Posts Tagged ‘land use’

« Older Entries

Breaking: Long-time activist Peter Bauer re-emerges in the Adirondack debate

May 7th, 2012 by Brian Mann

Protect the Adirondacks has announced that hired Peter Bauer as its new Executive Director.  The announcement, released just moments ago, returns Bauer to the Park-wide scene, after five years focusing on issues surrounding Lake George.

Bauer, who has led the Fund for Lake George, says he will leave that post in the summer. Full statement follows.

Adirondack Park—PROTECT the Adirondacks! is pleased to announce that its Board of Directors has hired accomplished activist Peter Bauer as its new Executive Director. Bauer brings to PROTECT more than 20 years of experience in Adirondack Park policy, grassroots organizing, environmental advocacy, and not-for-profit management.

Before he begins full-time work for PROTECT after Labor Day, Bauer will continue to serve until the end of July in his current position as Executive Director for the FUND for Lake George, a position he has held since 2007.  Bauer had previously served for thirteen years as Executive Director of the Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks (RCPA), one of the two groups that merged in 2010 to form PROTECT. "I could not be more pleased with the results of our search for an Executive Director, says Board Co-chair Bob Harrison. “I have known and worked closely with Peter for over 10 years.  He has the respect of all stakeholders in the Park, friend and foe alike. I am very excited with the promise that his leadership of PROTECT holds for the future of the Adirondack Park."

Peter Bauer brings to PROTECT a wealth of experience in environmental policy and advocacy for the Adirondack Park. He has successfully advocated for the protection of new wildlands; helped to pass state laws on jet skis and acid rain; advanced state policy on motorized uses of the Forest Preserve; and conducted research that has educated the public and influenced management policies and practices for the Forest Preserve and the Adirondack Park. Among Bauer’s recent projects for the FUND for Lake George are his work to develop and publish the award-winning Do-It-Yourself Water Quality: A Landowner’s Guide to Property Management that Protects Lake George; a new report on trends from thirty years of collaborative water quality monitoring; new programs for aquatic invasive species control, and creation of a new park and stormwater treatment system in collaboration with local communities.

Perhaps most important for PROTECT’s larger mission is Bauer’s proven ability to effectively organize the voices of Adirondack residents and people throughout New York who want stronger protections for the largest and most important state park in the nation. Peter Bauer stated “I am grateful for this unique opportunity. I am very impressed with PROTECT’s citizen advocacy approach, with the outstanding grassroots board they have built, and with their leadership on many of the critical issues facing the Adirondack Park.”

PROTECT Board Co-chair Lorraine Duvall said "What a combination of resources PROTECT has now assembled for defending the principles upon which the Adirondack Park was founded–a dynamic proven leader as our new Executive Director, a solid base of grassroots members and supporters, and a diverse Board of Directors representing 500 years of environmental activism. The time is now and we are ready."

When he takes up PROTECT’s reins in the fall, Peter Bauer will be astride ongoing initiatives to defend against several recent, major threats to the integrity of the Park’s private and public lands. With Sierra Club support, PROTECT has taken legal action against the Adirondack Park Agency’s (APA) January decision to permit the Adirondack Club and Resort project, the largest development in the history of the Park. Chief among its threats PROTECT opposes the precedent for permitting habitat-fragmenting, recreational housing sprawl across many thousands of acres of similarly protected private lands throughout the Park. In another recent decision, one that excluded public oversight, the APA approved the DEC’s plans to increase motorized access to 1.5 million acres of “forever wild” public lands with the construction of new, high-speed snowmobile “trails”. Bauer will oversee PROTECT’s initiatives not only to field-monitor DEC and permitted town construction of these new roads, but also to strengthen the statutes that are now interpreted as allowing the DEC to re-negotiate with owners of easement lands, changing provisions originally intended to provide public benefits.

“I am totally exhilarated by Peter Bauer agreeing to become PROTECT’s executive director.  No one is more knowledgeable of the Adirondacks, or as seasoned by years of organizing and motivating grassroots folks to pursue strong environmental action for the protection of the Adirondacks. He exhibits mastery and skill at getting the word out, building public support and persuading decision makers to make sound environmental protection decisions”  said Chuck Clusen, PROTECT co-chair.

In addition to coordinating PROTECT’s independent public oversight of New York State’s management of the Adirondack Park, Bauer will oversee both PROTECT’s water quality monitoring and forest stewardship programs.

"The Adirondack Park landscape is vibrant and lively. The communities, people, politics and public issues are vibrant and lively too. I've been fortunate to work with some terrific groups and with many terrific people to try and earn a place in the conservation tradition of the Adirondack Park that heralds from early calls to create 'a central park for the world' to later calls about the Adirondack Park as a 'landscape of hope' or a 'great experiment in conservation'. I'm very pleased to join with PROTECT at this point in my life and dedicate my energies in trying to defend this amazing place" said Peter Bauer.

Those interested in following the changes that will result from Peter Bauer’s new role as Executive Director; in learning more about PROTECT’s initiatives and programs; or in becoming a member are invited to visit the organization’s website at protectadks.org.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »

Afternoon read: APA senior attorney Banta to retire

April 19th, 2012 by Brian Mann

John Banta, at right, with APA chairwoman Lani Ulrich. (Photo: Brian Mann)

Chris Knight is reporting at the Adirondack Daily Enterprise that John Banta, the Adirondack Park Agency's senior counsel, will retire at the end of this month.

Banta isn't widely known to the general public, but he's been one of the most significant players in the evolution of the APA and its legal and regulatory framework since the late 1970s.  Knight lays out that narrative in the Enterprise:

Over the past 10 years, Banta has laid the legal groundwork for some of the agency's biggest, and often most controversial, policy decisions, including restrictions on the size and height of boathouses, a mileage cap on snowmobile trails on state lands in the Park and the ban on floatplane access to Lows Lake.

He's been counsel to the agency during its review of countless development projects in the Park, from small subdivisions to the largest project ever to come before the APA board – the Adirondack Club and Resort in Tupper Lake, which won agency approval earlier this year.

The APA has won several high-profile legal and enforcement cases during Banta's tenure, including a six-year legal battle over the Spiegel house in Lake Placid and a challenge to tighter shoreline setback restrictions enacted by the agency. The agency also lost a prominent case over farmworker housing, with Essex farmer Sandy Lewis, during Banta's tenure.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

Is the Adirondack Club and Resort lawsuit legitimate? Sure. Here's why.

April 12th, 2012 by Brian Mann

The last couple of weeks, editorial writers, local elected officials and even some environmentalists in the North Country have chastised green groups and Tupper Lake seasonal residents for suing the Adirondack Park Agency, in an effort to overturn the permits green-lighting the Big Tupper resort project.

The suit has been described variously as cynical, frivolous, arrogant and as a downright cold-hearted blow to Tupper Lakers who are trying to revive their battered economy.

Let me say that I have absolutely no opinion about the ultimate legal merits of the suit.

I don't know how the case will be decided, though most of my sources have suggested that the court will likely give a lot of deference to the Park Agency, given the lengthy review and the lopsided vote by commissioners in favor of the permits.

But I think it's worth noting that Article 78 lawsuits of this kind can play a valuable — indeed, a crucial — long-term role in shaping how government agencies in New York state and the North Country conduct their business.

Here are three reasons why this court case is a legitimate step in the Big Tupper review process.

Claims of secret talks

First, green groups have raised a specific allegation that state officials colluded unfairly with the developers of the resort, violating strict "ex parte" rules that were designed to limit undue influence over the process.

The APA and the developers deny this vehemently, but it's a serious claim.

In the past, pro-development and local government groups have raised similar allegations about unfair conversations and backroom deals between the state and green groups.

The Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board's Fred Monroe successfully urged the state Attorney General's office to probe claims that the DEC, the APA and the Adirondack Nature Conservancy were hammering out "sweetheart" land deals behind closed doors.

The AG's office looked into the matter and found nothing untoward or inappropriate.

It may well be that these allegations regarding the ACR decision, raised by environmentalists, will be discounted by the courts in similar fashion.

But if one side in the Park's debates wants its concerns about secret talks and unfair treatment to be taken seriously, it stands to reason that the other side should also get some attention when it raises the alarm.

A lawsuit or a rallying cry?

Critics of the lawsuit have suggested that the court fight is being used by environmental groups — specifically by Protect the Adirondacks — as a way to raise public awareness, build membership, and raise money.

The Adirondack Daily Enterprise argued in an editorial that Protect the Adirondacks had "ulterior motives."

I can confirm this.  I asked the suit's backers this question point-blank and prominent activists, including Bob Glennon, acknowledged openly that they hope attention attracted by litigation will mobilize new support for their cause, particularly outside the Adirondacks.

Cynical?  Maybe.  But there's nothing new in this.  All sides in the Park's debate have used litigation, and the legal process, as a way to draw attention to their concerns and agendas.

Essex farmer Sandy Lewis made a lengthy legal battle with the APA the centerpiece of his campaign to highlight what he considered bureaucratic overreach by New York state.

Lewis — and his supporters — appeared repeatedly on an Albany AM talk radio station, portraying the legal dust-up as part of a much wider fight for property rights and Park reform.

Lake Placid snowmobile activist Jim McCulley waged a similar legal-p0litical-public-relations fight against the DEC's management of Park trails.

Now some green activists are doing exactly the same.

Which doesn't mean that groups like Protect don't also believe that their case has legal merit.  After conversations with the attorneys who filed the suit, I came away convinced that they believe that they are in the right and will prevail.

Defining the terms of engagement

Finally, the Lewis and McCulley cases highlight another potential value of court cases like this one.

Legal battles often clarify the terms of fuzzily written state regulations.

In Lewis's case, state officials were given clear new parameters by the courts, with a judge confirming that the APA has very little oversight over farm-related projects.

Other recent lawsuits in the Adirondacks have helped to clarify a wide range of issues, from navigation rights on rivers, to the legal status of lake- and river-bottoms adjacent to state-owned forest preserve, to DEC management of state-owned roads in the Park.

It may be that in this case will do the same, offering, new legal insight into sketchy and ambiguous terms in Park regulations that have baffled all sides in the debate for decades.

What exactly does "clustered" development mean?  Is it appropriate (or not) to consider the potential financial benefits of a project when evaluating whether the impacts of new construction on the environment are "undue"?

Was it possible to conclude scientifically that there would be no "undue adverse impacts" from a project of this size and complexity without doing some kind of comprehensive wildlife survey?

Hopefully, this suit will serve to shed some light on those questions.

It's far from certain, of course, that any new legal precedents will be to the liking of the environmentalists and neighbors who brought this lawsuit.

On the contrary, a final ruling in this case could well go the other way, confirming the APA's current approach to residential development on the Park's privately-owned timberland — an approach that pro-development forces favor.

All of this will be cold comfort to Tupper Lakers exhausted by years of uncertainty.  Supporters want this project to move forward as quickly as possible.

And hopefully the court's review will be expeditious.  But unpopular as it is, this stage of the Big Tupper process may well serve the long-term interests of the Park and its communities.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 32 Comments »

Morning Read: Second-guessing the Rooftop Highway-I98

April 12th, 2012 by Brian Mann

2001 Rooftop Highway Study Map (click to enlarge)

St. Lawrence County is asking local governments around the North Country to chime in with support for a proposed interstate highway that would link Plattsburgh and Watertown, but not everyone is climbing aboard.

This week, town officials in Malone tabled the request, in part because they don't think funding is available for the project.  This from the Plattsburgh Press-Republican.

Village Board members support the concept of Interstate 98, which has also been known as the "Northern Tier Expressway" and the "Rooftop Highway."

But they don't believe there is state or federal funding available to connect Watertown to Rouses Point by a 170-mile roadway that is estimated to cost $3 billion to $4 billion.

The response in Tupper Lake was even more frosty, with town officials arguing that the highway could divert traffic and economic activity away from their community.  This from the Adirondack Daily Enterprise.

"I do not support that because of businesses,"[town supervisor Roger] Amell said. "Right now, Route 3 is our corridor from Watertown to Plattsburgh."

He said if more traffic is directed to the northern route, fewer people will use Route 3. He compared it to when the Northway, I-87, was built and businesses along Route 9 lost customers.

Other board members agreed.

"It just diverts traffic," said Councilman David Tomberlin.

"I definitely want to keep as much activity in our direction as possible," said Councilwoman Patti Littlefield.

At issue currently is whether $6.3 million in funds set aside for preliminary I-98 work in 2005 should be used for that purpose, or redirected to improve Rt. 11, as state officials have proposed.

On April 4th, the Watertown Daily Times reported that thw village of Massena supported St. Lawrence County's resolution, urging the Transportation Departmenet to repair Rt. 11 while also beginning work in the Rooftop Highway.

So what do you think?  Is I-98 a good long-term investment for this $6.3 million pot of money, or should it go to more immediate transportation needs?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 30 Comments »

Was the Big Tupper resort decision really a major defeat for green groups?

February 21st, 2012 by Brian Mann

In the latest edition of the Adirondack Explorer, I probed the question of what the Adirondack Club and Resort decision means for environmental groups in the Park.

Some green leaders are indignant at the notion that the 10-to-1 Adirondack Park Agency vote might signify weakness, disarray or ineffectiveness on the part of the region's environmental movement.

In an email, Adirondack Wild co-founder Dan Plumley responded this way:  “To point blame for this so-called defeat on the environmental community or concerned citizens is tantamount to bald-faced propaganda."

Here's why I thought the issue was worth writing about.

When I came to the Adirondacks 13 years ago, green groups dominated the environmental debate.  They generally framed the issues, and had remarkably strong ties to the Pataki administration.

Green groups were arrayed in a more or less strategic pantheon, with different leaders playing different roles.  There were strong indications that these partnerships were at least somewhat coordinated.

They won big battles, pushing through wilderness designations for forest preserve parcels, blocking the use of SONAR on Lake George, shutting down float planes on Lowes Lake, and

In those days, it was often difficult to find strong, informed and influential spokespeople for the local government and pro-development side of debates.

These days, all that has changed.  Pro-development groups like the Local Government Review Board and ARISE are much more sophisticated, coordinated, and politically connected.

Green groups, meanwhile, have gone through a half-decade of turmoil, as prominent leaders have departed the scene, venerable groups have dissolved, merged, reformed, and splintered yet again.

On the ACR debate, they were clearly divided, with two relatively new groups — Plumley's Adirondack Wild and Protect the Adirondacks — maintaining that allowing the project would set a hugely dangerous precedent for hte Park.

But the region's biggest group, the Adirondack Council, embraced the resort in its final design, and publicly distanced itself from the rest of the movement.

For that kind of muddle to happen in the middle of a debate that many environmentalists singled out as a seminal battle in the history of the Adirondacks — one that they spent seven years fighting — that's significant.

One prominent green leader, Peter Bauer now with the Fund for Lake George, makes a salient point in all this:

This APA commission seemed very likely to approve the Big Tupper resort in some form, no matter how unified or efficient the green movement was.

But that fact raises an even bigger question about the state of the environmental movement in the Park.  Why is it that activist groups have been unable to successfully influence the choice of APA commissioners?

Green favorite Dick Booth was chosen by Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer to serve as chair of the APA, but that decision was easily derailed by local government leaders and by state Senator Betty Little.

(Booth now serves as a regular member of the board.)

Governor David Paterson then appointed environmental leader Peter Hornbeck to serve as an APA commissioner — at a time when Democrats controlled the entire state legislature.  Once again the pick was sidelined.

The situation is so difficult for green groups that last year Adirondack Council spokesman John Sheehan acknowledged that his organization was keeping mum about its preferences for the Park board.

"We used to publicize it but we've decided that it doesn't help those on the list so much," Sheehan said.

"If it was a Democratic governor and Democratic Senate, we wouldn't have to go to these lengths to keep it quiet."

The point here isn't to suggest that the ACR decision was the green community's "fault," or that environmentalists have somehow "lost" the APA.

The situation in the Park is obviously more nuanced and complicated than that.  But it's reasonable to look skeptically at the balance of power in the Adirondacks as it shifts and changes over time.

And I think it's fair to say that a significant shift has occurred.

So what do you think?  Do you see a different debate in the Park?  How do you view the relative strength of the pro-development and local governments inside the blue line, compared with environmental activists?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments »

Morning Read 2: NY Times weighs in with story on Big Tupper resort

February 9th, 2012 by Brian Mann

The New York Times ran a major story on the Adirondack Club and Resort project.  As this is the first report that many influential New Yorkers will see about the development, I thought it was worth noting.

By and large, the story reported by Lisa Foderaro is fairly low-key, taking stock of the conflicts but also acknowledging that the decision was perhaps a bit less controversial that might have been expected.  Here's a sample:

In the early decades of the Adirondack Park Agency, which was formed in 1971, tensions around private-property rights occasionally turned violent.

That pitch of anger has subsided. Now even some environmental groups talk about the importance of development. One such group, the Adirondack Council, endorsed the resort plan in the end.

Check out the full article here.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments »

Was the Adirondack Park Agency's Big Tupper decision fixed? No.

January 24th, 2012 by Brian Mann

When I was leaving Adirondack Park Agency headquarters last Friday, after commissioners green-lighted the Adirondack Club and Resort on a 10-to-1 vote, green activist Richard Brummel walked over to share his views.

He hadn't heard the discussion inside — he was picketing outside during the final two days of testimony — but he was convinced of one thing:  the fix was in.

Approval of the Big Tupper resort had been orchestrated in Albany and the process of debate and voting in Ray Brook was window-dressing, a sham.

He pointed to the abrupt departure of APA chair Curt Stiles last summer as evidence that strings were being pulled.

Brummel's view isn"t unique in the green community.

I've spoken to a number of environmentalists who say privately that they think the review process was deliberately skewed at various stages, with APA staff forced to soften or water down their concerns.

A press release issued by Protect the Adirondacks on Friday argued that the "decision has been unduly influenced by enormous pressure from several quarters to do something to try to revive the local economy."

The APA obviously operates in a politicized atmosphere, facing pressures and influences from all sides.  It would be naive to suggest that big decisions like this happen in a complete vaccuum.

But having covered this process closely, I think speculation about this kind of big fix is off the mark.  Here's why:

- Critics suggesting that the process was fixed, or skewed unfairly, are making a serious claim about what would amount to illegal activity.  They have yet to offer any evidence to support their claims.

- My (fairly good) sources throughout the APA say this kind of manipulation didn't happen.  The hearing staff and the executive staff within the Agency concluded that the permit as written could be granted legally.

- My sources also say the APA's experienced scientists and field staff concluded independently that environmental damage caused by the resort would not be "undue."  ("Undue adverse impact" is one of the standards for denying a permit.)

- The APA is a pretty leaky ship.  If some kind of fix had been in, or if people suspected that kind of behavior, it's a safe bet that someone inside the agency would be whispering about it.  So far, no one is.

- The APA permit was voted for by Cecil Wray, a veteran commissioner with deep ties to the environmental community.   Wray is an experienced attorney and has a sterling ethical reputation.  I would need strong evidence to believe that his vote was fixed or unduly influenced by anyone.

- The one commissioner who voted No, Dick Booth, praised the overall process and raised no questions about undue influence or unfairness. Booth is a smart guy, a committed environmentalist, and a close observer of goings-on at the APA.  I have no doubt that he would speak up if he smelled a rat.

- The permit drew support from the Adirondack Council, the Park's biggest green group, which concluded that the project satisfied APA regulations and would not do undue harm to the environment.  We're they in on the fix?  Not likely.

- Lani Ulrich, the new APA chair, told NCPR that she received no phone calls, had no conversations, and received no instructions from Cuomo Administration officials or anyone else while the process was underway.  Ulrich is widely respected, even by her critics, as a straight-shooter.

Obviously, it's fair for critics to argue that APA staff and commissioners got this decision wrong.  We may see that question tested in court.

But an effort to fix the outcome unfairly would have required the collaboration of dozens of people over a period of years, all exposing themselves to significant legal peril.

As I report today, a far more plausible explanation for the environmental community's defeat on Big Tupper is that they failed to organize effectively and failed to rally around a clear set of legal arguments against the project.

As always, your comments welcome.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments »

Health Canada drafting national guidelines for wind turbines

January 21st, 2012 by Lucy Martin

Clean, renewable power from abundant natural sources. Remember when that seemed like something that just required harvesting?

Lately wind power can't shake persistent debate. In Canada, critics charge that wind turbines create visual pollution, depressed property values, danger to migratory birds and a range of health issues for humans living near the massive blades.

A few years ago, the Province of Ontario warmly embraced wind power as a way to reduce current dependence on coal and nuclear power plants. Official provincial support is still strong, although it is also starting to sound defensive. The Dunnville Chronicle reports that Ontario's Minister of the Environment, Jim Bradley, just released a consultant's report stating:

…the province's rules to control wind turbine sound are "rigorous" and that Ontario has one of the strictest noise limits in North America, which includes a 550-metre minimum setback based on a 40-decibel level.

Ontario's initial rush to approve wind farms has slowed as opponents have organized around issues of health. There's a moratorium on off-shore wind projects (which is not terribly significant as most projects are built on land) and calls for holding off on new land-based wind projects until more studies are done.

Now Canada's federal government says national safety guidelines for wind power are being developed to address the current province-by-province patch work.  As described in this Ottawa Citizen article:

"Health Canada has been working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to draft voluntary Canadian Guidelines for Wind Turbine Noise," wrote Health Canada spokeswoman Olivia Caron in an email.

"The voluntary draft guidelines are health-based, and focus on minimizing potential impacts such as sleep disturbance by recommending noise limits, sound measurement standards and minimum setback distances from homes and occupied dwellings."

It's worth noting the guidelines are described as voluntary. With so much dispute about what harm (if any) can be actually be proven and what information counts as evidence, this does seem like a tricky thing to regulate.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments »

Morning Read: Last minute Big Tupper permit changes spark anxiety

January 20th, 2012 by Brian Mann

Jessica Collier has been laser beam focused on the Adirondack Club and Resort deliberations this week.  Check out here blog here.   She also picked up yesterday on the fact that last-minute changes to the proposed permits for the project sparked anxiety.

Those changes remove specific language that shapes the development into phases.  Instead, it breaks different aspects of the project into separate permits.

Collier's article highlighted one of the key concerns that critics of the project have raised.

[APA commissioner Arthur] Lussi, a resort developer himself, said he's worried that not having phasing requirements means 14 different contractors could buy each section of the project and start developing them; then if each fails, it would leave a lot of unused infrastructure on the property.

[APA attorney Sarah] Reynolds and APA counsel John Banta said that's possible, but it may be more appropriate to leave that up to the Franklin County Industrial Development Agency, which would issue bonds for the projects in the four phases.

Despite these concerns, the APA is expected to vote to approve the project later today in Ray Brook.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Photo Diary: APA's Big Tupper decision brings out all the players

January 19th, 2012 by Brian Mann

Yesterday was the beginning of the end of the Adirondack Park Agency's lengthy, involved review of the Big Tupper resort project.

All the players were on hand for the deliberations, chaired by Lani Ulrich.

Check out the images from yesterday.

Adirondack Council Brian Houseal broke ranks with other green groups, saying Big Tupper project should move forward

Richard Brummel from Long Island arguing that the resort should be stopped

Frank Mezzano pores through mountains of data

Developers Michael Foxman (left) and Tom Lawson (right) look on Wednesday

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

« Older Entries