Posts by Brian Mann

A deepening rail-trail mess in the Adirondacks

Time for the debate to leave the station? Photo: Matt Johnson, CC some rights reserved

Time for the debate to leave the station?
Photo: Matt Johnson, Creative Commons, some rights reserved

If you’re a reader of the Adirondack Almanack blog or the Adirondack Daily Enterprise’s letter-to-the-editor column, you know that there is a deep, nasty and and apparently intractable debate underway over the future of the rail corridor that stretches from Old Forge to Lake Placid.

The facts are pretty simple.

On the one side is a group of very cool, passionate, community-minded people who believe that a tourism train can be a real economic asset for the mountain communities along the rail corridor.

They have lots of good ideas and their ranks include some very thoughtful and influential people, including the leaders of the Adirondack North Country Association and Historic Saranac Lake.

Weighing against their position is the fact that this experiment has been underway for a couple of decades and has produced few tangible results.

There is a debate over just how many tourists are drawn to the area by the excursion train which now operates between Lake Placid and Saranac Lake, but it’s certainly not a cornerstone attraction.

As a consequence, some locals — including elected local governments along the corridor — have lost faith in the idea.

Towns, villages and counties have voted overwhelmingly to have the state revise the plan for the corridor, or to simply tear the tracks up.

On the other side of the debate is a group of very cool, passionate, community-minded people who believe that the tourism train is a dud and a government-funded boondoggle that should be replaced by a multi-use recreation trail.

This group has a lot of good ideas and their ranks include equally thoughtful and influential people.

Weighing against their position is the fact that the train project has been underway for a long time, it’s a “work in progress”  and a lot of good people are emotionally and institutionally invested in making the train work.

The organizers of the Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates — the group pushing hardest for removal of the rails — have come to be seen by many of their critics in the railroad community as uncompromising spoilers and party-poopers who don’t respect the region’s history.

Despite all the vitriol and harsh words, the situation is, in some ways, even worse than most people realize.  This is one of those horrible North Country moments where there are no villains, no good guys and no bad guys.

Map of the disputed route from ARTA's website.

Map of the disputed route from ARTA’s website.

This is a conflict where two well-meaning groups have wildly different, completely incompatible plans for a single, important public asset.

Fortunately, there is a mechanism for resolving the conflict.  The state’s Department of Transportation, Department of Environmental Conservation and Adirondack Park Agency are long overdue to update the management plan for the rail corridor.

There is an established process in place for fact-finding, public hearings and planning that is specifically designed to reach some kind of closure in clashes of this kind.

Instead, the state has lingered on the sidelines, leaving everyone in limbo while tempers rise and rhetoric grows more harsh.

The Albany Times-Union earlier this month wrote a lead editorial, endorsing the idea that a full state planning process for the rail corridor is long overdue.

This kind of planning process would require both sides to come forward with their best possible plans for revitalizing the corridor as a tourism asset.

Broad assertions, hopeful claims and emotional jabs would be replaced by a clear sense of what the best possible next steps might be.

Train boosters, for their part, would be forced to grapple with the fact that, outside their pool of core supporters, their credibility is deeply strained by so many years of taxpayer investment, producing relatively modest activity and unfulfilled plans.

A new, clear-eyed development plan for the railroad might ease some of that skepticism.

Meanwhile, trail advocates would have to prove that their idea is affordable, appealing and practical enough to displace the work, investment and passion of train boosters who have given heart and soul to this project for so many years.

They would have to show state officials that they’re prepared not just to make a negative argument about the train, but equipped to actually make the trail a reality.

During this process, the could also clarify many unanswered questions.

If a trail is built, could the railroad corridor be preserved as a “rail bank” to be turned back into a functioning railroad should the need ever arise in the future, as some have argued it might?

If a train project is maintained, what do transportation experts in Albany believe refurbishment would cost?  And is the state willing to commit a sizable portion of those dollars?  If so, on what timeline?

The bottom line is that sometimes even good neighbors need fair-minded, independent referees to help them with disputes — or they stop being good neighbors.

In the rail-trail debate, it’s time for the state to blow the whistle and step into the ring.

 

Voters slap down four school budgets that bust prop tax cap

Newcomb Central School District cafeteria (NCPR file photo)

Newcomb Central School District cafeteria (NCPR file photo)

Voters in the North Country sent a clear message to school districts that tried to exceed the state property tax cap.  The answer was a resounding No.

The vast majority of the region’s budgets came in under the cap and passed handily.

But four of the region’s school systems — in General Brown, Minerva, Newcomb and Tupper Lake — asked voters to go beyond the roughly 4-5% hike allowed by state rules.

In order to do so, those schools needed a 60% super-majority.

But in two out of the three districts, Minerva and Tupper Lake, a clear majority of voters rejected the idea, according to reports in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise and the Glens Falls Post Star.

In Newcomb, meanwhile, a majority of voters approved the higher budget, but not by the margin required.

At General Brown Central, where the district sought a 9.9 percent tax levy increase, WWNY-TV reports that a majority voted for the budget, but it fell short of the 60-percent needed to exceed the state tax cap.

All four districts will now have to rework their budgets, cutting more dollars from programs, salaries and other costs.  They are expected to put their revamped spending plans to a vote next month.

Tuesday’s vote appeared to signal an unwillingness on the part of voters to accept substantial spending increases, even when district leaders made a strong argument that more dollars were desperately needed.

Tupper Lake school superintendent Seth McGowan argued earlier this spring that the district faced a risk of insolvency.  “We have plugged all the holes in the dam, battened down the hatches, and we have been under tremendous pressure. Now the levy just broke.”

That view was echoed by Tupper Lake district board chair Dan Mansfield.

“Now we’re at the point where we’re talking about surviving, actually surviving with a viable school that can graduate students and meets the minimum requirements by law,” Mansfield said in March.

But in Tuesday’s vote, according to the Enterprise, Mansfield was voted out of office.

Are we budget cutting our North Country schools to death?

Photo: KB35 creative commons, some rights reserved

Heading for a dead end? Photo: KB35 creative commons, some rights reserved

On Tuesday, we New Yorkers will vote on the future of our education system — the future, that is, measured in a 12-month chunk.

The reality, though, is that we’re in the middle of a cycle that’s much larger than 12 months. For decades, our North Country schools have been shedding kids, with lower and lower enrollment counts. Since the Great Recession, we’ve also been shedding dollars and staff and programs.  Check out my conversation with Martha Foley for a lot of the context.

The question, really, is where this is all leading.

Schools have long been the lifeblood of our region’s communities, shaping much of the local spirit and identity, providing many of the best jobs. They also do the important work of nurturing and preparing our children. So what happens if this enterprise literally goes bankrupt?  What happens if we can’t afford to keep the doors open or the lights on?  Or, more concretely, what happens if we whittle away program after program until the schools are hollow?

These aren’t pure hypotheticals.

More and more mainline educators say the 2% property tax cap, the flatline regional economy, and flat or dropping state aid are pushing schools into a death spiral. Governor Andrew Cuomo has essentially argued that local districts have to live within their means and find creative ways to make this all work. But my sense is that a lot of districts in our region aren’t crying wolf.  They’re out of ideas, out of money, and almost out of time.

So what do you think?  Short of giving schools a blank check, is there a way to make our rural and hyper-rural districts sustainable?

And what are you seeing now in your district?  If you’re a teacher, is the experience you’re providing still a good one?  If you’re a parent, what do you think of the education your child is receiving?

Comments welcome below and don’t forget to vote tomorrow.

Will these scandals cripple Obama? Probably not.

obamainoval_375

President Barack Obama during a meeting in the Oval Office. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Let me say again that I think the trifecta of scandals hovering around the White House warrant serious investigation and a credible probe of the facts.  And it remains unclear where that path will lead.

But as the summer fug settles over Washington DC, I think it’s increasingly clear that — barring new revelations — the political fall-out from the mess will be far less damaging than Republicans and conservatives hope.  Here are six reasons why.

1.  So far, it’s just not playing outside the I Hate Obama community.  Yes, these accusations are serious.  But most Americans don’t seem to be buying the conservative narrative that the jury is in and guilt has already been fixed.  Remember that we’ve been down this road before.  In the 1990s, Republicans thought they had a convincing scandal narrative that would permanently alienate voters from Bill Clinton.  From Whitewater to Lewinsky, they painted a portrait that, in the Rush-Limbaugh-sphere was utterly damning.  Americans didn’t buy it and Clinton had a successful second term.

2.  The Republican narrative is muddled.  There are two completely contradictory stories being told.  The first is that Mr. Obama is a quota candidate, a lazy guy elected for his blackness who has no real qualifications.  He is a bungler, who plays too much golf.   The second narrative is that he is a kind of Machiavellian “Chicago” style manipulator, a tyrannical figure who is using the engines of power to strip Americans of their freedom.  I sometimes hear conservatives make both claims in a single paragraph.  One charge might stick.  Both won’t.

3.  Republicans are letting the crazy show.  Remember back in 2012 when Mitt Romney was being creamed by that horrible video tape that showed him talking down the “47 percent”?  Barack Obama’s team went silent.  They let the story play out, knowing that when the torpedoes are in the water the best thing to do is stay out of the way and hope for a big explosion.  The GOP doesn’t have that kind of discipline.  There’s wild talk of impeachment.  On Fox News people are being compared to Adolph Hitler and Richard Nixon.  Local conservative activist Bob Schulz, from Queensbury, described the IRS as “the largest, most feared terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere,” in an interview with the Glens Falls Post Star.  That kind of stuff makes average Americans think this is just more culture war noise.

4.  Liberals got no place to go.  One reason these last couple of weeks have looked so bad for the White House — and this gets overlooked in a lot of the analysis — is that liberals are furious, too.  The MSNBC and Huffingtonpost chattering class has been frustrated with Obama for years and these scandals, especially the Justice Department’s AP probe, have opened the floodgates.  Which means that people who would normally be defending the president are slapping him around.  But barring ugly new disclosures, that won’t last.

5.  Obama is a tenth-round fighter.  People forget this over and over.  And over.  I hear from my liberal and my conservative friends the same idea, that this president flops or he concedes too early or he won’t get angry or he doesn’t know how to throw a punch.  Yes, this White House is cautious.  Clearly.  But it also has a record of beating down opponents slowly and steadily.  Ask Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Mitt Romney or the opponents of Obamacare or people who didn’t want gays in the military or the people who thought the Solyndra or the Fast and Furious accusations would stick.

6.  The economy is doing pretty well.  This is the biggy.  This is the firewall.  Republicans worked feverishly over the last half decade to convince Americans that this president couldn’t fix the economy and that he would bankrupt us along the way.  America is the next Greece!  But unemployment is down and the stock market is up, and that’s a big contrast with the situation in European countries that embraced austerity.  Meanwhile, the Federal budget deficit is plummeting — shrinking from 10% of GDP at the height of the recession to roughly 2% of GDP by 2015, according to a new Congressional study.  If those numbers keep up, it will be hard for the Republicans to get people excited about Benghazi or about the idea that Obama is a failed president.

So with Obama’s approval rating holding steady at 49%, here’s my prediction.

By mid-summer, barring another big shoe dropping, this round of scandal will be added to the massive pile of resentments that have built up among conservatives.

The right will see this as another “smoking gun” moment that the rest of America — all the “low information” voters — failed to grasp.

But as their 401ks and their home values and their job prospects perk upwards, the rest of the country will have moved on to barbecues and holidays and summer blockbuster movies.

Was NPR’s portrayal of NY Sen. Gillibrand sexist?

 

US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. File Photo: Mark Kurtz

US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. File Photo: Mark Kurtz

Ailsa Chang’s NPR profile of New York Senator — and former North Country congresswoman — Kirsten Gillibrand is getting panned on-line and apparently edited by NPR’s on-line crew.

Chang’s report cast Sen. Gillibrand as a soft-voiced woman, whose strength was demonstrated most poignantly by her courage during pregnancy.

Chang also notes that Gillibrand was once described as one of the “hottest” lawmakers in Washington.

All of this at a time when Sen. Gillibrand is taking the lead in opposing sexual assault and bias in the US military.

The coverage has drawn fierce criticism on-line.  Here’s a sample:

Wow, this story really takes me back to the 1970s … and not in a good way. I find the sexist language highly offensive: “girlie voice,” “petite, blond and perky,” “hottest member of the Senate,” indeed!

And another jab:

I am extremely shocked that this article even made it to this section of the website. This article is full of sexist garbage that really just minimizes Senator Gillibrand’s work. You would never hear about a male senator being described this way.

According to Jezebel.com, NPR significantly edited the piece after it was placed on-line, pointing out that “in the edited version of the piece, those descriptors [of Gillibrand] have been tapered down.”

The story still includes questions like this one, taken from Chang’s script:

Gillibrand essentially operates as a single mom during the work week because her husband’s job keeps him in New York City during the weekdays. Friends marvel at her multitasking skills — she manages to get home early nearly every night to cook her two sons dinner, get them bathed, read them books and put them to bed.  But is this woman the stuff presidential candidates are made of?

So what do you think?  Reasonable questions about a rising politician who happens to be a woman?  Or questions asked of a woman — and adjectives applied to a woman — that would never be applied to a male politician?

Is the Adirondack Park an economic engine?

Can places like Mt. Baker help draw business and prosperity to villages like Saranac Lake? Photo: Brian Mann

Can places like Mt. Baker help draw business and prosperity to villages like Saranac Lake? Photo: Brian Mann

I was talking yesterday with Saranac Lake Mayor Clyde Rabideau, who was unveiling his village’s new “6er” program, designed to convince people to come check out the cool little mountains that ring his community.

“I talk to people on the trail, which I often do and I ask them if they know about Saranac Lake and most of them don’t.  So this is a way to introduce Saranac Lake and our beautiful mountains to that community.”

That community is the small army of hikers and outdoorspeople — many of them affluent and willing to spend a few bucks while visiting the mountains — that flow out of Boston, Montreal, New York City and other population hubs each weekend.

The interesting thing here is that more and more local leaders seem to be embracing the idea mountains and hiking trails and paddling spots can be a draw and an economic lifeline.

When I first came to the Park a dozen or so years ago, I would often hear elected officials grousing about outdoorspeople.

The general assumption was that they didn’t spend much money or stop at local businesses.

These days, I hear a different sort of thinking:

The idea now is that the marketing needs to appeal to potential visitors and local businesses have to offer products and services that this kind of traveler wants to pay for.

Hikers and paddlers may not spend money in the same way as fishermen and snowmobilers, but they’re still good potential customers.

But getting that formula right, translating more trailheads and boat launches into local prosperity, clearly isn’t easy.

The modern Adirondacks is reaching the half-century mark and a lot of communities are still taking baby steps to try to integrate their marketing, and their business opportunities, with the wild lands and recreation opportunities that surround them.

So here’s my question:  Wherever you are in the Adirondacks, do you see the hiking, paddling, climbing and camping opportunities around you as an economic engine?

Are the public lands and open space that surround your community doing good things for local merchants and workers?  If not, why not?

And what about you folks who visit the Park?  Do you spend a few dollars when you pass through on your way to the trailhead?  Are you finding the services that you’re willing to crack your wallet for?

Comments, as always, welcome below.

What are the Great American Scandals we ignore?

President Barack Obama speaks on April 10, 2013 about the FY 2014 proposed budget. Image: Video still from whitehouse.gov

President Barack Obama faces the first serious scandals of his presidency.  Are they the right scandals? Image: Video still from whitehouse.gov

I’ve been as captivated as anyone by the sudden burgeoning of scandal in Washington.

Until this month, the Obama administration seemed to skate almost effortlessly above the morass that eventually sucks up most White Houses, from Richard Nixon’s Watergate to Ronald Reagan’s Iran Contra to Bill Clinton’s Whitewater-Lewinski mess.

Those accusations that did get lobbed at Mr. Obama — from Solyndra to death panels to the Fast and Furious probe — were often more politics than substance.  They just didn’t seem to resonate outside the AM talk radio culture on the right.

But now we have a little bit of blood in the water for everyone to target.

Liberals are furious about the Justice Department’s probe of Associated Press reporters — a probe that included tapping phone records and monitoring contacts with sources.

Conservatives are furious about Benghazi, which involved a deadly security lapse in Libya that left four US officials dead.  The White House’s handling of the attack was, at the very least, muddled and unfocused.

When a fuming Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is demanding answers from a Democratic president, you know it’s not pretty.

Finally, there’s the scandal that everybody wants a piece of — the IRS’s probe of conservative (and apparently, also, liberal) groups to determine whether their political activity violated their tax status.

Mr. Obama has acknowledged that the behavior was outrageous and has forced out a top official, but this one is likely to percolate through the summer.

So as we wade into the pool of muck that Washington DC loves to create for itself, I thought it would be good to highlight five other scandals that probably should be getting talked about — around the watercooler, if not in congressional hearings.

1.  The epidemic of rape and sexual abuse in the US armed forces.  This is making headlines and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is making noises about re-educating service members.  But some lawmakers, including New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, think we need a more major overhaul of the military’s justice system.  In the House, the response has been more ho-hum.  “The House Armed Services Committee hearing into the scandal was sparsely attended and top military officials left before victims’ testimony,” reported NPR’s Here & Now.

2.  US drone attacks on civilians around the world.  Yes, unmanned drones have killed top Al Quaeda leaders and are a potent weapon.  But they’re also killing a lot of civilians (roughly a thousand by conservative estimates, including as many as 200 children) and four US citizens have been killed by drone strike without a trial or any kind of legal process.  “Farmers are on their way to tend their crops when a missile slams into their midst, thrusting shrapnel in all directions,” reported CNN.  “A CIA drone, flying so high that the farmers can’t see it, has killed most of them.”  If a foreign military or spy plane were operating over our air space, blowing up our farmers, I think we would at the very least want a big public discussion about it.

3.  The Great African American Depression.   The overall unemployment rate in the US is on the mend, dropping to 7.5%.  But the truth is that for whites joblessness is a comfortable 6.1%, while for blacks it’s a community-ravaging 13.2%.  That’s just about exactly the same unemployment rate as in 1937, during the Great Depression.  Blacks are most likely to be stuck in long-term unemployment.  One liberal group found that the unemployment rate for young black men who don’t finish high school tops 50%.  “This is an emergency, this is a catastrophe [but Washington is] not rating it as a catastrophe,” said the report’s editor, Craig Gurian, in an interview with conservative news site The Daily Caller.  Seems like someone should be grilling the White House about this.

4.  Guantanamo Bay.  The US is holding roughly 166 people in our detention center in Cuba.  No one is suggesting that high profile terror suspects be released.  But by some estimates as many as half of the detainees have been cleared for release by US intelligence and military agencies.  To be clear, none of these inmates have received any kind of independent judicial process.  Yet even the national security personnel in charge of their fates have determined that they should be let go.  Yet the Obama administration, which promised to fix this mess, continues to hold them, without trial or due process or much explanation.  Imagine how we would feel if a foreign country decided to hold more than a hundred of our citizens indefinitely, even after their own officials had determined that there was no valid reason to do so?

So there’s my back-of-the-napkin list of other things I’d like to see the White House press corps shouting about next time they gather with administration spokesman Jay Carney.

Yes, let’s get some answers on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP phone taps.

But let’s also talk about some of these other issues that raise equally troubling questions about foreign policy judgment, civil liberties and economic fairness.

How about you?  When you think “scandal in Washington” what are the issues that you think should be at the top of the list?  Climate change?  Gun control?  Abortion?  Chime in below.

How Benghazi will test Republicans

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testify at at a Senate hearing on Benghazi in February 2013. Photo: Office of the Secretary of Defense, Creative Commons, some rights reserved

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testify at at a Senate hearing on Benghazi in February 2013. Photo: Office of the Secretary of Defense, Creative Commons, some rights reserved

Let me outline what we know so far about the attacks on US embassy staff last September that led to the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

First, it’s a big deal. There are strong indications — and the US State Department’s own internal review concludes as much — that security for US personnel in Libya was lax and requests for additional protection were bungled.

“Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”)resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” that report concluded.

We also know conclusively that in the hours and days after the attack, the Obama administration worked aggressively to contain political fall-out from the attack, which occurred in the final months of the 2012 presidential campaign.

A former State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, sent an email arguing for changes to official talking points, arguing that the original language would “be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill.”

It also appears that probes of the Benghazi attacks carried out so far left some significant questions unanswered. There is a strong and reasonable argument to be made for further investigation, despite protestations from some on the left.

We absolutely need to know who was responsible for that lax security and, if the military response following the attacks was less robust and aggressive than it might have been, why that happened.

At the same time, we very much need congressional leaders — who are serving a vital oversight role — to place enormous daylight between themselves and the crazy anti-Obama fringe that exists on the right. So far that hasn’t occurred.

Senior Republican officials and lawmakers have compared what happened in the days following Benghazi to Watergate and to the Iran-Contra Scandal, and suggested that it might be grounds for impeachment of Barack Obama.

They’ve begun fundraising on the issue, launched political advertisements and dialed Fox News’ 24/7 agitprop machine up to 11.

This isn’t just AM talk radio nonsense.

It’s a dangerous distraction from Congress’s constitutional duty to provide a check on and a degree of transparency into the workings of the executive branch.

It may well be that the Obama administration deserves some significant level of condemnation for what happened in Libya. But if this devolves into another Whitewater-style-stained-blue-dress political witch hunt, it will be disastrous.

Fortunately, there are indications that House Speaker John Boehner is taking a personal leadership role in this matter. That’s a good thing.

He should make it clear that this isn’t a fundraising opportunity, or a chance to give Mr. Obama a black eye. It’s not an opening to establish solidarity with far-right tea-partiers, as Politico suggested.

It’s certainly not a way to distract the public’s attention from the GOP’s own struggles and shortcomings.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party entered this moment in history with a major credibility problem. There have been too many crazy conspiracy theories and end-times exaggerations.

Conservatives have shouted fire in our national movie theater so many times since Mr. Obama came to office — and been factually wrong so many times — that they have a serious task ahead establishing their own gravitas.

If the nation hopes to reach any kind of meaningful outcome, the rhetoric needs to be dialed down and a great deal more objective, factual evidence is needed.

Republicans like to claim that where foreign policy is concerned, they’re the grownups in the room. This is an opportunity for them to prove it by providing a clear-eyed, sober assessment of what happened and why.

Should environmentalists name chunks of the Adirondacks after their leaders?

Paul Schaefer shaped the Adirondack landscape.  Should a chunk of it be named after him?  (Photo by Paul Grondahl, courtesy of Adirondack Wild)

Paul Schaefer shaped the Adirondack landscape. Should a chunk of it be named after him? (Photo by Paul Grondahl, courtesy of Adirondack Wild)

UPDATE:  No environmental activist has suggested that a wilderness or Adirondack land parcel be named after themselves personally.  The text below has been corrected to clarify this point.

This week, a group called Adirondack Wild unveiled a proposal to name a big chunk of the former Finch Pruyn timberlands after celebrated environmentalist Paul Schaefer.

“There is no one so closely associated with protection of the wild Upper Hudson River, and the Park’s wild river system as Paul Schaefer,” said Dan Plumley, co-founder of the group.

“With these magnificent new acquisitions watered and bordered by wild, free flowing rivers, the time has come to name a substantial wilderness in Paul’s honor.”

Schaefer was a ground-breaking environmental activist, who fought against plans to construct a major complex of dams that would have reshaped the Adirondacks, taming some of its wildest rivers and likely displacing some communities.

He passed away in 1996.

This idea of honoring a Park environmentalist with a chunk of wilderness named after him isn’t new.

The Adirondack Council and others have proposed naming a big swath of the western and northern Adirondacks after Bob Marshall.

Marshall was a seasonal resident of the Park who helped to popularize the idea of the 46 High Peaks and he co-founded the Wilderness Society.  He passed away in 1939.

The group has even taken to calling the area The Bob Marshall Wild Lands Complex and issued a map that gathers towns, villages, chunks of public and private land under the moniker that they decided unilaterally that it should bear.

“Now is the opportunity to honor the legacy of Bob Marshall by preserving this wilderness jewel as a gift from our generation to posterity,” the group argued.

I think it’s fair to say that no one can question the impact of these two men, or of a number of other prominent environmentalists who have devoted their lives to protecting land and ecosystems inside the blue line.

But I wonder about the optics of green groups trying to protect these chunks of land, lobbying for the most restrictive land-use classification (in opposition to the views of many locals) and then lobbying to hang  the names of their mentors and inspirations above the door.

In this case, members of Adirondack Wild are proposing to name a wilderness area after an individual with whom they have had longstanding personal and professional ties.

“[Schaefer] was my early mentor in all things Adirondack. In 1987 I was fortunate to have been selected executive director of the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, the organization Paul served as a Vice-President,” Adirondack Wild co-founder Dave Gibson wrote in the Adirondack Almanack in 2010.

Is there just a slight whiff of Mount Rushmorism here?

The simple truth is that the goals and ideals of these men have often run contrary to the values of local residents and community leaders who live in the areas most directly affected by these proposed wilderness designations.

It’s one thing to lose a bitter political fight over how the land in your back yard should be managed.  But then to have “your” area named after one of the leaders of the opposing faction?  That’s tough medicine.

I also wonder if there aren’t other folks, including elected officials, who might be in line before Schaefer and Marshall — men who had an arguably much larger and more lasting impact on the Park and its history.

Teddy Roosevelt?  Nelson Rockefeller?  George Pataki?  All three are former state governors who either learned from or reshaped the Adirondacks in profound ways, while leaving an unquestionably important environmental legacy.

Or how about naming an Adirondack wild lands parcel after William Wheeler, the famously honest Malone attorney and congressman who later served as Franklin County prosecutor and then as vice president of the United States?

What about naming a chunk of land after a powerfully influential local leader?  A Ron Stafford Wild Forest?  A George Canon Intensive Use Area?

Finally, what about the guys whose names are already identified with a big chunk of this property?  Jeremiah and Daniel Finch and Samuel Pruyn had a particularly long and historical impact on the Park lands that they owned and stewarded.

They created some of the most interesting works of architecture in the North Country, bankrolled landmark institutions that endure today, and set an early standard for environmentally sound forestry.

I’m not suggesting that no wild lands in the Park should ever be named after a green activist.  And my comments here don’t reflect my personal views about these men or their contributions.

(Having grown up in Alaska, and trekked in the Brooks Range, a well-worn copy of Marshall’s “Exploring the Central Brooks Range” has a place of pride on my book shelf.)

But names and the process of naming are important things.

It seems like before people start hanging their banners or putting names on maps, maybe a conversation is in order between environmental groups, state officials, and the folks who live in these areas.

Is rampant Democratic corruption Andrew Cuomo’s problem?

With word of Senator John Sampson’s arrest on corruption and embezzlement charges, it’s impossible to ignore the sense that New York’s Democratic Party is in need of a serious intervention.

Yes, Republicans have been vulnerable to the temptations of sleaze, but consider the Democratic perp-walk list over just the last five years:

Senator John Sampson, Senator Malcolm Smith, Senator Pedro Espada, Senator Efrain Gonzalez ,Senator Shirley Huntley, Senator Carl Kruger, Senator Hiram Monserrate, Assemblyman Eric Stevenson, Assemblyman Nelson Castro, Assemblyman William Boyland, Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio, Assemblywoman Diane Gordon, New York City Councilman Larry Seabrook, Comptroller Alan Hevesi, and Governor Eliot Spitzer.

That’s a long list of men and women, many in positions of highest leadership and authority within the state’s Democratic Party, indicted or convicted or resigned because of illegal behavior — and again, this is in the last half-decade alone.

Our Albany correspondent, Karen DeWitt, is reporting that there is new information about other Democratic lawmakers who may be in the cross-hairs for Federal investigators, because they were secretly recorded by Sen. Huntley, who wore a wire.

Those recorded by Huntley include “Senate Democratic colleagues Eric Adams, Jose Peralta, Ruth Hassel Thompson and Velmanette Montgomery, along with a City Councilman Ruben Wills,   the former spokesman for the Senate Democrats, Curtis Taylor, and Melvin Lowe, identified in the court papers as a former political consultant and associate of State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.”

All of these people are innocent until proven guilty, but there’s a lot of blood (and a lot of sharks) in those waters.

Which shouldn’t come as any surprise.  There have been signs of trouble percolating out of Albany for years.  This from the New York Daily News:

[John] Sampson’s tenure as leader was characterized by chaotic sessions, bloated payrolls and an almost never-ending stream of controversies. It was eventually revealed that under Sampson’s command, the Senate overspent its budget by at least $7 million.

A state Inspector General’s report in late 2010 blasted Sampson and other Senate Democrats for steering the multi-billion-dollar contract to operate a racino at Aqueduct to the politically connected Aqueduct Entertainment Group.

Some Democrats will argue that this is a bipartisan issue, that systemic reforms are needed that will keep all of Albany’s politicos from burying their snouts in the corruption trough.  Fair enough.

But it is increasingly difficult to ignore the sense that a Tammany Hall style culture now pervades the state’s Democratic Party, and it is even more difficult to ignore the fact that Andrew Cuomo has done nothing to restore order to the party that he leads.

Granted, from 2006 until 2010, Cuomo was obligated to follow a largely non-partisan track as state Attorney General.

But even in that role, it’s hard to imagine that calls for tough anti-corruption reforms within the Democratic movement would have been considered out of bounds.

As governor, meanwhile, there is little evidence that Cuomo has taken the steps necessary to purge the Democratic machine of those who would dip their hands in the till.

He has also failed to implement the kinds of internal checks and balances that might have identified and eliminated problem candidates, or create competitive primaries to challenge entrenched politicos.

Instead, he has distanced himself from the Democratic Party, attempting to portray himself as a kind of post-partisan governor, floating above the grime of Albany.

I’m not sure that works anymore.  Strong leadership starts at home and within your own movement. The Cuomo family is deeply identified with New York’s Democratic culture and right now that culture appears increasingly toxic.

It’s also worth pointing out that Democratic corruption appears to be thwarting the will of average voters in the state.

Over the last five years, New Yorkers have cast their ballots in such a way as to create a Democratic majority in both chambers of the legislature — only to have their desires thwarted by Democratic bungling and malfeasance.

This means that laws, policies and programs that a majority of New Yorkers support are being derailed, not by sincere and ethical Republican opposition, but by crooks within the governor’s party.

If Cuomo steps up to the next political level, his record in New York state will almost certainly include this spreading of stain of indictments, wire-taps, and money changing hands in alleyways.

He’ll either be seen as a guy who ignored the swamp in his own backyard, or the guy who moved decisively to help clean it up.