Is the APA colluding secretly with environmentalists?

Last week, NCPR reported on the close and sometimes controversial ties between the Adirondack Council — a green group — and the Adirondack Park Agency.

We quoted documents, made public through litigation against the APA, indicating detailed communications between the state and the Council regarding an enforcement case.

This morning, the Glens Falls Post Star published a lengthy article, written by veteran North Country news man Will Doolittle, exploring another relationship.

This time, it is suggested that the APA and the Adirondack Nature Conservancy were “colluding” to use an enforcement action to force a landowner named John Maye to sell his property.

One explanation…put forward by the Mayes themselves and by town officials in Black Brook, is that the agency’s staff was trying to force the Mayes off their land so an environmental group could buy it.

The agency stopped, they say, only when that hidden agenda was exposed.

As the article lays out, the APA clearly handled this enforcement case clumsily, at the very least, pursuing the case relentlessly for four years before dropping it abruptly in 2008.

Doolittle has expressed his own views in at least one editorial, concluding that illegal collusion is occurring between the APA and green groups.

But the very serious allegation made here — that the state worked secretly with the Conservancy — strikes me as inconclusive. Perhaps even thinly supported.

(For the record, I’ve reported critically on the Conservancy’s dealings in the Park in the past.)

The strongest element of the accusers’ argument goes like this: Town officials raised a concern that there was a conspiracy afoot and shortly thereafter the matter was dropped.

Suspicious timing? Maybe. But in its letter to the APA, town officials offer no evidence for a link, asserting only that “a suspicion does exist.”

The APA argues that the matter was settled because Mr. Maye finally allowed them to visit his property to assess allegations that he had violated environmental rules.

Unlike the case involving the APA and the Council, there are no documents and no internal sources (revealed in this article at any rate) that connect the Nature Conservancy to the state’s handling of the Maye case.

As Doolittle points out, the Conservancy denies any involvement:

“That’s completely inaccurate, absolutely false,” said [Adirondack Nature Conservancy executive director Mike]Carr, of the suggestions of collusion.

“We work with landowners all over the world, all over the park. We would never even consider that.”

Why am I skeptical about a link?

In looking into these allegations for NCPR, I have spoken with pro-development members of the APA board, commissioners with no ties to the Council or any other green group.

I have asked them on background, as a way of educating myself about the situation, whether they think this kind of illegal or unethical behavior goes on.

Their answer: Absolutely not.

It’s true, as Doolittle points out, that the APA’s enforcement committee, which oversees these cases, is chaired by former Adirondack Council board member, Cecil Wray, and also includes Council alum Richard Booth.

But members of that panel also include developer and hotel owner Arthur Lussi, as well local government leaders Frank Mezzano and Bill Thomas, all strong property rights advocates.

Why would they participate in such a conspiracy?

In today’s article, Doolittle also quotes Black Brook councilman Howard Aubin extensively, who accuses the APA of wrong-doing.

I’ve spoken at length with Aubin about the Maye case. As a passionate anti-APA activist, he is sincerely convinced that the state acted illegally.

But Aubin acknowledged repeatedly in our conversation that he had no evidence to support his claims, nor does he offer evidence in Doolittle’s article.

Despite my reservations about these specific claims, Doolittle’s article makes one thing clear: Reforms are needed within the APA’s enforcement process.

More has to be done at the Agency to make sure that misunderstandings and minor infractions don’t fester and turn into bureaucratic swamps.

The APA has already reassigned chief enforcement attorney, Paul Van Cott, who handled these matters. That appears to be a good start.

Ironically, one reform worth considering might be to give the Park Agency more, not less, power.

As things stand, the APA has no authority to inspect private property, even when serious allegations have been made.

The Maye and the Douglas cases were clearly complicated by the fact that both landowners denied Agency staff access.

It’s hard to see how state officials can carry out their regulatory responsibilities in a timely way without being able to visit parts of the Park where environmental violations may have taken place.

On Tuesday morning, we’ll air an interview with Terry Martino, the new executive director of the Adirondack Park Agency, who talks about the distrust that state officials face.

Your thoughts? Comment below.