Save the Property Owner

Every time I turn around, there's another "Save the" organization popping up to urge us to take action to preserve our "rural character" and prevent us from certain doom and gloom. First there was "Save the Ridge" in Gardiner telling us that the caretakers and stewards of the ridge lands who had been keeping the land pristine for others to enjoy were no longer fit to do so. Now, there's a new crop of savers, called "Save the lakes" who want to prevent private property owners from privately selling and developing their land. "Save the Lakes" wants to have communal, public use of the land, and sponge off private landowners who pay the taxes and upkeep. The Save the Lake people are railing against "gates and walls", because it keeps the riff raft like them out. This is unfair they say, and goes against the wonderful community spirit. However, the Save the Lake people don't seem to have a problem with resorts like Mohonk Mountain House, who has exclusive use of the Mohonk Lake for their high paying, wealthy guests.

But these are different "Save" groups, you might say, who's only interest is in their local community and issue? Right? Not so, as both are connected at the hip with the unfriendly "Friends of the Shawangunks" who are using their not-for-profit status to collect donations for the "Lake-Lovers". "Friends", at their recent annual meeting, made sure to highlight their actions suing the town of Gardiner ZBA and private landowners the Wustraus, and that they (Friends) were taking up the "Save the Lakes" battle cry as part of their main agenda for the upcoming year. And, all of these groups form a far reaching umbrella group called Shawangunk Ridge Coalition, made up of the pseudo local grass roots groups, and local and national land trusts, along with the private parks such as Mohonk Preserve. As a group, they can share resources, knowledge, and technology to raise money, alert the press, create sophisticated mailings, get out the vote, harass and influence local elected officials and generally push their propaganda and agendas.

I have to admit that someone (or many) spent lots of time and effort on the Save the Lakes website to spout all the reasons they can think of to prevent private development. Most of these arguments are easily countered. You can tell where some true local emotions have been enhanced by land trust speak where any building or signs of civilization become potential disasters of global proportions. My favorite on the site is from Mohonk Preserve (a private, non-tax paying not - for-profit members-only park) director Glenn Hoagland:

"Without the economic incentives of eco-tourism, lands may be subdivided for housing developments or condominiums. Both eliminate habitat for wildlife and make the area less scenic. In addition, these alternatives are usually less attractive economically than eco-tourism because, unlike parks and preserves, people move into houses and condominiums. Once they do, they require services (schools, police, fire, etc.) and infrastructure (roads, bridges etc.) This leads to greater spending by the local government and higher property taxes."

I find this so funny because the Preserve pays NO TAXES AT ALL, so I wonder why they are even concerned about us real taxpayers and how much we pay or not to our towns and school districts. In fact, if Mohonk paid their share of taxes, my share would go down a lot! Also, the 100,000-200,000 "ecotourists" who visit Mohonk cause much more damage to our roads and infrastructure than a few hundred homeowners. The "ecotourists" dangling from ropes and hiking the trails of the preserve cause many more emergency situations for our firefighters and emergency personal. The "ecotourists" who makes millions upon millions of footsteps on the ridge probably cause more damage than 10 developments! And, I wish someone would tell the bear, turkeys, deer, coyotes and numerous other wildlife that they are not supposed to use the "corridor" known as my back yard.

I could go on and on.....but I'll leave you with a wonderful letter from a Tillson resident, Thomas Shanley, who is not impressed with the "Friends" or the "Savers" either. This was in yesterday's New Paltz Times. By exposing the groups who try to take away our private property rights, people like Thomas show that you can take a stand!

Friends Expand to the Lakes (New Paltz Times, 11/29/07)

After reading the letter by H. Neil Zimmerman of the Friends of the Shawangunks in your November 22 issue, I felt I had to say my peace. I will have to say that his response is very cold and bureaucratic. Here we have a family that has owned property for over 100 years that have a need to improve their access to it. They are not building a waste dump; they are not adding a casino. They just want to build a driveway to access their property.

Mr. Zimmerman goes into detail on how this project violates the Shawangunk Ridge Protection regulations. He is correct; it does violate the stringent regulations. This is why the Wautraus's filed with the ZBA of Gardiner. We have ZBAs because many regulations can be too strict. The ZBA does the right thing by protecting the little guy and along comes the big land trust to put a stop to that. God forbid we amend the SRP.

So let's say that the Friends win and the driveway is not built what is the Wautraus's next step? They are going to have to sell it. And who's going to buy this nice 40 acres? It won't be an individual or a developer. The Friends saw to that. The only buyer can be the Mohonk Preserve or other land trust who will buy it at well below the market value. And to me that seems to be the real goal.

This brings me to an issue that is closer to my home.

The Friends are now acting as a fiscal agent for a satellite group, Save the Lakes. Here in Rosendale, Anita Peck is selling her more than 700-acre resort to a Canopy Development who plans to turn the property into an upscale resort. They also have plans to acquire other property and possibly add upscale homes. The contracts are signed and the closing is near. Save the Lakes is doing everything they can to stop this.

My problem with here is two-fold. One, we have an organization telling a landowner who is an acceptable buyer. Two, they already have stated that there are other buyers, buyers that are acceptable to Save the Lakes. They do not name the buyer, but their site (www.savethelakes.us) states that it should be protected open space. This would allude to a land trust.

After seeing the tactics that both the Friends and Mohonk Preserve use to preserve open space, I would think twice about supporting "Save the Lakes." It would be a big mistake for Rosendale residents and especially the neighbors. The next thing we will see here is a SRP act of our own. That's bad news.

I think that land preservation is a good goal. Keeping the rural character is a good thing. However, if in that preserving the land, we have to step on local property owners, then I have a problem.

Thomas C. Shanley
Tillson