Essex farmer Sandy Lewis prevails again in APA fight
Essex County farmer and former Wall Street executive Salim "Sandy" Lewis won another round in court yesterday.
According to an article in the New York Times, a state judge has ordered the Adirondack Park Agency to pay all of Lewis's legal fees and expenses following a lengthy court fight.
The Times article quotes APA spokesman Keith McKeever, who said, “We’re reviewing [the decision], and we’re definitely disappointed.”
Mr. Lewis has asked for more than $200,000 in legal fees, but the amount that the state will actually have to pay is to be determined. Judge Richard B. Meyer, an acting State Supreme Court justice, set a hearing on the issue for Feb. 26.
The Park Agency claimed during protracted litigation that farm worker housing on Lewis's land violated the state's subdivision rules in the Adirondacks.
Lewis -- and supporters in the farm community -- argued that worker housing is an exempted agricultural activity.
Last July, a state appeals court affirmed Lewis's position on a unanimous vote.
The case has been a public-relations nightmare for the agency.
Last year, the APA's top enforcement attorney handling the case, Paul Van Cott, emailed Lewis, calling him a "sociopath."
Van Cott was later reassigned.
Lewis has since emerged as a prominent anti-APA activist, supporting other legal challenges against the Agency.
posted by Brian Mann @ 2/03/2010 09:11:00 PM
55 Comments
55 Comments:
How many beatings is Paterson going to allow this Agency to take. somethings rotten in Ray Brook... DEC should assume the duties of APA.
As you have never asked, and do not know... we are not anti APA. As I stated when we first met, we favor the APA - we do not favor THIS APA.
Your coverage has exhibited bias, even ignorance... from the day you published a photo of the wrong house.
And you failed to cover 16 minutes of the unique - see Press - Updated - at the web site: sblewis.com
Brian, what does it take?
Good news for Sandy and park residents. Hopefully this sets a precedent where the APA will refund the legal fees of others.
check the nys building code. where buildings used soley for the purpose of agriculture are exempt from construction codes, RESIDENCES, are not agricultural.
just like the farmer's house is not to be considered agricultural use, niether would any farm worker housing.
just goes to show you how bad the state of new york is. they don't even know their own building codes.
A couple of responses to Mr. Lewis's post:
1. Mr. Lewis and I have discussed his views of the APA, in person and in detail. His argument that he doesn't oppose the APA, only "THIS" APA, is semantic. There is only one Park Agency.
During my first encounter with Mr. Lewis, he described the APA as "fascist" and "ethnic cleansing without a machine gun."
On the front page of Mr. Lewis's website he describes the APA of working in secret with environmental groups to "abuse the indigenous and clear the way to ownership of the North Country by those who pay to play."
Given these facts, describing Mr. Lewis as a "prominent anti-APA activist" is accurate.
2. I wrote a story for the Adirondack Explorer in which the editors inadvertently printed an incorrect photo.
I had no role in the mistake, which was inadvertent and which the magazine promptly corrected.
I have visited the site of the homes in question and am familiar with the details of the case, having spoken repeatedly with Mr. Lewis, his counsel, APA officials, and others involved in the case.
For more information about Mr. Lewis's battle with the APA, go here.
www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/11532/a-farmer-s-legal-feud-with-the-apa-could-set-new-rules-for-agriculture-in-the-adirondack-park
-Brian, NCPR
Great news for the landowners of the Adirondacks. The once-mighty APA has finally overstepped too far ...
I applaud when individuals prevail over "unfair" Government restrictions, but I think the APA really blew it here from the start-
I don't know all the specifics, but i was attracted to this case because i am retired Code Enforcement from downstate.
A previous poster is correct, the farmer's house and the farm worker's homes ARE NOT AGRICULTURAL.
when reviewing plans for Code- Building or Zoning- you must first establish "use".
Useage determines what NYS Building Code used to review the plans.
If you were building a hay barn, or a equipment/run-in shed you would be exempt from the State Building Code, but not local Zoning Code. Here is the State's definition of Ag. use:
"AGRICULTURAL, BUILDING. A structure designed and constructed to house farm implements, hay, grain, poultry, livestock or other horticultural products. This structure shall not be a place of human habitation or a place of employment where agricultural products are processed, treated or packaged, nor shall it be a place used by the public."
There are a few other exemptions from the Building Code.
To further muddy it up- you can for the sake of simplified design and design requirements, get out of the NYS Building Code and into the Residential Code when ---IT'S A RESIDENCE.
When you're in the Residential Code, construction requirements, and documetation requirements are, for lack of a better word, easier to comply with.
Zoning Codes are LOCAL mandates, which may or not be the same depending on local Zoning rules, committees, etc...
Now that being said, structures that shelter people are RESIDENCES no matter what work the people perform for a living.
The structures on Lewis' property in the view of State Building Code are clearly RESIDENCES, and in NO way are they AGRICULTURAL, sorry.
So i ask, because i do not know the ZONING Codes involved, would it have made a difference if the buildings were residential vs. agricultural.
Clearly the first thing I would have done -and where the APA and the State failed- is show, based on State Building Codes, that the structures are in fact RESIDENTIAL.
That established iI could then know what book i were to use to make the proper Code determinations.
Aside from all this, congrats to the Lewis'- after all this is America, (do what you want with your land). I also feel sympathy for his neighbors who may be adversely impacted, the beaurocracy failed you.
What really failed here is the agency's ability to interpret their own State Codes.
Kinda demonstrates how poorly the APA is run, this was a big ball to drop.
can anyone tell me the actual code issue that was at the heart of the matter?
Was it Zoning Code? If so did it hinge upon the designated use of the structure?
If it did then they got it waaaay wrong. Those buildings are NOT agricultural use, as per our State Building Code definitions.
excerpted from NYS Building Code:
101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings.
Exceptions:
1. Detached one-and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories in height above grade with separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the Residential Code of New York State.
2. Agricultural buildings, including barns, sheds, poultry houses and other buildings and equipment on the premises used directly and solely for agricultural purposes.
3. Construction trailers used as a temporary office for the purpose of monitoring construction at a construction site.
4. Structures such as radio and television transmission, communication and wind generation towers not attached to buildings
“His argument that he doesn't oppose the APA, only "THIS" APA, is semantic. There is only one Park Agency.”
Brian, I don’t think this is semantic. Nor do I think the “facts” that you list support that. The man could easily be in-favor of some entity to manage development in the ADKs (“The APA”) and still be opposed to what he calls “THIS APA”. Why not? This is the one that has gone after him and his family. It has now been finally proven that they went after him with absolutely no basis for their case against him. Luckily he had deep enough pockets to deal with it. Others may not be as lucky. “THIS APA” appears to be one that ignores their own rules and regulations. There could easily be one that understands and properly administers the APA act. Its is possible in my opinion. There could be one that allows folk to look at clear and concise rules and decide what is or is not legal to do. That as opposed to “THIS APA” where you have to go to them to let them determine what you can or cannot do based on their judgment of “jurisdiction”. Brian do you understand how the process even works? There could easily be more than one type of APA. Like I have said before in my opinion most of the people in the APA are good, it is the rules and procedures that don’t work. Mr. Lewis is just one case in point.
Why does the story line here not start to support the things that have happened with these cases? Stop looking at the personalities and start looking at the facts. Put on your investigative shoes and see if this is an outlier, or something more common. Has this one only turned this way because the guy had the money and time to fight? I also favor some form of zoning and regulations on development within the park. Given these turn of events it is very obvious to me that Mr. Lewis may be right and that THIS APA may not be right for the job. Just look what they have put him through. Seriously, I think that there is way too much bias in reporting on both sides of this matter. So what we have to do is defer to the “courts” in a sense to find out what is really going on. In this case it doesn’t look good to me. It looks like the NYS budget is looking at an 8 billion dollar hole. Can the state really afford to spend money like this going after people with nothing to back it up? The APA should be “disappointed” - in themselves.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous -
I do actually know how the APA system works. Here are some details:
The Park Agency can't bring a case of this kind against a landowner without the full involvement and agreement of the state Attorney General's office.
The AG's decision to pursue litigation of this kind in the Park (though very rare) is almost always controversial.
Sometimes, as in the recent Spiegel case, the APA and the AG's office win; sometimes, as with the Lewis case, they lose.
In this case, APA officials laid out a clear and understandable argument for why they pursued this case.
Mr. Lewis and his supporters were convinced from the beginning that the state's rationale was wrong and that perhaps the case was motivated by some kind of bias.
But after reviewing the statutes, the AG's office agreed that the APA had full regulatory authority over Mr Lewis's farmworker housing.
The judge, of course, didn't buy it. Nor did the appeals court.
This week's ruling re-enforces the court's conviction that in this case that the APA overstepped its authority.
The judge determined that Mr. Lewis should be compensated for some of his legal costs.
We reported all of that accurately and fairly.
You suggest that I'm focusing on personalities.
But in this morning's report, I make no mention of personalities.
I merely point out a fact which is hardly a caustic statement:
Mr. Lewis has emerged as a prominent APA critic.
No one involved in the debate over the Park Agency would dispute this.
Note that I didn't say that he wants to abolish the APA - that would be factually inaccurate.
Finally, I'll say that your comment is predicated on the suggestion that there is a pattern of harassment and abuse by the APA and that Mr. Lewis falls into that pattern.
We have heard those accusations and reported extensively on the facts surrounding them.
-Brian, NCPR
Brian thanks. The anon 9:33 was my comment.
I am not referring to this mornings piece. That was a fair account of the facts. It was a synopsis of the NYT article, but it was fine. It is in these blogs where you seem (in my opinion) to focus on personalities. Mr. Lewis is this, Mr. Douglas is that… Maybe that is the angle, fine. I think there should be more focus and coverage of the facts. Now you have a good story with lots of facts that back up the assertions by some that the APA doesn’t follow its own rules (even if the AG wrongly sides with them) so where is the story where you report on why and how something like this could happen?
What I meant by “do you understand how the system works” is not related to the litigation, but to the system of jurisdiction. One where jurisdiction is determined by a site visit and not by much of anything in the act. I think the judge hit it here where he described this:
The APA did (my words) "assert jurisdiction, impose a $50,000 civil penalty, and, incredibly, require Lewis Family Farm to waive 'the right to challenge Agency jurisdiction and the review clocks otherwise applicable.'"
The agency asserts jurisdiction whenever and wherever it wants. That is the core of the problem. Part of the problem is in the Act itself. This is the system I am referring to. Lewis is just one example. Smaller examples happen every day all over the ADKs. Some of your work indicates to me that you do not feel that a problem even exists, or that is some perception issue. If you don’t think there is one you have not been listening carefully to some of the people around you in the ADK’s. You should have spent enough time there by now to realize that this “fear” of the APA is not something that is confined to “conspiracy theory” types. It is widespread across the park. It is based on real issues. Some of the most tried and true liberals living in the ADK’s (that I grew up with) will tell you don’t mess with this agency. Heck I am nervous just writing these comments with my first name! The only way to get rid of this attitude is to change “the system”. It will be better for the people, the environment, and the APA.
Is there an APA site that lists the Zoning requirements for construction and land use in the Park?
Could someone post a link, please?
Interesting Re: PG @9:13
Can anyone answer if the APA decision hinged on Res vs. Ag use?
thanks.
Brian Mann - as I have said, you lack the needed education - and are biased. This does not make you a bad person - in an of itself. Sadly, I believe you are also that. Your coverage is biased and selective - and your use of clips prove the bias. Frankly, the more exposure you give yourself, the easier it is for others to learn. But the learning process takes time. Education comes to the open mind. Open yours - and stop dissembling. APA and Brian Ruder exemplify what's what. Matt Norfolk has that case. There will be more. Your funding sources are the mirror circuit of Adirondack Council. I believe the Council and Ruder are engaged in federal crime. I may be wrong. We'll see. The 501(c)(3) cannot be used for self gain. Ruder did this on Silver Lake. I told him - at the time. He offered us the protection of his Council in Albany for money. Ruder solicited me for influence in Albany. It was transparent. The man is what he is. Print this, and open you microphone - live - and we can debate this. I doubt you have the courage - and I would ask Ellen Rocco to join that party. Open mike, no edit. Try it, you'll like it.
Related to Private land:
Rules and Regs:
http://www.apa.state.ny.us/Documents/Laws_Regs/RulesRegs2009feb04.pdf
Agency ACT:
http://www.apa.state.ny.us/Documents/Laws_Regs/APAACT.PDF
Shoreline restrictions:
http://www.apa.state.ny.us/Documents/Flyers/shoreline_restrictions.pdf
Wetlands regs:
http://www.apa.state.ny.us/Documents/Flyers/freshwater_wetlands.pdf
Rivers act:
http://www.apa.state.ny.us/Documents/Flyers/WSR%20rivers.pdf
Have fun.
Brian Mann - as I have said, you lack the needed education - and are biased. This does not make you a bad person - in and of itself. Sadly, I believe you are also that. Your coverage is biased and selective - and your use of clips prove bias. Frankly, the more exposure you give yourself, the easier it is for others to learn. But the learning process takes time. Education comes to the open mind. Open yours - and stop dissembling. APA and Brian Ruder exemplify what's what. Matt Norfolk has that case. There will be more. Your funding sources are the mirror circuit of Adirondack Council. I believe the Council and Ruder are engaged in federal crime. I may be wrong. We'll see. The 501(c)(3) cannot be used for self-gain. See Ruder on Silver Lake in Douglas. I told Brian and Ginny - at the time. Ruder offered us the protection of his Council in Albany for money to the Council. Ruder solicited me for influence in Albany. It was transparent. The man is what he is. Print this, and open NCPR's microphone - live - and we can debate. Do you have the courage? I would ask Ellen Rocco to join that party. Open mike, no edit. Try it, you'll like it. Invite Howard Aubin - if you want truth. That man is special and he is where we are on most - not all - issues. We differ on APA. We want APA, Howard does not. And we at LFF want APA with teeth. I repeat: we do not want this APA - which is what I said to Curt Stiles in Willsboro with you running your tape - at which time I referenced incest... in context of Smith House Health Care records. Incest, Brian, comes in many forms. Study journalism. It's alive and well at The New York Times, my favorite newspaper. We are not talking about sex. But when I mentioned incest to the assembled in Willsboro, that is exactly what I intended - and it's as real as it gets. Visit Judge Meyer - and ask him about Family Court. It's incredible. And it's everywhere - not just here.
Mr. Lewis -
North Country Public Radio does make errors in reporting from time to time.
When they're brought to our attention, we correct them.
If you point out any factual errors in our reporting of your case, we will gladly correct them, promptly and prominently.
It's interesting that to date the one factual error in my reporting you have cited is a mistaken photo identification in the Adirondack Explorer.
If there are more serious factual concerns, why not articulate them here?
Regarding the LeRoy Douglas case, NCPR has in fact reported in-depth on that case.
We will continue to follow it as the litigation moves forward.
Again, following that report's broadcast, no one has questioned the accuracy of our reporting.
--Brian, NCPR
Mr. Lewis,
What was it exactly that you were accused of being in violation of, in the view of the APA.
Is there a speccific regulation(s) that the APA cited that started all this?
thank you
Dear Sandy,
Thanks for posting the same long argument more than once on the same thread, and then lengthening those posts. You show your respect for intelligence of the people of the North Country when you do that.
Best friends forever,
Anon
Pasted from Star Post:
"Lewis Family Farm, located in Essex, argued that houses for farmworkers are agricultural use structures, while the APA argued they are not."
It's clear to me that houses for farm workers are not agricultural use, they are residences.
whom ever argued this point for the APA should pay the bill, he/she absolutely screwed up in my opinion.
Lewis may have won, but the taxpayers who will eventually pay the bill lost.
If Lewis want's to really come out looking like a hero he should split his winings with every tax payer in the state, and then run for a seat on the APA.
meanwhile the APA's salaries should be garnished until the taxpayers get their money back.
Incompetence should never be rewarded.
Did we elect Judge Meyers? I don't remember him winning an election.
And let us keep in mind Lewis, before being a farmer was chased off wall street for less than admirable behavior. Once a scam artist, always a scam artist I'd say
Sounds like Lewis and Meyers tight.
The APA was wrong, but sometimes those who are wrong think they did it for the right reason. Maybe the APA will get pardoned by the President, it worked for a certain farmer in Essex County. Some people are above the law.
This is a comment on the Press Republican's story that, judging by the rambling, short senteces etc, is very similar in style to Salim's. :"In short, - which is all that matters, the farm won, APA lost. Judge Meyer decided principle and called for more on principal. Principle first, principal second. Andrew Cuomo has till March 5th to appeal this. He can wait till Judge Meyer totes up, then appeal principle and principal in tandem - as principal rises with delay, government's embarrassment and complicity become obvious to the blind, and Judge Meyer issues his last. AG Cuomo is complicit. He vote counts. He's running. Thank God for Judge Richard B. Meyer. PS - re [sic] it's sure good to know the Press Republican can spell defense and edit. Would that this paper could edit itself. Perhaps the PR can refer to http://sblewis.com - and send readers to PRESS. As The Times send readers to Post Star of Glens Falls - see Will Doolittle there - see sblewis.com and Danny Hakim at The New York Times - today. Try Google - it's all there. Thank you. "
Sounds like he doesn't think he would have gotten as favorable ruling if it were a different judge - a judge that was elected.
These comments are amazing. They totally ignore the underlying case and just aim to insult Mr. Lewis. I can't believe the moderator leaves them here, I'll take my discussion elsewhere. Bottom line the agency screwed up royally. This shows the difference between a public sector job and a private sector job. The attorney for the APA or whoever chose to pursue this ridiculous course of action should be terminated. If I cost my company this much dough I would be out the door. It is one thing if you make a mistake another when you don’t know what you are doing. Finally, I will say this. How about some different reporting here? I don’t come here to find out just “what” happened. I want to know “why” this happened that is the real story. I hope someone takes it on.
"I'll take my discussion elsewhere."
You'll be missed.
This was a great comment to end on, though.
"I'll take my discussion elsewhere."
Oh no.
P.G. Thamks for your insite. I am not well versed in the details but I don't think its the same as zoning laws. I think the state's argument was that these two houses were not "Agricultural use structure" (APA definition: any barn, stable, shed, silo, garage, fruit and vegetable stand or other building or structure directly and customarily associated with agriculture use.) Also, Lewis and Judges said APA law doesn't apply because of NY AG and Markets law. State said that APA law recognizes Agriculture exceptions in the following way:
"all agricultural use structures and single family dwellings or mobile homes occupied by a farmer of land in gricultural use, his employees engaged in such use and members of their respective immediate families, will together constitute and count as one principal building;"
They said he could have built, just need a permit.
Anon 4:37. How is a guy that went through the courts and won his case above the law?
Paul, I thought you were taking your conversation elsewhere.
Dear friends. The guy who has to read all your comments is getting a headache. I also have other work to do besides keeping track of who's being mean to who. Look up ad hominem attack, then add it to your things to not do in polite company list. Poking your mates in the eye with a stick can be amusing, too. Just cut it out.
anon @9:05
Understood. We don't make it easy on ourselves do we?
re: Dale- "it ain't fun till someone looses an eye!!"
Anon 9:15. I guess I changed my mind. But I think this story is pretty old now anyway. Cheers.
Paul - I don't share your outrage about the comments about Lewis. Judging by the insults he throws around about anyone who disagrees with him or any press who doesn't have a clear bias against the APA, he can take it.
The fact that he criticizes Brian Mann for bias and says Will Doolittle is objective is laughable.
Anon 10:12 I agree with you to some extent. He can probably take it but what is the point? Take out the personalities for a second and I still am interested in knowing why this happened to him or anyone? Seems to me like there are several possibilities:
1. The agency didn't understand its own rules and convinced the AG to go along.
2. The agency saw this as an opportunity to expand their jurisdiction through the precedent set if they prevailed.
What other options do you see? This cost the taxpayers a bunch of money, what was the point?
While I am not well-informed on APA and zoning law, is there an additional possibility here--that this was first case where anyone (given the low level of investment in NC agriculture) had built any new housing for agricultural workers inside the Blue Line since the regulation took effect? Whether residential or agricultural regulations applied might therefore have been an honest disagreement between the parties, which has now been settled by the court.
There's an interesting aspect to this case that I haven't reported on much because it's kind of wonky, but this discussion provides an opening.
The APA, pro-development forces, and green groups have often avoided bringing litigation to conclusion in the Park because they were all afraid of setting precedents.
If you lose, then you're in a world of hurt. But with a settlement or a compromise you can at least keep things in a gray zone.
Indeed, much of the Park's regulatory environment is one big gray zone.
Many of the Agency's regulations have never been tested by the courts.
Is the APA interpreting them correctly? No one will know really until case law is developed.
That's one of the cool things about the Lewis case.
We now know, beyond any dispute, that farmworker housing is an agriculture use, not a type of real estate development.
The Local Government Review Board and some others have also been pushing the legal envelope, involving hunting camps and shoreline development.
And we now have an environmental-group lawsuit involving Lows Lake that could decide once and for all whether the state can or should zone water bodies as wilderness.
I know some folks are convinced that these cases reflect bias or some kind of conspiracy.
But I think it's pretty obvious that the APA wouldn't have pursued the Lewis case without a conviction that they would win.
The AG's office, too, isn't known for taking on fights that it doesn't believe are winnable.
Bottom line? In some cases, litigation is a good thing. It establishes more clearly what the laws and regulations mean, and what the limitations on an agency's powers are.
--Brian, NCPR
Dale and Brian, What are you guys doing? It seems like you are trying pretty hard to defend what to me looks like a screw up that cost the state a substantial chunk of cash. No conspiracy they just blew it.
Brian I guess I agree with some of this. Sometimes litigation is necessary, but in this case this seems like a foolish and expensive way to "clarify" a regulation. I am not sure where the "grey area" was here but Okay fine let’s say there was some. Like you say the AG has some pretty darn good attorneys working for them so they must have thought they had a case. But don’t forget who brought the original complaint to the court, and it appears that the farm had no interest in settling the case. The AG couldn’t settle the case on his own. Both sides have to agree. So in this case the AG may have had his hands tied despite the strength or weakness of his case. If the AG still thinks they have a strong case then by all means they should appeal.
I still do not understand this case? Was the agency concerned that if they gave in here there was going to be a big increase in the building of farm worker housing on all those Adirondack farms? Bottom line here, and think we all agree, is that I think this case may illustrates that there are problems with some of these rules as they are written. And if you find yourself in a “grey area” you better have about a quarter million dollars unless you want to roll over. Brian , maybe finally you can start to see what it is that irks so many people about the APA.
"We now know, beyond any dispute, that farmworker housing is an agriculture use, not a type of real estate development."
This ruling seems to have created another gray area. Farmworker housing is just like cow housing. So are farmworkers just like animals, with all the same rights?
Hi Paul--
I can't speak to what Brian is trying to do. What I try to do is see if there is any middle ground for understanding the interactions between government agencies and citizens. Discussion of the actions, particularly of the APA, seems to cluster around two flagpoles. At one flag, the APA is seen as vast overreaching conspiracy aimed at dooming NC residents to starve in cute little "Potemkin villages" in order the serve the esthetic interests of a rich outside minority. Around the other flag people rally to the notion that the APA is the only thing standing in the way of Mondo Corp clear-cutting the High Peaks and forcing us all into strip-mall suburban hellscapes.
I am neither a defender or opponent of the APA. I view all bureaucracies with a jaundiced eye, and have experienced poor treatment at the hands of officials from village to national government levels.
While I don't think of myself as a moderate, particularly, I do think of myself as temperate. And when temperatures run this high in a debate, experience leads me to look somewhere in between.
In the Lewis case, if the APA did overreach, in the end they were handed a spanking, both in losing the case, and in being required to pay all of Lewis's legal costs. I'd declare victory and go home.
"In the Lewis case, if the APA did overreach"
Dale, I give up. Tell me what is it going to take? I am a moderate, if there is such a thing. And I am both for the APA when they are doing the right thing and opposed to the APA when they are doing the wrong thing. Brian will probably see that as semantics but I don't. If this had happened to someone with much shallower pockets we would not even have heard of it. That is why I think it may be the tip of a much larger story. No conspiracy but a real story that should be told. Thanks for the response.
No, I'm not defending the APA. But this was a complicated and interesting case.
To illustrate, here's a quote from Ron Jackson, the Republican county chair in Essex, who at the time was supervisor in Mr. Lewis's community.
(The two were fierce opponents and Jackson supported the APA's position.)
"The Agency does have the right and a responsibility to know what's going on on properties in the Adirondack Park. And the only way they can do that is through the application process."
Still, I remember feeling from the beginning that the APA's position on this was anything but concrete.
And in my first story about this, I noted that Lewis has a long track record of winning big legal fights.
Also, it's worth noting there were complaints early on -- echoed in this latest ruling -- that the APA was using bully tactics to force Lewis into a settlement.
Again, that's one cool thing about this case.
The APA's authority over farms is now much more clearly defined.
One final rumination:
The APA expressed a legitimate concern about this ruling creating a loophole in the regulations.
How many farmworker houses can I build on a property. I'm not sure we know.
If I build a new subdivision and then decide that that it's not really a farm anymore, but a residential development, what happens to those houses?
Do they suddenly require APA permits? Do some of them have to be torn down if they exceed Park density guidelines?
So - there are likely more muddles in the future...
-Brian, NCPR
Paul--
I don't want you to give up. I wasn't saying that you were or were not rallying around either of the flags I planted. I have just been slogging through this whole weary thread, and similar ones on other posts, and talking about the conversation in general regarding the APA. I used conditional language about whether the APA overreached in the Lewis case because I am a layman out of my depth in the legal particulars. I can't say if what they did was abusive. The court, on the other hand, can and did.
And yes--deep pockets should not be a citizen's only defense against government power. That's true at all levels of government, not just the APA. Ever try to contest a whopping jump in your home property tax assessment? Yikes! I've just paid, rather than try, having heard the horror stories of others.
I have an insider's view of NCPR, but I think that our news crew does some of the best, deepest and most persistent reporting on land management and property rights issues of any news operation in the state. Brian Mann in particular is deeply engaged in the issues and is not likely to leave a good story, or an important one, lying on the table. Like most good journalists, he loves breaking a serious and important story a lot more than he loves any preconceived notions he might have.
Not all farmers give housing to their workers. I think he did the right thing by providing housing.
“The APA expressed a legitimate concern about this ruling creating a loophole in the regulations.” The ruling doesn’t “create” a loophole in the regulations. They are what they are. I guess the ruling could confirm that a “loophole” exists, if that is what it is. But fine, if the agency is concerned about that, it should have been handled this way: So the agency thinks there is a loophole. Fine, than let this guy build his houses without a permit (which we now know they should have been done). Then go to the legislature tell them what the agency thinks might be the problem. Something like “we feel that many Adirondack farmers are going to use agricultural worker housing as a mechanism to get around permits for residential development”. Then let the legislature decide if this is a legitimate reason to change the regulation. Keep in mind I don’t think anyone disputes that the farm wouldn’t have gotten the permits if they applied. Why pursue this course of action that may end up costing an agency with a budget of about 6 million maybe 500 thousand dollars (if you consider all the cots on both sides of the case)? Clearly there were other options. If we are going to “clarify” all the rules that have issues and there are plenty (my favorite is Mr. Darring’s Picnic Boat in Saranac Lake) then we better up the legal budget for the agency by about 10 million dollars. Poorly written legislation is always a bonanza for lawyers. My bottom line again is this; the “grey” rules are unfair to the people who don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend in court.
A picnic boar? Paaallease. Did you see that thinG? I had to dive by it twice a day for about 9 months. That was a floating cabin.
I didn't say I like his boat. I am just saying this is another example where the rules have problems. There are many many others. Loopholes are/were created by the agency not by the guys that jump through them. Perhaps that was demonstrated by Lewis Family Farm. I don't think so. I think here we see a rule that was quite clear (look at the decision of the court) and the agency didn't like what was their rule. So instead of following the procedure above they decided to take what we now see was a incorrect course of action.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sandy Lewis at 10:48 am.
Our policy required me to remove your comment because you made a specific criminal allegation against a named individual, where the allegation has not been subject to court resolution. This was a small portion of a longer post. Please feel free to resubmit, but don't include content that exposes NCPR (or yourself) to possible libel action.
Dale Hobson, web manager
North Country Public Radio
The In Box - the blog of NCPR, accepts anonymous slander. A host web operator is liable for comment supported - offered anonymously. Thus, inaccurate statements, repetitious, anonymous slander, support of APA officialdom in slanderous vernacular, combines. Lewis stuff is published under Lewis. At sblewis.com and sblewis.net the journalist can find what we have. Email is public. Fact is documents. We have not declined an interview. Rather, we have offered disclosure. With Brian Mann and NCPR, however, we see intent to abuse truth. Purposefully selective cuts in edited on the air takes are spun by Brian Mann. We support good government with pointed, criticism and fact, and work to help. When government itself is criminal, as we see in our nation, it's the citizen's job to jolt - the court and the Fourth Estate are first stops - the ballot box is second. When the Fourth Estate is funded by anonymous donors with property interests driving intent - the Fourth Estate relinquishes its standing for advocacy. With manifest weakness in daily and weekly news outlets, NPR and other 501(c)(3) advocacy groups fill the vacuum. Our freedoms turn on a free press. No 501(c)(3) supported anonymously can claim independence. No firewall is deaf. No board is formed that neglects the donor. Freedom comes with disclosure. We have disclosed. Last, we share the concerns that formed APA. We shared them with Peter S. Paine Jr., and Rockefeller, among others. But our allegiance to the Constitution and unlawful takings supersedes. We are devoted organic farmers, environmentalists, and - we hope - ethical. Our case with Judge Meyer and our comment re Brian Mann express the same things. We are here now - and may be gone tomorrow. But we care. Care enough to oppose where Stockholm Syndrome has smothered ethic in those called to save us. This APA is corrupted. The APA we want will not be. We want an honest APA. APA's Lewis vendetta will teach one and all. see sblewis.com and listen to FRED DICKER. He is right. 100%.
Dale Hobson - return the text of the send to which you object - - please indicate that to which you object.... asap. I have time, now. Thank you.
Regarding Sandy Lewis's comments a few moments ago, most of this is a retread.
So I'll just say again that NCPR welcomes feedback about any factual errors we've made.
If Mr. Lewis identifies anything in our coverage that was erroneous, we'd like to hear about it.
--Brian, NCPR
Hi Sandy--
I can't return your earlier deleted comment because I don't have an email address for you, and I can't find one on your website. But the text in question was a single sentence where you stated that a named individual had "suborned perjury" in a specific legal case.
In moderating this and other conversations at The In Box, I am often made uncomfortable by the lack of civility (shown to you as well as others) in anonymous trash-talk comments. But I have tried to be diligent in removing comments that make legally-actionable statements, and try to consistently push back against the nastier tendencies among those posting here. I invite you or anyone to cite specific comments that rise to the level of libel, (which is not the same as being mean-spirited, snarky and obnoxious) whether posted anonymously, or under a name, and I will remove them.
Dale Hobson
NCPR web manager
Dale Hobson
NCPR Web Manager
You do not have my email address. Okay. You are unique. Too many do.
Now that you do, too, now that we have spoken for an hour, thank you for your patience - perhaps you will carry the ball.
Re liable, four illustrious MD's in E-town sued us for $54,000,000 over a comment in Denton Publication's Valley News: the generally poor level of health care, et cetera. Dr. James Skee of Smith House, educated at Harvard MS, offered to testify from a Hopi Indian reservation - and that ended that. We know liable. Fact protects. We know fact.
I will review what you return. If Ron Jackson, then our Supervisor in Essex, did what he did, the people need to know. That's journalism. Fact. Stay tuned. Cat skinning in progress.
Pass to Ellen Rocco. Educate. She says she wants the vist.
I have offered what we gave to Fred Dicker last Friday: on the air, live. Mr. Dicker is a pro. He is paying attention, here, sir.
Thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home