DEC’S Martens: “committed” to Finch Pruyn land purchase
DEC commissioner Joe Martens said on Wednesday of this week that New York state remains “absolutely committed” to acquiring the former Finch Pruyn fee title lands in the Adirondack Park.
His comments are quoted in today’s Adirondack Daily Enterprise. They come in the wake of growing pressure by North Country government leaders to cancel or downsize the 65,000-acre deal.
According to Mike Lynch’s article, Martens spoke at a lunch meeting of the Adirondack Research Consortium in lake placid, laying out a detailed argument in favor of continuing land purchases inside the blue line.
“How much is enough?” Martens said. “(Hamilton County Supervisor) Bill Farber and I and others have had this conversation before. I still think there are lands out there once we get beyond Finch, Pruyn. There’s places that don’t have good public access, so I think we’re getting into the stage of just rounding out the acquisitions in the Park.
“I don’t see great big landscapes like Finch, Pruyn that are out there on the horizon. There’s a few tracts. But mostly it’s rounding out the Park, providing better public access so that we can manage the lands better. Maybe some connective tissue between areas for management and things like connectivity. But I don’t see the big picture changing for that. That’s my personal opinion, but there’s probably 100 different opinions in this room.”
Obviously, Martens’ “personal opinion” carries a lot of weight. As DEC commissioner, he could well shape the timeline for this project, being negotiated with the Adirondack Nature Conservancy.
Governor Cuomo, meanwhile, was less specific during his stop in Lake Placid this week. He described conservation efforts as “very important,” according to a report on WNBZ.
But he declined o comment on the Finch deal specifically.
“You then have a question on the specific purchase,” he said. “This purchase, this land here at this cost, at this time – and that’s a case-by-case determination.”
Tags: environment
We far more than enough land, no funds to buy any more and there is no sense in effectively removing even more land from the tax rolls. This project should be DOA.
Old news. Hello, the Finch Pruyn lands have already gone thru a public process which was approved by all the local governments with 89,000 acres remaining in private ownership and 65,000 acres to be added to the Forest Preserve. Nothing new here. Except that, now that the 89,000 acres have been sold to private investors, some local governments want to cut and run from their prior committment regarding Forest Preserve. They are transparent worthless double-crossers with no honor to keeping their word. That’s the real news.
Actually, the state is a better tax payer than the forest products companies who just like big oil, always are looking for subsidies.
Adding land to the Forest Preserve does not “remov[e] even more land from the tax rolls.”
The more adirondack land the state buys or gets development easements for the better.
Gromit, the State pays a reduce rate on it’s lands within the Park with money from taxpayers. That means increased taxes to pay those taxes , even at the reduced rate. It’s a no win situation that is effectively the same as removing the land from the tax rolls.
If the State is determined to keep all this land then they should be charging the users of those lands ( hikers, rafters, canoeists) a fee to help cover the costs. It’s high time the people so in favor of State land acquisitions started paying for the burden they place on the rest of us.
Bret,
Yes and no. When the state pays land taxes, everyone who has an income helps pay for it through their income tax. So I would guess for me, I pay one or two cents through my income tax to help pay the property tax on state land in the Adirondacks. Not a bad deal.
Same goes for land and easement purchases. Maybe I’m paying a dollar, if that, when the state makes a purchase in the Adirondacks?
Damnable canoeists! I can’t tell you how many nights of sleep I’ve lost over their transpicuous freeloading.
oh, and I should have given credit to the State DEC for staying committed to an agreement, unlike some weasle cut and run local governments.
On the tax issue. Sure the state pays tax on the land and the tax base may even rise when this type of transaction closes. But this land will never increase in value and add to the tax base relative to private land. 10 acres of private land with a great camp on St. Regis lake might be assessed at 15 million dollars. The same property in state hands might be assessed at a few hundred thousand. The towns will never see assessments on state land that they see on private parcels. Never. That is why Westchester county has a different tax base than Hamilton county. Just a reality of Forest Preserve land. The whole state benefits in some regard and the town suffers in some regard. Can’t get around that.
I still think that an easement purchase would be a better solution. The general public could use the land, sustainable forestry and forest management would remain, and the clubs could stay.
It would cost the state a LOT less, and there would be no risk of economic loss.
I keep hearing about the state’s commitment to the deal, but everyone knows it was only an informal handshake deal.
No wonder the local governments now object to the deal; they’ve had a chance to scrutinize it in more detail, and it just doesn’t work out to their benefit.
Easement purchases are the way to go.
Pete the point is that those nickles and dimes add up. There is no reason for the State to pay taxes on State land just because it’s within the Park. The State owns lots of land around Ogdensburg and every bit of it is tax exempt. The land taxes the State pays within the Park are simply bribe money to the residents to shut up, no more, no less. Maybe that’s cool with you, it doesn’t sit well with me. And then for the enviro-rec crowd to refuse to pay user fees when every hunter, fisherman, trapper, ATVer, snowmobiler and power boat owner has to??? That’s completely bogus.
Bret, “the enviro-rec crowd to refuse to pay user fees”?
Has anyone so much as introduced a bill proposing such fees, and the “enviro-rec crowd” lobbied against it? If so, I missed it.
I’d gladly pay a yearly hiking/paddling/camping fee.
Then you are one of the few Walker. No one I’ve contacted about a user fee permit, equal in cost to a fishing license-$29.00- I would hope, has even responded to me. Of course my Assy woman/lawyer never responds anyway, so why expect anything different.
In every case where I’ve put forth the idea of a user fee the rending of cloth and gnashing of teeth is fast and furious from the same people advocating more land purchases.
the fees for usage would be put into a general fund that would get pilfered anyway, i pessimistically guess….
i don’t believe any of the state’s money can be trusted in albany’s hands, why give them even a dime more.
sad but true for me
But Bret, you’re taking a lack of response from your Assemblywoman and blaming it on the “enviro-rec crowd.”
I imagine that your Assemblywoman feels that it’s an idea that won’t fly. But until you see environmentalists actually lobby against a user fee, it’s simply a fabrication to say that they would actively oppose it.
I used to live a bit south of the Mohonk Preserve, downstate. Mohonk is a private, non-profit preserve with 70 miles of hiking trails. They have 12,000 members who pay $55 per year for the right to hike the preserve land. They also have a day-use fee for non-members of $12 per person. The place is _very_ busy– on beautiful weekends, they frequently run out of parking space.