Yes, it’s time for Adirondack Park 3.0
The last couple of years, critics of the Adirondack Park Agency have been increasingly vocal about what they see as the shortcomings of the state bureaucracy that manages the Park.
Put simply, many of their arguments — in particular, claims that the Park and its zoning rules are responsible for destroying the local economy — are unconvincing.
Yes, the APA’s zoning rules and restrictions on development on private land pose challenges to private developers and to local government leaders who want to boost their communities’ fortunes.
But the Park is also clearly an invaluable economic asset.
The state pays more than $70 million dollars in state property taxes to communities every year, demanding very few services in return.
What’s more, billions of dollars in second-home investment has been spurred over the last decade by the preservation of the region’s wild character and scenery.
Still, critics of the APA are responding to a very real set of facts on the ground:
Whatever the Park’s virtues, many villages and hamlets are losing ground rapidly, as populations age and dwindle, and as retail businesses close.
Year-by-year, we see schools closing, churches shutting their doors, and retail businesses going dark.
(There are some notable exceptions. Saranac Lake, North Creek, Lake George, and Bolton Landing, Old Forge have all experienced something of a mini-renaissance of late, though in every case prosperity still feels fragile.)
What’s more, cash-strapped state officials are acknowledging that they simply don’t have the resources to keep managing the Park under the old model.
They’ve threatened to close many of the campgrounds, road systems, and historic sites that attract visitors and tourist dollars.
Most participants in the Park’s never-ending debates and feuds agree on one thing: It is unacceptable for our human communities to fail.
Places like Tupper Lake, Jay and Blue Mountain Lake are crucial pieces of the “grand experiment” of the Adirondacks.
They are, in theory, living proof that people and wilderness can co-exist gracefully, with open space preserved on the one side and vibrant towns sustained on the other.
But at present, the human half of this experiment is slowly failing. We run the very real risk of depopulating permanently whole sections of the Adirondacks.
Hamilton County, which makes up 1800 square miles of the Park, has probably slipped below 5,000 permanent, year-round residents. That is very fragile indeed.
To their credit, state officials have begun playing a larger role in thinking about these issues, but it’s time for the APA to embrace a much larger, more complex mission.
The goal going forward shouldn’t just be preservation of the region’s “forever wild,” character, but also preserving its “forever human” ingredients as well.
Fortunately, the timing for this transition is perfect. The state has spent hundreds of millions of dollars protecting open space over the last decade.
This has permanently removed the major environmental threat — fragmentation of the Adirondack’s privately-owned back country — which led to the creation of the APA.
Hundreds of thousands of acres that were once vulnerable to subdivision and development are now largely protected by the state’s land and easement purchases.
With the completion of the Finch Pruyn and Follensby deals, the natural side of the equation will be in miraculously great shape.
So it’s only appropriate that the APA should begin turning its regulatory and planning energies to the other side of the equation.
They should begin looking for creative ways to help restore and revitalize places such as Indian Lake (which recently lost its grocery store) and Port Henry (which just saw its Aubuchon’s close).
How can this be done?
Written into the APA’s regulatory framework are very specific guidelines for protecting the open space character of the Park.
Projects are often required to be “substantially invisible,” or must prove that they have “no undue adverse impact” on ecosystems.
Planners use well-established concepts such as “limits of acceptable change” to determine whether new human activities will erode the quality of wildness that we cherish.
The Agency needs to craft similar language aimed at supporting sustainable communities.
The goal shouldn’t just be to study or acknowledge the importance of economic, historic and social factors, but to make sure that government actions and decisions enhance those things.
Here’s how Adirondack Park 3.0 might work:
First, working with local communities and other appropriate state agencies, the APA should conduct inventories of partnering towns, something similar to the recent APRAP study funded by local governments.
We need to know where we’re at, just how fragile individual villages and counties are.
Then we should should establish a clear, factual and flexible vision for what success in each community would look like.
What should the ideal population be? What should the school enrollment look like? Is affordable housing available? Is there a healthy mix of public- and private-sector employment?
Does the community have a particular asset — historical, recreational, industrial, etc. — that could help hit those targets?
Are there particular hurdles, such as outdated governmental jurisdictions or transportation problems, that could be addressed?
Then, going forward, the state should specifically reference these goals and standards when making management decisions for state land and zoning decisions for private land.
We would create clear benchmarks for success and failure.
We need to measure progress in our human communities that are as clearly delineated as the benchmarks that now track environmental success or failure.
The APA could also provide staff who are qualified to help communities that lack the resources to do realistic planning and revitalization work.
Finally, the state could help to develop a regional investment pool (perhaps using a small chunk of the property tax payments sent each year from Albany) providing loans and other capital to appropriate private businesses interested in investing inside the Blue Line.
Obviously, this would take a new level of partnership between the APA, other state agencies, local leaders, environmental groups and businesses.
And we would have to tread carefully, to insure that restoring communities is done in a way that enhances the larger vision of the Park and its beauty.
It would require legislative changes and a lot more trust. But none of this thinking is any more ambitious than the thinking that went into Adirondack Park 2.0.
What’s clear is that the ideals that shaped the current model (lofty as they were) simply aren’t producing the desired result, which is a permanent, vibrant and sustainable mix of the wild and the human.
If we let the Park’s towns fail, the great experiment of the Park will be a failure as well. In my book, that would exceed the limits of acceptable change.
Your thoughts are welcome below.
Regulatory agencies that have dual functions, regulate and promote, come to grief. Think the FAA, or any number of federal and state bodies.
The APA currently assists in the development of local land use plans.
To change the APA’s mandate in my opinion would be a huge mistake regardless how well intentioned it may be.
Steve Erman wrote an excellent guest commentary in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise several weeks ago. He addressed economic development and the appropriate role of the APA. I wish I had the ability to provide a link to it.
There is much to be said for having the Adirondack Park as a an economic development area, but such an effort should not be subsumed within the APA.
There will be always been tension between those who want the Adirondacks to be generic suburbia and those who want to preserve the wild character which makes it so desirable in the first place. But I think that even those with green sympathies (such as myself) get frustrated at some of the APA’s decision making. Its decisions really ought to have demonstrable positive or preservation impact on the Park. Sometimes, it comes across as willy nilly just for the sake of regulating. The boat house controversy was one. The fire tower issue is another. Removing fire towers does nothing to preserve the wild character of the park. The towers are already there and these places are still wild and peaceful… the towers’ continuing presence does nothing to disturb that. It’s one thing to say no future fire towers should be built but what’s the purpose of tearing down what’s already there (to say nothing of the impact of bringing equipment to tear it down and haul it away). The APA ought to be very vigilant about huge projects like the Foxman project but perhaps ought to be a little more open to small-scale, sustainable growth.
The snowplow goes by my property once or twice a day. The roadside gets cut once or twice a summer. our parcels are similar insize and neither one of us has a house on it. But I have a different tax bill.Should I be going to my grievance board?
I honestly believe the government cannot plan an economy, how many people should live where, what the businesses “should” be and so forth. Businesses are failing at no greater rate and populations are decreasing at no greater rate in the Adirondacks than they are in the rest of the North County in fact people in the Park are better off on most economic fronts than people in the rest of St. Lawrence, Franklin and Clinton Counties why should they get special consideration?
Corson County South Dakota has a population of 4181 people and a land area of 2529 square miles, Hamilton County has about 5100 in 1808 square miles. I don’t understand why it is a big deal that Hamilton County has 5000 people? Why the hand-wringing?
Sorry Brian, right after “Here’s how Adk Pk 3.0 might work” you lost me. What you propose is that a political regulatory agency determine what towns and villages should look like, what the populations should be, etc. In other words, a political agency to micro manage the residents lives. Wonderful idea. I’m sure you mean well.
How about this idea- the APA stays at it’s current limit of power and the State works to get out of the way of economic development and property rights? And just to make it really interesting, lets put a referendum on the next ballot as to whether or not NYS taxpayers wish for the State to continue to pay taxes on State owned land with tax payer dollars. That might just spur some State land SALES!
property tax is good. You don’t like it get ridofthe property. Income tax is bad. Property tax is cheap to collect keep it. Income gtax is expensive and while it is legal it causes citizens to to act illegally.
“Put simply, many of their arguments — in particular, claims that the Park and its zoning rules are responsible for destroying the local economy — are unconvincing.”
From your liberal perspective, perhaps.
“But the Park is also clearly an invaluable economic asset.
The state pays more than $70 million dollars in state property taxes to communities every year, demanding very few services in return.”
The state owns 3 million acres, so that amounts to about $23 acre. When you consider that a lot of the state land is waterfront and that combined tax rate is probably close $20 per thousand in most communities, that isn’t a lot of money.
Instead of close $20 per thousand I meant to say over $20 per thousand.
If the APA is not responsible for the economic decline of villages in the Park then they certainly are not responsible for the rescue of those same villages. If villages in the Park are suffering more than villages outside of the Park then I think it is something to look at, but I don’t think that is true at all in fact I think villages outside of the park need more help than villages in the park.
We can’t plan these things if villages are meant to die they will die. GM is never coming back to Massena the village will never in the near future replace that industry it will shrink to a new equilibrium. Hamilton county may settle in at 3 or 4 thousand people which is fine.
Sure Bret… go ahead and put Forever Wild on the ballot.
Good comments, though obviously I disagree with the main thrust of most of them. Here’s why.
1. The Park is not like Massena or any other place outside the Park. It is, in theory, a planned environment. That planning has to include efforts to boost human as well as natural communities.
2. The Park as an experiment is supposed to prove that preserving open space will also boost local communities in pro-active and measurable ways.
If human communities are allowed to die a Darwinistic death, it will stand as proof to every other place considering this approach that the concept simply doesn’t work.
3. I disagree that the APA can or should only do one thing (i.e. regulate development). Development pressure has been reduced dramatically because of land and conservation easement purchases.
This means there is room to think about fostering positive and sustainable development.
4. I think only communities interested in partnering with the APA should be part of this project. It should be voluntary and democratic.
Bottom line, I think the APA has the capacity — intellectual, experiential, etc. — to play a much bigger roll in answering this question:
Will communities survive, or will the Adirondack experiment fail?
Brian, NCPR
“The Park is not like Massena or any other place outside the Park”
That’s right. It (along with the Catskills) is the only region of the state given explicit protection by the state constitution.
One of the great things about this country is that it has something for everybody. If you want generic suburbia, there’s something for you. If you want the quiet rural life, there’s something for you. If you want the hub bub of a big city, there’s something for you. If you want a pristine natural environment to explore, there’s something for you. Whatever reforms take place should NOT allow the Park to become just like everywhere else. People who want that solitude should be able to have it just like the other groups have access to what they want.
“The Park as an experiment is supposed to prove that preserving open space will also boost local communities in pro-active and measurable ways.”
In a state with one of the higher rates of poverty in the nation and in a Park bordered by some of the poorest counties in the state; how can we justify such an experiment? All communities ebb and flow possibly the experiment is showing that the current size of those communities is too large? Wouldn’t the fact that a government agency is supposed to rush in and do life support to “rescue” these communities be an indication that there is already a major problem with the experiment?
“If human communities are allowed to die a Darwinistic death, it will stand as proof to every other place considering this approach that the concept simply doesn’t work.”
Who’s vision of these communities, yours or mine? Who sets the vision for what a community should look like? To me the optimal size of Hamilton county for example would be 3 thousand people and I know you would disagree but what is the standard?
Mervel –
Three things.
First, the park is already an experiment. That’s a fact. The question is whether we’re willing to acknowledge the fact that communities need to be included in the same kind of deliberate thinking and planning that we now use to protect open space.
Second, all the hue and cry that you’re raising is incredibly old hat. Planners and economic developers have been working on community redevelopment for years across the US.
There are sophisticated ways of doing this well, without steamrolling the local sense of control and identity.
Finally, the idea of the Park Agency deliberately supporting communities does not mean putting them on “life support,” any more than the Park Agency protecting open space equates to creating a fake Disney Land wild space.
The goal is to find ways that open space and vibrant communities can exist together; and to prove that the two are not mutually incompatible.
(One final aside: Are you joking when you say you want half the residents of Hamilton County to have to leave their homes and their communities?)
–Brian, NCPR
So some people seriously expect the same organization that created the problem to fix it? Hey, it didn’t work with Barney Frank and Dodds and Waters and Freddie/Fannie and it won’t work here. What you propose Brian is that the APA be allowed to do exactly what the residents have feared for years- turn the PArk into nothing more than a playground for elite downstaters.
The other Brain- no, I didn’t say anything about Forever Wild. What I said was put it to a referendum as to whether or not the taxpayers think the State should use taxpayer moneys to pay taxes on land the State owns. There is no reason tyhe State should pay taxes on land it owns.
The concept of “human preservation” is not new, but a committed focus would be new. A few of us have worked with local government and the APA to enable economic growth within the confines of the APA Act. Human preservation requires the creation of jobs that offer a livable wage and services that attract people or, more accurately, prevent young people from leaving. There is an entrenched population of life long residents who have adjusted to the lifestyle, survived employment and strongly resist change. Look at the public hearing process of local land use planning and one will quickly see the resistance to change; even changes that might allow or empower employment growth. Making matters worse is that most of the local elected leaders are taken from the pool of lifelong residents; no new ideas. These elected officials are good at touting the superficial gains their towns have made in spite of their lack of leadership. As an example, North Creek is being lauded for growth. One needs to merely scratch the surface to find out that this success is very fragile. The growth in this hamlet is really a case of survival of the fittest. Some optimistic entrepreneurs are just getting by; more so than the typical start up pains. This writer has made a large investment in the community, but has gone beyond the point of accepting the poverty of owning a business in the southern Adirondacks and will soon move on in search of income that may, one day, allow for retirement. A lot of fresh and innovative ideas will also drain from the park when this move occurs.
Brian,
The biggest problem I see with writing like this is that no one spells out a vision nor a solution. Let’s focus on what we think our communities should look like. Do we want small businesses who employ 10 -20 people each and pay salaries over $50K per year? If so, what kinds of businesses are these and how can we attract them to our area, and how can we help them sustain a modicum of growth and success so they stay here? I’ve seen one blogger refer to “restorative and sustainable economics”. Why don’t we try to provide a platform for that type of concept?
Also, I take serious issue on your outlook for the Follensby Pond and Finch lands. I saw a list last week of 20 recreational clubs that will be closed if the state purchases the Finch land, and I understand there are 20 clubs on the Follensby tract. A blogger has stated repeatedly that these clubs bring tens of millions of dollars into our communities every year, and I know this as a fact. Why would we want to jeopardize that traditional economic resources in the name of ‘preservation” when these lands ARE NOT threatened with subdivision or development. Why would we take another hundred thousand acres of forests out of production and leave them vulnerable to insect infestations (I’m sure you’ve seen the purple boxes, haven’t you?).
ADK 3.0 should start with preserving traditional economic resources, promoting sustainable forestry, then provide a plan for restorative and sustainable economics.
Three points.
“What’s more, billions of dollars in second-home investment has been spurred over the last decade by the preservation of the region’s wild character and scenery.”
While I derive a large portion of my income from this investment in second homes I believe it is a problem for the Park as a whole. The rich have grown very rich and the middle class have become poorer. The very wealthy have bought up most of the available waterfront properties and created private amusement park-like compounds which they escape to for brief holidays from the outside world. They contribute very little to the local sense of place, economy, and social life outside their wealthy communities. Meanwhile middle-class families with kids who used to spend a couple of weeks or a month at resort or cabins can’t afford that as they used to. Those families came and bought food, souvenirs, ice cream, went to places like the Enchanted Forest or Stone Bridge and Caves. They provided the bread to put the butter on.
“Obviously, this would take a new level of partnership between the APA, other state agencies, local leaders, environmental groups and businesses.”
It takes two to Tango. Local governments are irrationally hostile to the APA.
Finally, the APA has had policies that encourage growth in Hamlet designated areas. I see that as a very positive stance to creating strong sustainable communities within the Park; if only local leaders would embrace the concept. People want to go to a community that has a sense of place, a uniqueness; but there has to be something to do once they get there. Three or four properties contiguous properties with shops or galleries, a bakery or diner (and a CLEAN public restroom) will create an inviting place to stop.
The problem with many ADK communities is that they are not dense enough, in population anyway, to make the charm of a hamlet pay.
Trying not to go on too long, but…
My thesis is that second homes are more of a problem than they are helpful to small communities. The solution is to promote the “old-fashioned” Adirondack experience of coming to a resort, cabin colony, or hotel instead of owning real-estate that you are tied to. Resorts provide services, activities, boats–all kinds of things that guests can use without having to buy their own. And there are other people around to socialize with, for kids to play with, to go to amusements with.
My point is that the Open Spaces maintained in the Park are not the cause one way or the other of the economic problems faced by the villages which happen to be located in the Park. The economic forces that are at work across the North Country are the same forces impacting the villages in the Park and those forces can’t be reversed by all of the plans and studies in the world. Open spaces ARE compatible with these communities, they just might not be the communities that you envision, who decides what the “proper” community is? If it is true that the communities in the Park are suffering much more than the communities surrounding the park then I think a big case can be made to look at what is going on.
As far as Hamilton county goes my point was simply that 3000 people living in that county is not out of the norm for large rural counties in the US. Many counties in the US west have that sort of population density. But no I certainly wish no ill will on anyone in Hamilton county and hope if they can make a living and want to stay there they do, just like I hope that people in Ogdensburg or Gouverneur who can make a living in those communities stay there.
I saw a documentary on PBS about the Adirondacks, and apparently a billionaire was allowed to build a pirate ship on Spitfire Lake, along with an artificial stream, Hansel & Gretle guest homes; a complete amusement park – like compound. I paddled the shores of Lake George recently, and while some of the waterfront homes were quite nice, others were monstrosities of artificialness. I think these second homes, and their owners, probably bring some commerce to our area; brief infusions of cash while they’re here, property tax payments, and perhaps part-time payroll to a caretaker. This is not what we should base the hopes of our economy on, and we shouldn’t count on tourist dollars first and foremost.
We need to use our forests wisely, expand our communications infrastructure, and promote the preservation of models that bring consistent revenue into our area.
How hard can this be?
The APA is nothing more than zoning. I believe the State should pay taxes to localities and that those taxes should be at par with what private land owners pay for identical properties. I know current rates paid by the State are NOT at par with private landowners. That said; I also believe there needs to be a property tax cap across the State.
betty is correct. APA is all about zoning and land use, often above and beyond local municipality’s zoning, and often above and beyound any state code. where i live i build and live, i have a state building code, a town building code, a town zoning code, a incorporated village code and a local architectural review board. never mind the D.E.C. and wetlands restrictions. welcome to the world we’ve made.
developement in the Park sounds like no picinic either, but the laws are there to control it none the less. as an outsider i would like to see the State forrests managed like a farmer would his own, putting local people to work at all levels from the loggers to the engineers. i would like to see any outdoor/recreation/exteme sport/hiking/kayaking/you name it encouraged as good developement. your resource is the outdoors, and you need to capitallize on that. you can’t expect to find gold in a silver mine, so yes your choices are limited. people on the shore build boats, people on the farm build fields.
what we can’t do is expect our cake and to eat it too.
live isolated and you may not have the MET and MOMA down the corner. you trade that for sunsets. peoeple who do live downstate in manhattan and want to travel north to those sunsets should be encouraged if you want their cash. i understand the resentment when manhattanites buy all the waterfront, create their own world to play in– but they always do and always will. deaql with it every summer day in the hamptons. my family has lived here for 4 genarations, and so has the manhattan money. we’re land rich (if we sell it) and cash poor. we’re inundated every summer with a microcosm of manhattan- people, attitudes, traffic, waste, you name it. c’est la vie.
in the service industry you cant outwardly display your dislike with the situation or you’re just as surley as any manhattanite can be.
i’m speaking in generalizations, but knucklehead was correct in saying that there are fewer middleclass and they are poorer. the rich have expanded their presence. they also have the time to get more involved in the political workings while i try to hammer and paint faster to keep my head above water.
the microcosm in the Park is no different than anywheree else, except for the plain fact of the Park itself. that’s your resource, you must protect it at any cost, even if that also promotes the exclusivity types you don’t want to share with. you guys are having a local vs. outsiders war no different than the class war i see in the rest of the country, and it all looks bad.
“It takes two to Tango. Local governments are irrationally hostile to the APA.”
No they are not. The APA takes away a traditional function of local government and places it with an unaccountable state commission. Local governments have no real way of influencing the APA, even though the APA has a substantial impact on their communities, hence the frustration. The APA violates the concepts of self-governance and home rule. There is nothing irrational about being hostile to it.
Could we deal with reality at little here? North Creek got mentioned as some sort of a boom town. Well that boom town used to have 2-3 car dealerships (real ones, not some guy with 4 cars on the lot), 5 or 6 gas stations, 4-5 barbers, several hotels and restaurants, 2 or 3 dry goods stores, 3 groceries, a doctor, a dentist, a Montgomery Wards store, several diners, a movie theater, a bowling alley, an auto parts store, a couple sporting goods stores, 3 or 4 sawmills, trucking companies, mines, logging, small engine repair shops, a truly great hardware store, a weekly newspaper, a printers shop, at least a couple tailors, lawyers, a funeral home, an appliance store, a jewler, a lumber yard or 2, a couple snowmobile dealers…that’s just in the Crick and a couple miles surrounding it. That’s not to mention the surrounding area that had numerous more garages, diners, groceries, bars, lumberyards, mills, stores of all sorts and businesses of all kinds. The County Fair used to be held in North Creek back when they still had horse pulls and agricultural exhibits, and there were farms selling produce in the area. There were 5-6 ski areas in a 10-15 miles radius, lodges, resorts of the Dude Ranch variety and more. Trains ran to town twice a day for years. There’s probably more I’ve forgotten about.
I’m sorry, “boom town”?
Scratchy, local governments have had decades to put their own zoning in place which would remove APA oversight from most local projects. Very few have done so.
But it must be an APA-approved zoning plan. THe APA won’t approve any old zoning law. Moreover, some towns may be better off with a site review law.
Yes indeed. Thank god for strong zoning. Maybe it’s hard to tell a town with zoning laws but it only takes a glance to tell a town without them.
The point is most zoning should be left to local governments. Very rural towns with no commercial center may properly decide zoning is unnecessary for them.
Though I can see state rules regarding wetlands and minimum setback requirements for waterfront property, aren’t they already handled by DEC?
Maybe there is a fundamental misunderstanding here about zoning. In order to have good zoning you must have a research and planning process. During that process you need to identify various aspects of the community including geographic information such as steep slopes, wetlands etc. Also current uses are identified and most important people are forced to think about how they want their town to develop, or not develop in the future.
Without zoning it is possible for your neighbor to decide that they would like to put a billboard on property only a few feet from your house and have it lit all night, or to put a boat storage and salvage yard in a residential neighborhood.
Planning is good. Zoning is good.
I love the forever-wild Park, but I want to have a sustainable, year-round small community too…with schools and children and medical care – the whole normal thing. And I believe there is a lot we locals can do about this regardless of APA actions. Some towns, like LP and SLC and even Keene, with it’s citizen organized broadband project, have accepted responsibility for doing all they can to keep their towns economically viable. They do get important and useful grants to do their work via existing channels – so this is not about more government agencies. But it is also not about behaving like victims of ‘others’ actions – a sad habit in the Park. We have to want to do the work to change things rather than wanting to have it all remain the same forever – it cannot.
What I’d like to see are more grassroots economic development efforts put forth by residents. I would prefer they were on the small side, and scattered around the Park. Some will be land or resource development but a lot can be done with new internet-based businesses. Add in frequent flights from Plattsburgh to JFK/nyc and we would begin to attract new families with new kinds of jobs.
Planning is good. Zoning is good. But they are not enough.
Maybe it’s just my memory, but it seems anytime there’s a chance for economic development within the Park there are endless challenges and groups to fight any chance of development. The new Tupper Lake project fir instance has been brought about to a stand still. Back when there was talk of a prison in Tupper that was fought also. Rumors of someone building a Walmart are met with crowds of protesters only lacking pitchforks and torches to be doubles in a Frankenstein movie. Of course if it’s a museum or nature center or maybe a multi thousand acres land acquisition by the State (closing that land off from useful purposes forever) there are no end of supporters and groups formed to support the supporters.
There’s a simple pattern here- the Park is meant for the right thinking progressives and not for those who desire to (gasp!) exploit the areas resources or to build a sustainable industrial base.
I see no chance of that pattern changing.
The great opportunities in the park are for many small businesses. Forget trying to get someone from outside, develop from within. Stop whining and start doing.
Mervel is right, Adirondack communities like Saranac Lake, Tupper Lake, Ausable Forks and so on are not struggling to survive because of state zoning. They are struggling to survive because they are remote, because they lack many of the amenities people look for in a community and because of the harsh weather. They are small, remote villages and were that before the APA was created. The only time some of these places — like Ausable Forks, Mineville and Witherbee, for example — were bustling, was when industry, such as the mines in the Mineville area, were busy, when, as one poster mentioned, the natural resources of the area were being exploited. Lots of places in rural New York — such as villages in the Thousand Islands area — are similarly struggling. Why is that an argument for doing nothing in the Adirondacks? One unhelpful argument is to cast the debate in terms of a choice between “suburbia” and “wilderness.” No place in the Adirondack Park could ever have been accurately described as “suburbia,” and the chance of a place like Saranac Lake or Inlet or any of the other little villages in the Park ever becoming suburbia, even if the zoning laws are loosened, is more remote than the villages themselves.
Brian Mann, I don’t agree with this idea in principal.
But given all the animosity over the years do you really think that the APA is the correct mechanism to use?
Their main focus is really on land preservation, or at least on limiting development. Economic development is really a very different function. It is a reality that at times land preservation and economic development are diametrically opposed to one another.
Personally I think the first move is to place public land issues back with the DEC. Even if you have the same folks doing the work that would separate public and private land decisions. That would alleviate some tension and maybe allow the APA to focus on some of these other economic development issues. But practically speaking I don’t see the hands or the funds to do much of anything.
Correction. My first comment should read “I don’t disagree with this idea in principal”
So a couple of kind of final thoughts from me on this.
1. I think people diagnose similarly (and even generally agree on) a lot of the problems that exist in the Adirondack communities.
2. The question is whether the APA can be a better partner in solving those problems. Obviously, my argument is Yes.
3. To get there would require some cultural changes at the APA and some careful legislative work — a big lift, I grant.
4. But the truth is that the APA has a lot of institutional and intellectual regional firepower that could be a big asset. Other regions would kill for this kind of tool.
5. Without some kind of substantive paradigm shift — similar to the big shifts of the past — I think more communities will fade away.
I think that would be a very unfortunate outcome indeed and a sign that the Park, for all its qualities, is a deeply flawed model at best.
-Brian, NCPR
Your diagnosis is accurate, I think, Brian. But your prescription, as others have pointed out, seems a cure by bureaucracy. It’s hard to believe in, for anyone who has taken any interest in the ways bureaucracies work. They often spend much of their energy, in my experience, working to perpetuate and legitimate themselves. Zoning and planning can be good and necessary tools. But you seem to have a lot of faith in the ability of state government in general and the APA in particular to transform itself, and counteract other forces, such as the demographics that show Adirondack communities become havens for the aged.
The “flaw” may have been trying to redefine the park as the “great experiment”. If you look historically why the park was formed it had nothing to do with the economic well being of the areas towns. Partially perpetuated by a myth that logging was somehow destroying NYC’s watershed, a small number of prominent individuals (many who wanted to increase the value of their land and timber) were able to convince the legislature that the area must be protected for the sake of wilderness not people. A blue line was drawn around the park and the goal was to purchase (by the state) and protect all the land that fell within that boundary. Save a few large private parks that also existed, or were being developed at the time. If you look at the goal that was set at that time it appears that the park is nothing but a success. Defining it as the “great experiment” came later when the model was already formed and the process was set in motion.