big bad Council, something many of the pauperized dream of doing- but a word of caution- don't think that because "we" may have a common enemy that Lewis is by any means on "our" side.
Anonymous -
I agree that that aspect of the Lewis case -- APA permit and enforcement conditions that appear to expand the state's jurisdiction over private land -- does warrant more scrutiny.
Why is the APA doing it? How common is it? Has the policy changed over time?
I've already begun researching this and done some interviews, but I don't have good answers yet.
More soon on this.
--Brian, NCPR
Sorry to chime in with so many comments so quickly.
One thing that complicates the portrait of the APA painted by Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dicker is that two of the the Agency's highest profile cases recently involved very wealthy people.
Whatever else they may represent, the Spiegel case in Lake Placid and the Lewis case in Essex weren't examples of the Park Agency pursuing hardscrabble local folk.
--Brian, NCPR
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This story is worth exploring - especially if there is any public sentiment supporting Mr. Lewis' charge of a plot to pauperize the ADKS. I've always thought of parks and particularity the Adirondack forest preserve as something accessible to all levels of society no matter how wealthy, that positively impacts everyone's quality of life.
NCPR's role has been to promote sharing, understanding, access.
If there is cabal, how would it be accomplishing its mission?
RPC
Nobody knows Albany like Fred Dicker. I tune in now and then http://talk1300.com/ Last time I did, Fred Monroe, head of the Adirondack Local Government Review Board, was a guest. Both Freds made unsupported statements about what for lack of notes I'll summarize as environmental oppression of park residents. It appeared that Fred M. thought nobody up here was listening. His statements to WNBZ and other local media have been more measured. It also seemed Fred D. doesn't know the park as well as his own turf.
It can be an entertaining show, but its premise that the APA is on a power trip is tiring for its lack of specificity. Mr. Lewis's case does provide a clear-cut example of an APA interpretation rejected by the courts. But one court case is not an indictment of all APA decisions. The APA has won cases too, and nobody think that gives the agency carte blanche.
Mr. Lewis needs to come down off the cross, we could use the wood...
The Lewis case happened because it is a tenet of the APA staff culture that APA jurisdiction and authority should be expanded at every opportunity and that any challenge to their authority and the techniques used to enlarge their reach should be nipped in the bud and punished.
Lewis could probably have gotten a permit for his worker housing if he’d meekly submitted to APA control. They probably would have made him paint the houses green or something similar to put their brand on it. But forever after, for just about everything he might want to do with his property, no matter if it was a activity covered by the original APA law, the APA would be a permanent monkey on his back. The permit conditions he would have been obliged to accept to get his permit would amount to permanent undefined deed restrictions. A blank check that APA could fill in and define as they pleased in the future.
As has been said elsewhere, APA staff act like they are on a mission from god. Pretty soon they begin to think they are god and they deliver what they view as righteous wrath on the heads of the disobedient or defiant. They accomplish most of this by pressure and threats of fines, so they are able to claim they seldom actually bring enforcement actions. Most of the bullying goes on quietly and subtly. Lewis wouldn’t put up with it and raised an uproar. Good for him.
The moneyed elitists he rails against set the ideological tone that is promoted to APA staff and enables them to continue their sanctimonious bullying attitudes and mistreatment of the public.
Brian.
As a 13 year veteran of the Johnsburg planning board and current member of the town board I have certainly seen the agency in action, probably more than most park residents.
My experience is that, by and large, if an applicant starts early, asks questions, and follows the rules, things go pretty smoothly. In fact, I hear more complaints about local boards than I do about the agency. (Although, I suspect that some applicants are a little surprised by the professionalism and thoroughness of local planning and zoning boards. They sometimes seem to think that when they are done with the APA, the locals will give them a free ride.)
That being said, I think I can provide you with a couple of recent examples of regulatory overreach on the part of the APA.
One recent development that is required for a town to get an approved land use plan is the elimination of inconsequential boundary line adjustments. Instead, an applicant is required to go through a full blown subdivision process.
The second is an uncompensated "taking". It used to be that if one wished to do a subdivision on property that contains wetlands, the number of allowable lots was determined by the total acreage of the property. Lots were simply clustered away from the wetlands. Now, the wetland acreage is cut out first, and the remaining land is then subject to the original density requirements (without including wetlands in the overall total of acreage.) Thus resulting in a sometimes drastic reduction in the number of potential lots. Note that this change was one that the agency could not achieve legislatively, so they made a
regulatory change instead.
I would also note that the real long range threat to the viability of this region (especially in regards to the "locals") is the lack of living wage jobs (a situation exacerbated by politicians) and the overall gentrification of the area.
I know you read the article on Governing Magazine last spring.
( http://www.governing.com/article/bordeaux-vs-budweiser )
These issues are not exactly the result of APA over regulation.
Ron,
Are you sure that the APA isn't counting wetland acreage in the building allotment? In my experience, local subdivison laws work that way. The APA counts, even in a 2009 permit a friend got, they didn't care what wetlands there were because they were pretty far from the building area. If it works the way you say, a surveyor would need to mapped the wetlands, which is the case if the building/septic is near the wetland. I have been in the building industry for many years and never seen acreage deducted for wetlands by APA. On the other hand the towns, particularly with ones who got some of the APA authority through local plans.
"Whatever else they may represent, the Spiegel case in Lake Placid and the Lewis case in Essex weren't examples of the Park Agency pursuing hardscrabble local folk." Brian this is the heart of the issue. Let me try and explain this again. Your station and other media outlets are only covering these stories because these are the ones where the land owners have the money and time to go up against a system where the deck is clearly stacked. You only hear about Mr. Lewis and Mr. Spiegel because these guys have the money to fight back. If you knew the ADK's well enough you would know that this is the reason that the majority of landowners do not get APA permits even in the cases where they plan to follow all the regulations. The system hurts the people and the environment. If you don't see that yet I don't think you ever will.
If the APA had better leadership, staff would not be allowed to pursue internal ideological goals, grudge matches and power grabs or make chest beating displays asserting their authority as seems to be largely the issue with the Lewis matter. And when the APA’s top position is filled from the board of the partisan special interest group Lewis identifies, it’s no wonder trouble ensues. The APA needs an attitude adjustment and a leadership change.
Anonymous 10:08 -
Actually, I have reported repeatedly on the patterns and policies of APA enforcement cases over the last ten years.
I've interviewed landowners, property rights activists, state officials, realtors, local government leaders, environmentalists, and others.
I've looked at case files kept by the APA staff as they negotiate with landowners. I've looked at the statistical records compiled by the APA.
I've reported on the debate over the APA's clumsy enforcement rules.
The bottom line is that I DO think there are legitimate policy questions, and fair questions about decisions made by the APA.
Are the APA regulations too stringent, too weak, too vague?
Have individual enforcement cases been handled properly? Has there been overreach?
All important questions, which we have covered and will continue to cover.
But I have not seen a pattern of predatory targeting of poor local residents who lack the resources to defend themselves.
In fact, one of the most factually supportable claims I've seen is that the APA drops too many enforcement cases -- thousands of them in the time that I've been reporting on the Agency -- not because they lack merit but because the state lacks the staff to investigate them properly.
I know my reporting is frustrating to some of the readers of this blog.
You feel that your suspicions about the APA's culture and motivations should be accepted as fact.
But I'm a journalist; I can't work that way.
My job is to keep looking at the evidence, keep an open mind, and see where the facts take us.
--Brian, NCPR
Ron, good article, and a true glimpse into the proverbial crystal ball.
I would also like people to keep in mind that some of us who moved up here from downstate were in fact forced out from there for the very same cause and effect.
I came up here, and chose hardscrabble of the Adk's over hardscrabble of Long Island, where the same events occur. Never made any real money there, i fished and clamed in the summer during the day and cooked in the restaurants at night. could'nt afford a house or a wife and family.
-STILL-
There is a palpable feeling i am still "one of those rich manhattan guys" whenever i interact with the "true locals", and i've been here since '78. I chose to live right outside the blue line- partly because i could'nt afford to be inside, and partly because i had experience with a regulatory group where i came from. On the Island it's the DEC. Up here it's the APA (who make downstate DEC look like milk toast). Contrarily the DEC up here have been nothing like downstate DEC.
I'm happy i moved, i understand the dynamics on a first hand basis, and have come to realize that no matter where i go, or where i could go it would be the same for me- hardscrabble. It's a personality trait, a real blessing and a curse. With all the money in the world i would still heat with wood, and i'd cut it myself just as i do now. I would worry less about the price of the gas and have more chains for sure, and i'd have a nicer tractor to pull it out of the woods. When i had no tractor, it was near impossible to hire ANY locals for assistance. The sting of past history fresh on their minds kept them from welcoming an outsider, no matter how alike we really were, yet Salim Lewis is made out as a hero because the locals hate the APA.
Seen this same scenario downstate too,I couldn't afford the material to paint my neighbor's fence (if it were my own), never mind the fact he would have hired an illegal alien to do the work for less than i could if i tried to get the job -- get ready for that nuance to rear it's head up here, it's close at hand.
Lewis is no friend and maybe the same goes for the APA.
There is no solution.
hans,
Here's how it works (at least in our town and others that I know of).
In order for Johnsburg to have an agency approved zoning ordinance, we have to agree to the agency's terms. This wetlands issue was one of the conditions. I have personally heard complaints about this from at least four local attorneys. It sounds like the agency is taking a piece meal approach to implementing this change. But they are doing it.
Also note that towns with an approved ordinance retain jurisdiction over subdivisions, even in class "A" projects, so the APA may not need to wield that particular hammer very often.
Here's another problem. In our new ordinance (approved August, 2007) the definition of a "lot" is (in part) "Land or parcel of land not divided by streets or roads...". The effect of that language has, with the proverbial stroke of a pen, created hundreds of potential, buildable lots in this town alone.
In other words, single lots that have a town road running through them should now be considered two lots instead of one. This certainly creates major density issues. For instance, if one owns a 10 acre lot in an 8.5 density and that lot has a road running through the middle of it, we have automatically subdivided that one parcel into two sub-standard lots.
We have had two cases involving this issue, recently. One involved a request by a land owner for a county issued tax map number on one of these newly created parcels. After consulting with our attorney, the planning board issued a letter to the county okaying the new number.
The other is still ongoing as it has caught the attention of the agency. You see, after insisting on that language in our ordinance, which was the agency's position at the time, the APA has since (several months ago) changed their position.
The APA giveth and the APA taketh away, I guess.
So Ron (11:08),
But isn't this exactly what people complain about with regard to APA behavior? The law credits wetland acrage toward development rights, but the APA makes new de-facto law on its own by forcing inclusion of more restrictive treatment in order to win their approval. If you don't agree to their terms, that expand their reach beyound their legislativly granted authority, then you don't get your approval or permit or whatever. Hence the APA expands control and casts an ever wider net and does so by coercing concessions. When a concession is 'negotiated' by a party having a tight grip on the other party's tender parts, in only slightly different contexts it's called abuse or blackmail (or worse).
LOL- the more we try to define things the more the "other" things define themselves.
eg. by making a new definition for establishing what a "lot" is
inadvertantly another problem scenario was set up. the road dividing the property created 2 lots by default. What if one lot is 100 acres and building even 3single homes on it is straight foward due to It's size. The second lot is .25 acres and severely undersized for any developement, but it has a nicer layout, features, etc, and it is where the property owner wishes to locate the house. The property owner now has two tax bills, and a chip on his/her shoulder, and want's a new definition and regulations for the piece that was created by default. Compounding the issue, the road that created the new lot lines is new too. It was never there bfore and recently taken by State or Town as an emminent domain issue to rectify say, a dangerous pre-existing former road issue... now we need an addendum to the rules (wich is always open for interpretation)concerning "said parcels previouly but now currently, but not including, except when....
see where i'm going?
you'll need Lewis' money to even begin to fix this..
Any body remember Pogo- the comic strip?
"we have met the enemy and they is us!"
oh yeah--
the big print giveth and the small print taketh away.
We appreciate the anonymous who hide - and attempt slander. They are in fine company here.
FACT: No Lewis in our family has donated to President Clinton or Judge Meyer, not a dime.
Ron, your issue with the "lot" definition sounds just like the Legislatures adoption of the FMCSA rules en mass 2 or 3 years ago. The State adopted the Federal Motor Carrier Rules without bothering to find out what that would result in. So now every commercial driver in NY has to comply with interstate MC rules- medical cards, vision and log requirements, DOT numbers and equipment. All at the stroke of a pen.
A very kind man once said, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do..."
FACT: you're here too Salim!!
a gentleman is someone who can play the bagpipes- but doesn't
Second response to "hans".
From the Town of Johnsburg Subdivision Control Law adopted 9/1/2007:
Article 4, section 410, Density calculation:
"For purposes of calculating minimum lots size and density under this article, no state-designated wetlands , water bodies, or land located within the right-of-way of a public highway or of a proposed public or private road shall be counted.
Our plan was drafted by Professor Lamb of SUNY-Plattsburgh who has authored several (at least) of these ordinances for Adirondack towns. I suspect he knows what the agency expects.
FYI...
One of the issues Lewis raised on the Dicker show referred to the 501(c)(3)'s and the power they exert over land in the Park, citing the "intermarriage" of various boards of Not For Profit corps. and the APA.
NCPR was included in that reference. I doubt that a public radio station will sincerely do the "digging" in an objective manner to investigate these charges. There are many examples, not just in the Park, but across NYS and the country for that matter, of the enviro powerhouse NFP's acquiring prime land for "conservation" purposes and then turning it over to the state for a sizeable profit. Also, cases where board members of these enviro groups somehow manage to end up with prime real estate from the organization they supported, after a series of transactions which often escape public scrutiny. Check out the expose on the Nature Conservancy done several years ago.
Anonymous 3:04pm -
The fact that you 'doubt' that NCPR will do the digging to report on these issues is, bluntly, lazy.
Do a little work. Go through our archives.
Before expressing a completely factless opinion, find out whether we have, in fact, done the digging you ask for.
All the information you need to shape an informed opinion is right here on this website, free of charge.
You would find that in fact NCPR has covered precisely this story.
We've scrutinized every aspect of the state's land acquisition policies.
Here's one example:
www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/1478/cedarlands-conservation-deal-near-long-lake-draws-praise-raises-eyebrows
Here's another:
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/15010/critics-lawsuit-claim-adirondack-council-sways-apa-decisions-unfairly
--Brian, NCPR
"The bottom line is that I DO think there are legitimate policy questions, and fair questions about decisions made by the APA."
Fair enough. Give us a few good examples. Then tell us what was wrong with those policies or decisions and tell us what you think should be done to change them. How should the decisions have been made?
I gave you an example of where an APA fine amounted to almost 500 thousand dollars in direct cost to one landowner. This was a day after Keith McKeever said that the largest fine they had ever levied was 50K. Did you ever have a chance to check that out? (I wasn't making that up it was from the APA files) Look at the "picnic boat" example what is the projected fine there? I know this isn't a conspiracy but let's take this one step at a time.
Sandy,
If you hate it and us so bad, move.
Brian,
"Here's one example:
www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/1478/cedarlands-conservation-deal-near-long-lake-draws-praise-raises-eyebrows
Here's another:
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/15010/critics-lawsuit-claim-adirondack-council-sways-apa-decisions-unfairly"
These examples are at best described as "questions here, questions there". They are good stories and good descriptions of "what" was going on. But we need some answers. Thanks.
NCPR needs to look into why there are no local environmentalists appointed to the APA Local Government Review Board. Members are pro-development and anti-APA. Where's the balance there?
Further, investigate the conflicts of interest people like Fred Monroe have. For instance, as Chairman of the Local Gov Review Board he is against additional purchase of land by the state. Does he ever mention the lease his private hunting club has with a paper company will be affected? It is the elitist local government types that conspire for policies that will benefit their own interests that need to be investigated.
Ron,
A lot of the town's comprehensive plans are more strict than APA. Your town has taken on some APA jurisdiction and your local law doesn't count wetlands.
That's not because the APA wanted it. My town has toyed with the idea for a while. Our plan has to be at least a strict as theirs but not stricter, but we already have a lot of stricter laws than APA
The state needs to look into why Fred Monroe's wife has the State funded position of Local Government Review Board secretary. Did she get it via competitive civil service selection or nepotism.
I really don't have an opinion about the APA or Lewis. I think a lot of the anti-APA stuff is hyperbole. In this instance I think the APA screwed up with their own law, not maliciously, but an embarrassment and waste of tax payer money and there are no good excuses.
On the other hand, The comment forums on this In Box for the last few weeks have been very interesting. Between the criticism of NCPR here and the Will Doolittle stuff, I am definitely going to continue my support of NCPR.
Usually its good investigative journalism that hounds the politicians and government. When it comes to APA and adirondack environmental issues, the easiest thing to do is jump on anti-apa wagon. Between Will Doolittle and that free weekly rag that comes to my house, it appears to be easy to write an anti-apa story without any research, using only one unsubstantiated claim.
It appears that NCPR is one of the few to the good research and investigation. THe ink can't dry on my NCPR support check soon enough.
Hans, my understanding is that no ordinance approval would be forthcoming from the agency without that provision. Further, the agency will not even entertain removing it.
In addition, the attorneys I've talked to don't see any hope or changing the ordinance either. And one of members of our zoning commission is a real estate broker who would never have agreed to that provision if it was optional.
Your mileage may very.
Mr. Dicker said pauperize not pulverize.
Having been involved deeply with the pauperizers and the pauperized, we have the beat. And our friend Peter S. Paine led the pack.
For Brian, Brian and Brian, Ruder, Houseal and Mann, we are available - as we were for Mr. Dicker: On the record, live. On the air, at NCPR, Mr. Mann, on the record. Ball in your court.
The Lewis farm is for all to see. Compare our engagement with that of any individual or entity in the park. Come for a visit.
We are organic. We set the standard.
Invited, Ellen Rocco promised to visit - never came. Brian Mann's boss. Rocco's NCPR is a 501 c 3 common funding is in print.
The park without APA would be a disaster. The park with APA is a disaster.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
2/7/10 8:55AM by Pete- Moderator, could we please get a little more pro active in the language area here? I'm as foul mouthed as they come, but this isn't the place for this kind of analogy.
Yes, please keep the language civil.
Also, I think it's a stretch to criticize Lewis for wanting the state to pay his legal expenses in this case.
New York pursued him aggressively.
That's not necessarily a bad thing -- the APA is charged with enforcing land-use regulations.
But the courts decided that state officials were misreading the regulations and the law.
Lewis requested compensation for legal fees and expenses and after reviewing the facts the court awarded it to him.
--Brian, NCPR
We'll keep it as civil as Sandy does.
Brian- not much of a strech at all.
New York State taxpayer's money will be the source of the pay back plain and simple.
Did Salim plan it htat way? NO
Is that what will eventually happen?- or does the APA get that $200,000 from the Easter bunny?
Sandy could have avoided all this if he built an extension on his existing home to house his Immigrant work force, but that was not what he wanted. The rules were not preventing him from doing anything, they were limiting his choices-(that's what regulations do)
He has behaved like a cry baby, and got the support of people who are angry at the same Agency he is angry with, under the guise of land owner rights and the evil government. He is behavivng like a toddler throwing a tantrum. He is duping those people who supported him just like he duped the people he scammed on Wall Street.
Though the post was deleted, because Eddie was offended (24 hrs, later) i will also say that i would not give Sandy my hard earned sweat-no matter what body part it dripped from- to make iced tea either.
The fact he can fool so many people, and the fact that the APA is incompetant is what is truley offensive to me. Can either of those facts be deleted?
People, people, people, lets not loose sight of the core issue. The minor aspects of specific regulations are not the real issue. And as far as Mr. Lewis being one of the rich elite as original referred to...PLEASE!
The core issue is that the socio-economic health of the communities in the park is poor. The communities are dying and the regular, year-round residents are leaving as they cannot find work and they cannot support their families. This is conscious implementation of policy that is directly resulting poverty. The Adirondack Park Agency Act needs fundamental change. The very premise needs to be altered. True, unbiased planning is needed if these communities are to be restored. It already may be too late.
In terms of the wealthy elite. The original comment is spot on! This park is a preservationist play ground for the affluent of Westchester County and south. The long held perception of New York metro area legislators that dominate our Assembly and to a lesser degree our Senate is that when it comes to the Adirondacks all they need to do is preserve and buy land. Nothing else is needed as this is a "park", the state's preserve. There is no awareness or concern for the implications to the most endangered species in the park, the year-round residents of the park.
I want to reiterate the question from above - How did Fred Monroe's wife did a State job as the Local Government Review Board's secretary?
Did she get it via competitive civil service selection or nepotism?
There is all kinds of claims about local journalism on here and this is one of the reasons why - local journalist protect people like Will Doolittle and Fred Monroe.
How about some answers.
"The communities are dying and the regular, year-round residents are leaving as they cannot find work and they cannot support their families. This is conscious implementation of policy that is directly resulting poverty"
How does this explain the comparable poverty in many other rural parts of the state, such as central and western NY, that do not have APA-type regulations? Or for that matter, other parts of rural America? Minerva or Tupper Lake isn't going to boom just because they build a Wal-Mart.
Easy Anon 9:49. No one on the APA LGRB get's paid any money.
I think the snarky comments about Fred Monroe are just as ignorant as Sandy Lewis's comments were when offering his opinions of NCPR.
Monroe is one of the most highly respected public officials in the North Country.
He has a reputation for square-dealing even with his political opponents.
--Brian, NCPR
Anon 9:49 am--Your comment makes me deeply uneasy, particularly coming from an anonymous source. You may think you are doing some kind of public interest expose. In fact your are making a repeated and unsupported allegation of wrongdoing against an individual and then challenging NCPR to investigate them. It might be proper to pose this question in direct and private communication with a reporter, where the reporter can weigh its credibilty and question you about supporting evidence, but to just cast it out there before the world is simply defamatory, and a kind of intimidation.
Dale Hobson
NCPR web manager
Question. Does anyone know of other zoning agencies that require landowners to sign off on deed restrictions as a term for granting a permit? Has anyone ever challenged these deed restrictions? Just curious. Seems to me there would potentially be constitutional issues with this type of thing?
My God, people.
Regardless of where everyone stands on the issues at play here, I am not sure questioning the credibility of some the region's best reporters or news outlets is the optimal method of hashing this out.
Personally, I do agree that there is a disconnect between the local labor force and the monied downstaters. Both parties have differing agendas here, differing perspectives, so be it.
But to hammer on Brian, et al. just doesn't seem founded or fair.
I don't always agree with everything reported on NCPR, but does that mean that they haven't done thier due dilligence?
Of course not. NCPR always covers the bases and often exceeds the ethical requirments of sound journalism.
Here is a good example of why we see so much animosity towards the APA. This is the concluding paragraph from an APA brochure where they have defined the regulations regarding boathouses in the Adirondacks.
"This guidance reflects the consistent advice of Agency legal staff, but it must be evaluated and explained in jurisdictional advice based on the specific circumstances of any particular boathouse proposal. Such an evaluation will be provided upon request by the Jurisdictional Inquiry Office of the Adirondack Park Agency."
What does this say?? The regulations described in the document were perfectly clear, why the disclaimer? I think I can try and translate this. "These are the rules, BUT remember WE decide on a case by case basis when we will give out a permit and who gets one". Brian it is only once you have dealt with this type of potentially biased scenario will you begin to understand the issues here. I have never had a problem with the agency myself, but I know many people who have. I also know of hundreds of examples of where agency rules are ignored because folks are afraid they will fall on the wrong side of a jurisdictional inquiry. That is bad for the people and bad for the environment.
For the record, I love this discussion.
I think the touchstone was unfortunately kind of lame.
But a lot of the subsequent discussion of journalism ethics, public policy, zoning...it's been really smart and cool and passionate.
--Brian, NCPR
Paul, calm down, it means some boathouses don't need to adhere to these regulation, such as a replacement boathouse, or there are special considerations such as deed restrictions.
Regarding the constitutionality of deed restrictions, check out some HOA deed restrictions, they make APA look like a teddy bear.
No "members" of LGRB gets paid, but what about staff? What do they spend $50000 a year on?
None of the LGRB staff get paid either. At least that is my understanding.
"Paul, calm down, it means some boathouses don't need to adhere to these regulation, such as a replacement boathouse, or there are special considerations such as deed restrictions."
Yes, true. Or there are other "wetland" issues or there are a whole myriad of other issues that the agency needs to look into. That is my point exactly. You can't get the answer from the regulations you need to get it from the agency. Like I said that is why folks avoid the APA like the plague.
Help me out what is the HOA? Thanks.
HOA= home owners association- general term. not any specific one
Paul wrote: "Question. Does anyone know of other zoning agencies that require landowners to sign off on deed restrictions as a term for granting a permit?"
Yes. Certain Home Owners Associations, aka HOAs.
That answers two of your questions.
"The communities are dying and the regular, year-round residents are leaving as they cannot find work and they cannot support their families. This is conscious implementation of policy that is directly resulting poverty"
Been to Altona lately?
Never mind Mr. Google straightened me out on HOA. HOA deed restrictions are put in place by the current owner of the property he or she doesn't have to restrict the deed if they don't want to at that point. They are not even close to what we are talking about here. But there is a connection. Those deed restrictions like these make the property less marketable. Like these the restrictions are "take it or leave it" for the next potential owner.
Paul- many condo or gated communities etc have a home owners association, and as a potential buyer you would be well aware of the association. they may deyermine many thing, alterations to where you park your car etc...
Paul, what do you do for a living. You post comments on here day and night. Life is short, get off the computer!!!
The mention of HOA (Home Owners Associations) is on the mark. Other have called the Adirondack Council a Home Owners Association for wealthy down-state estate and vacation home owners. I agree. And what is happening in the Park is that this HOA is using the APA as the enforcement arm of their rules committee. Trouble is, in a HOA everyone is a voluntary member, here, we are being coerced to follow the rules of a club we never joined.
Comment for the vacuous among the anonymous: first, at sblewis dot net footnote five for those with SEC law there is proof. Giuliani knew or should have known. No crime. National publications have asked, on the record. Two want the book. It will happen. When it does, Giuliani and that SEC and that AG will be shown to be what they were: deeply complicit. It gets worse and ties to today's debt crisis. This threatens all. Ask Danny Hakim of The New York Times at 518 436 0757. He is honest, knows fact, wants the story. Fred Dicker is honest, does not. As for APA, our region, our case, it's all easy. Farm housing is legal. Farming is to be supported. But APA, this APA, wants nothing that works in the park. This APA wants to kill indigenous. Stockholm Syndrome applies even to journalism. But all is changing with Judge Meyer's fine Opinion and Order, and his latest decision on legal fees. As APA jurisdiction alters title, crushes value a primary goal of Lewis vs. APA is illicit jurisdiction obtained as APA bullies. We bait the lion, draw him out, go for and kill such jurisdiction, it's case by case. Our North Country lawyers have been complicit - and certain elements in journalism have been complicit. All of this will change. Stay tuned. Wait for Judge Meyer and resolution of Lewis case. APA will survive. This APA will not survive. We need APA, not this APA. Be patient. This is turtle and rabbit, the allegory. Time is on our side. We will win. The regional pain will be addressed. See RICO. Patience. Thank you.
Jack, I've lived in many places and have been in several HOA's, so have friends and family. Never have these HOA's been voluntary. NEVER.
Mr. Lewis, my, what short, simple sentences. Akin to jabs. Keeping it simple for the po' folk, are we?
Or maybe its a pssst, spy vs spy, scenario, where terse words are quickly whispered, hunched close and conspiratorially together in some dark, furtive corner?
Perhaps it's pure grandstanding complete with soundbites?
I tend to agree with PG. "Mr. Lewis needs to come down off the cross, we could use the wood..."
signed an anonymous member of the greek chorus, whose support is wholeheartedly behind Brian, Ellen, Martha, Dale and the NCPR team.
Brian, the comparisons to other parts of the state are very different almost to the point of being irrelevant. Are other rural areas in New York State also suffering economically? You bet. These statistics are a wider narrative on the overall condition of of our state government, its over regulation, resulting in a hugely swelled bureaucracy. Additionally, due to the Taylor Law of the 1960's we are paying our public employees at an unsustainable rate and providing benefit packages that are equally unsustainable. From 2000 to 2006 this state lost 300,000 production and manufacturing jobs from the private sector. Check the BLS website, it is a fact. And this is before the severe recession that started in the 4th quarter of 2007.
With as bad as things are statewide and in the rural areas outside of the Adirondack Park it is worse inside the Park. Read APRAP. The numbers are startling. Unemployment is ALWAYS the HIGHEST in the state. Park communities have the HIGHEST concentration of public sector jobs in New York State. Household incomes are the LOWEST. What reason have we given people to be here? Fundamental needs of shelter, education, food, etc. are needed for a any society to at least sustain. These elements are in the Park but cost more and are harder to obtain than anywhere else in the state. Face it, the Park Act has made this worse. It has overreached in the zealous pursuit of preservation and NYS has overreached in its land acquisition practices. The societal elements are out of balance and in reaction people are leaving. The saying used to be about this discussion "people would rather fight than win". I assert that is changing to "people would rather move than fight".
Anon 2/8 2 pm said:
"Paul, what do you do for a living. You post comments on here day and night. Life is short, get off the computer!!!"
Paul is a frequent and SUBSTANTIVE contributor who posts comments that actually add to the conversation, not an anonymous sniper. Life is short. Do you think you will come to the end of it and wish "Gee--I wish I had made more snarky anonymous comments?"
Dale Hobson
NCPR web manager
Anonymous 7:51 am -
Your basic premise that the economy is "worse inside the Park" doesn't appear to be accurate.
You say, "The numbers are startling. Unemployment [in the Park] is ALWAYS the HIGHEST in the state."
That's not accurate.
Essex County, which lies entirely inside the blue line, is currently at 10.3%.
That compares with 13.1% in the Bronx.
Schoharie, Broome and Niagara Counties are all at 9.3% - higher than in many Park counties.
www.labor.state.ny.us/stats/Pressreleases/prtbur.txt
You talk about people being 'more willing to move than fight.'
But the Adirondack population has held roughly steady in recent decades, according to the APRAP report, while most of Upstate New York's population has plummeted.
Look at this chart and you'll see that most Adirondack counties outperformed NYS as a whole in population growth.
www.empirecenter.org/pb/2009/10/empirestateexodus102709.cfm
I think a continuing debate about the costs and benefits of APA-style zoning and environmental regulation is necessary.
But some of the claims by opponents of the Park just don't seem factually supportable.
That may just reflect a lack of data.
As I said in an earlier post, it's possible that a thorough study would find that things are worse here.
I haven't seen that information yet.
--Brian, NCPR
Dale, thanks I can take it. And Anon 2pm... You would be surprised how many different things you can do with just 2 computers!
These arguments about whether or not the North Country is worse off than other parts of rural America seems to keep coming up. So it’s tough all over. That doesn’t change the fact that this part of NY has unique assets and unique problems.
Again I think that tourism is the key to economic progress for the NC. Opposition to the real estate development that is required to foster a tourism economy is the issue (or part of the issue). Sure it may be a problem elsewhere and it IS a problem here. What slows that process down? The economy for one thing, that is a universal problem right now as well. But also regulations that slow development, and also opposition to that development from groups that have a different agenda are all part of what is slowing economic development in the area. Crushingly high taxes are a whole different subject!
Economic development, in the ADK’s particularly, is going to change the “character” of the landscape to some extent. I don’t think that many environmental groups would argue when I say that they want to see either no change from the status quo, or change that makes the character of the area wilder than it is now. That is why you see almost universal opposition to any development projects that are large enough to make it into the “spotlight”. Despite what some groups claim, that attitude is basically inconsistent with what we need to do to make the area more “people” friendly. It is only then will we start to see some of the economic opportunities come to the area. Like I said in an earlier post I agree with many (maybe even many environmental groups) that tourism will be a key to future economic success in the ADK’s. But tourism cannot be a mantra that some groups try to hide behind as an excuse for saying that other economic sectors are non-viable. Then those same groups quickly oppose any development even if it is tied to tourism. If these groups message is real (“Augmented by vibrant local communities”) then they need to stop opposing everything that looks like development. Once everyone starts to agree on a course forward then we can work together to get it done. If some people think that the best course forward is staying here at the STOP sign or backing up in traffic then you are part of the problem.
Brian:
Once again you're selected use of numbers is misleading and inaccurate. You are actually comparing Adirondack counties to the Bronx? Okay....
Let's see what happens when someone looks at all the facts instead of carefully manipulated references. From 2000 to 2006 population is down in 9 out of the 12 counties that comprise the park. Saratoga County alone accounts for 71% of the population growth. The 70 municipalities wholly within the park experienced a population increase of 21% between 1950 and 2006. The 9 villages in the park, the region's densest areas and the closest to an urban landscape, have experienced a decline of 8,927 residents during the same period! A decline of 27%! While Bronx County, clearly an urban county (I'll compare to it but I think it is silly) has had a decline of 6% during the same period (1950 to 2006). Again supporting my initial premise, New York State is bad. The park is worse.
In terms to your reference that the park population is steady. Once again, lets delve in further shall we? To do so lets look further into the make-up of this steady population in terms of its age. The median age has accelerated by 9 years from 1980 to 2000 and now is in excess of 41 years. In 1980, the 0-17 age segment of the population was at 27,608 by 2000 that number dropped to 19,328 a decline of 8,280 persons or 30%. This directly correlates to young adults or the parents of young children they have left as well. The damaging aspect of these figures is that these are the most productive members of the population and the children are the productive generation of tomorrow and both these age groups have left and are leaving. While at the same time the population of 65 and over has grown from 13,287 in 1980 to 19,328 in 2000 an increase of 6,041 or 45%. The vast majority of this segment of the population are retired and are receiving benefits through social security, medicaid, and medicare. They are, for the most part, not working, not earning a wage and basically demanding more in services than they are putting in. That is fine, they earned it and are entitled. But ideally this expense is to be offset by wage earners among the younger ages in order to cover the expense and supply services. They are simply leaving and are doing so in a big way. So the population may look steady and therefore healthy but a closer look reveals the accurate picture and this picture is not at all healthy. The socio-economic characteristics are falling into dangerous levels of inequity. Once again the levels are bad statewide, they are worse in the park. And in consideration of the APRAP data there is a definite acceleration in the demographic patterns from 1970 forward. And what year did the Park Act become law? Interesting, huh?
Anonymous - No, not misleading and inaccurate, part of a complicated picture.
There are all kinds of interesting pieces to this puzzle.
Another one? Property values skyrocketed in the Park over the last decade, a capitalization of this rural area worth (by some estimates) billions of dollars.
The influx of second homeowners and retirees may be a bad thing on some levels (aging population) but it doesn't have to be (see South Florida).
Was the economic decline of the North Country the product of the APA's creation?
Did the mines in Moriah, Lyon Mountain and Tahawus close because of the APA? The facts don't seem to support that.
Did the APA reshape the logging industry so that it cuts the same number of trees with far fewer workers?
Does the Agency make it easier for folks inside the Park to drive to retail stores outside the blue line (Plattsburgh, Glens Falls, etc.), making it harder to sustain a retail economy in our small towns?
I'm not suggesting that the Park Agency and its zoning regulations don't have an economic impact. I'm certain that they do.
But as I've urged here before, I'd like to see more data on this, more comparisons.
Again, obviously we have some very troubling things happening to our economy in the Park.
But some of those things don't look materially different to me than the economically troubling things happening in Malone or Rouses Point or Whitehall.
--Brian, NCPR
Brian:
I am not suggesting it is just the APA and the Act that created it but the Agency Land Classification in association with a huge wave of state land purchases in combination have had an negative effect. The Town of Arietta now has 96% of its land area under state ownership. Between state ownership in fee and state-owned easements and private conservation easements over 75% of the land area in the entire 6 million acre park is preserved. Show me one model of a land use pattern that can sustain a socio-economic system under such burdensome restriction.
You reference the mining and lumbering industries that are so scaled back. I agree with you that these industries have had far greater challenges in the global market place than just those posed by the regulations of the APA. The decline in these industries does not rest with the APA alone. However, what system is in place for the pro-actively planning and implementing the orderly replacement of these industries? What pro-active efforts have been made with same zealous that has been made with preservation and land acquisition to maintain the socio-economic fabric of these communities? What effort has been made at the state level to recruit business and industry to the these communities to afford the 20-30 year old year-round park resident a choice? What has the state done? Is it normally the state's job? No. But there are extraordinary circumstances existing. There needs to be equitable balance through effort and funding to counteract the effects of this sustained effort at preservation.
There are consequences to actions and they are not all always so positive. The same holds true for preservation especially when it is done to an extreme. What appears to be so pure and good if doen to excess can have serious and detrimental consequences and I am afraid the park's communities are reaching that point.
Enough IS enough. Fund a business recruitment effort. Fund an infrastructure restoration effort. Fund broad band to bring it to the center of the park. Create consolidated authorities to own and operate the municipal water and sewer systems. Balance needs to be restored or people will become extinct from the landscape.
To go back to the original question. NO, I don't think that NCPR is trying to pauperize (assuming that is even a word) or pulverize the NC. I think some valid comments here show that there are negative forces at work. Some affecting the NC specifically and some at work nationwide. Many things need to be fixed. Some don't want to even admit there is a problem even if it is a small part of a larger problem. Bottom line, a radio station or any media outlet, even the biggest ones out there simply don't have any such power. Some try and inform and some try and inform and maybe keep the lights on in the process and that means they have to inform their base (can't think of a better word). The information is still good and potentially useful to everyone. Journalists have uncovered many important stories and there is a good reason they have special consideration in our constitution. Some folks here think that some media outlets have not covered all sides of a story equally, perhaps that is true. I think people need to determine for themselves what they think is important. Some of that information is here and some of it is in other places.
NCPR is a subsidiary of Alan Chartok, Ink. I remember when it was actually "North Country", not WAMC. To anyone who considers "upstate NY" anywhere North of the George Washington I suppose it might be considered such but anyone who lives and tries to stay here, Albany doesn't even come close to North country.
Maybe "pauperize" was a poor choice of words. I would say "de-populate of those unsightly natives" pretty much covers it.
Garondah - We're not affiliated with WAMC in any way. We urge people who post here to do a little homework and not just spout platitudes. Our HQ, btw, is in Canton.
Brian, NCPR
The argument that many small and medium-sized New York cities outside the Adirondack Park are just as depressed and stagnant economically -- losing their young people, losing population overall -- as communities in the park is, I think, true. And it also is a strong point against the argument often used by defenders of the Adirondack Park Agency -- that, without the agency, the Adirondack Park would come to look like Clifton Park, with cookie-cutter housing developments and strip malls. But the evidence across New York, from Oneonta to Malone to Mechanicville, is that, outside specific prosperous areas, such as Clifton Park, New York's communities are not facing development pressure. Most small and mid-sized cities in New York would love some development pressure. Their problems are the opposite -- dying downtowns, empty malls, falling property values. The Adirondacks will never be a bedroom community for a metropolitan area, as Clifton Park is. Looking across the state, the likelihood seems that, without the Park Agency, the Adirondacks would continue to be as undeveloped and depressed as they are now. Those who make that argument are right, I think, and it shows how specious the argument is that others make -- that, without the Park Agency to defend it, the Adirondack wilderness would be overrun by developers on bulldozers.
I think Will is right. The amount of development would probably no be much different with or without the APA.
The APA is not there to increase or decrease development, it was supposed to try to maintain the park's characteristics and environmental quality when the development does occurs.
From the Act:
The basic purpose of this article is to insure optimum
overall conservation, protection, preservation, development
and use of the unique scenic, aesthetic, wildlife,
recreational, open space, historic, ecological and natural
resources of the Adirondack park.
A further purpose of this article is to focus the
responsibility for developing long-range park policy in a
forum reflecting statewide concern. This policy shall
recognize the major state interest in the conservation, use
and development of the park's resources and the
preservation of its open space character, and at the same
time, provide a continuing role for local government.
"Do you think you will come to the end of it and wish "Gee--I wish I had made more snarky anonymous comments?""
Why, yes.
First the Essex County Board of Supervisors gives this “pardoned criminal” the podium where he sounded like a real wing nut reading from his 3x5 cards. Then Denton Publications makes his rambling rattled remarks a front page story and now Dicker entertains him to taint NCPR and Brian, a respected journalist. Peter Paine is a bad guy too? Let me check the records; Peter Paine has not been convicted, sentenced or pardoned, Lewis has. Peter Paine is a major contributor (financially and personally) to his town, county and state; Lewis has not contributed anything to his community but complaints, lawsuits and unproven slander.
Post a Comment
<< Home