Adirondack Park Agency says 71 homes can be built on Camp Gabriels site
New York’s Office of Governmental Services has been trying to sell off the former Camp Gabriels prison for $950,000, but an auction in November produced no buyers.
State Senator Betty Little and other critics blamed the lack of interest, in part, on the lack of an official designation from the Adirondack Park Agency on how a private buyer could use the 92-acre parcel.
A property rights activist complained in the New York Post last month that potential buyers were being frightened away by the threat of the “APA’s wrath.”
Now the APA has issued a formal letter, addressed to OGS, declaring that if sold the property would be classified as “moderate intensity,” a designation which would allow one new home to be built on each 1.3 acre parcel.
In the letter, dated December 17, the APA argues that new construction in the area would “not significantly harm the relatively tolerant physical and biological resources.”
The former prison sits in a relatively developed area in the town of Brighton and there are already 48 structures on the property.
Brighton town supervisor John Quenell praised the APA’s designation of the land, telling NCPR:
“I wish it had been done sooner. And I’m not faulting the APA for it. I don’t think they were approached sooner, as they should have been. But they seem to be reacting quickly and cooperatively.”
But the APA’s letter is likely to draw fire from at least some environmentalists.
In a November essay published in the Adirondack Almanack, conservationist David Gibson — with the new group Adirondack Wild — argued that selling the property would require an amendment to the state Constitution.
By definition, therefore, [the former prison] is Forest Preserve, notwithstanding the dozens of buildings and large amount of infrastructure…
If the State wishes to sell or lease Camp Gabriels, than the Governor or a member of the Legislature should propose an amendment to Article 14 expressly for this purpose.
The APA’s letter makes no mention of any constitutional concerns raised by the sale of the property. Amending the “forever wild” clause would take at least two years.
NCPR will have more on this story tomorrow during the 8 O’clock Hour.
Tags: adirondacks, economy
Why would environmentalists have a problem with this? You are not talking about a variance issue here, it is what it is? They should have a problem with the statute not with the parcel.
With that said, as much as I don’t like it, isn’t Dave right? This is land owned by NYS and it is not specifically excluded under article 14. It is inside the blue line so it is Forever Wild land. Why can you build 71 structures here?
It’s insanity to say a prison camp is the same thing as the high peaks wilderness.
Here’s an idea: double the density allowed if the developer stays within the footprint of the original complex. Keep the remaining area as forever wild open space. 140 affordable housing units would probably be welcome for the area.
It is pretty insane, I agree with you there.
verplank, why would Gabriels need 140 affordable housing units? Maybe before the closed the prison but not now.
Also, have you ever been to this area, there is no shortage of open space.
i spent two summers working in lake clear and ray brook, so i know the area fairly well. affordable housing is a problem in the area, isn’t it? buying a condo is a lot cheaper than buying a single family house. It also prevents sprawl, and has lower impact on environmental resources.
As an add-on to my previous comment: make it mixed use so you can get a small grocery store in there. instant mini-hamlet!
part of it is kind of a political tactic: when developers complain that they can’t build their sprawling mcmansion developments, give them this as an alternative. the benefit is that you’re providing a product (housing) to the locals, instead of wealthy downstaters/out-of-staters. 140 of these units means over 6,000 acres of resource management-zoned area preserved.
I don’t think there is a market for 140 condos or 71 other homes.
As we all know there is still a pretty good market for second homes, since the jobs necessary to pay for the homes does not need to be nearby.
Maybe you could sell 140 condos out there, but I doubt it. It is available and it is pretty cheap so where are the bidders?
Knowing the folks that live out in areas like this I just don’t see them choosing to live in some kind of “housing project” way out in the woods. Maybe.
Like I said I think Dave is right either way it is illegal.
Gabriels used to be dormitories for Paul Smith’s forest technician and surveying students.
Regarding the state constitution; it’s pretty clear. Any land that the state purchases within the blue line automatically becomes part of the Forest Preserve. It can not be sold nor leased. It is state property forever, or at least until the constitution is amended. Perhaps it could become part of the state university system, or an incubator site. It can not generate revenue for the state.
John,
The buildings will need an historical designation to remain on Forest Preserve land, unless they have an administrative use (I see no merit for either) or they need to be torn down.
NYS certainly can’t sell the land if they want to abide by article 14.
So is sale/leasing legal or not?
Why not convert the quarters into cheap camping units?
Pete, you could. But you gotta figure out how to make the business plan work.
This place is a million dollars, I am not sure who is gonna want to camp out there!
If it’s not on the water it probably won’t fly.
Does anyone have any pictures? This place sounds pretty neat. It was originally built as a TB sanitarium. It even has it’s own waste water system.
Maybe put in a pool? Pools are better for swimming than lakes. Pools can have diving boards.
The state sold Marjorie Merriweather’s camp for 900,000 after they had one failed auction with no bids. I believe George Busch stayed there this summer.
I would think a prison in Gabriels would not be marketable to the same people.
Maybe the state should offer it to the feds and they can come up with something for it — an addition to fort drum?
I am being sarcastic. I don’t think the property is marketable in the current economic climate for homes or affordable housing.
It would make a good mental hospital or prison — but no one wants anymore of either. Maybe it would be a good base camp for a religious sect that wants to relocate to a remote area.
I think it will just sit around unsold for quite awhile.
that’s Bush not Busch….. how quickly I have forgotten!
“Maybe it would be a good base camp for a religious sect that wants to relocate to a remote area.”
Mary, that is a good one!
I wonder what the Branch Dividians did after the feds burned down their other place? Maybe they are in the market?
I agree they will have trouble giving it away. If left unmaintained it won’t take long for the place to be ruined.
Maybe a base camp for the Islamic terrorists? Maybe catch and kill Osama when he comes to vacation there?
Speaking of Top Ridge, I went there a couple of times about ten or so years ago when working with a blacksmith. We made some stuff and had to install it. Can’t remember the owners name but do believe he was/is from Texas.
Harlan Crow (yes a Texan) owns that camp. He is a real estate man.
http://www.crowholdings.com/about_us_harlan.php
How did NYS manage to buy and sell that camp. Once they owned it it should have been part of the Forest Preserve also?
If they can buy and sell these smaller parcels of land why can’t they sell other larger real estate holdings inside the Blue Line.
Brian can you clarify this for us? Have you asked the state this question?
“The APA’s letter establishing the land as moderate intensity use doesn’t mention any of these constitutional questions. But according to Gibson, any potential buyer of prison land in the Adirondacks could find themselves tangled up in a lawsuit.”
This is from Brian’s story this morning about camp Gabriels (and other matters). It is a very good story.
Anyone who thinks that the Adirondacks is a business friendly place, and that environmental groups are not standing in the way of economic development has their head in the sand.
No entity, with the exception of a group like Mr. Gibson’s would ever threaten to sue someone in a case like this. Pathetic. He may be right on the constitutional question but why not just let it go. If they follow thorough with things like this they will continue to lose credibility with most reasonable people.