by
Brian Mann on May 31st, 2011
At a gathering earlier this month in Lake Placid, DEC commissioner Joe Martens confirmed that the state plans to buy roughly 65,000 acres of the former Finch timber land for inclusion in the forest preserve.
This morning, the Albany Times-Union‘s Brian Nearing looks at the dispute between some local leaders and the state over whether that deal should go forward.
The article is interesting is a good solid backgrounder, offering a comprehensive introduction to the issues surrounding the possible sale.
But this is also the narrative that a lot of the decision-makers in Albany will read and could influence whether the legislature or Governor Andrew Cuomo begin to rethink the project.
Read the full article here.
Tags: economy
.jpg)
The In Box blog is a general news and discussion site for the News Department of North Country Public Radio. In Box contact information
Latest NCPR News
“Each town has the ability to undo things they have done in the past,” said Towers. “People should understand that any agreement you have today may not hold up with the next legislative body in a town.”
I don’t even know what to say to that.
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Land-sale-deal-dispute-opens-in-Adirondacks-1400619.php#ixzz1NvEKlNp2
Yeah, Knuck, that and Monroe’s contention that there are timber companies that would be only too happy to buy this land from TNC. He’s really something!
We have too much State land already and no funding to pay for more unneeded lands. Enough already!
This is not a preservation issue. This is a public recreation issue. We should stop pretending.
There is not really anything to revisit unless the Times Union can’t find anything worthwhile to report about.
The only story here is the one about people who’s word means absolutely nothing.
Pete, if a person can’t change their mind are they sure they even have one? Maybe seeing the state not yet following through on their end and at one point even threatening to stop paying property tax on forest preserve land has fundamentally changed the game.
Yawn. But I’m beginning to think Brian Mann has become a PR lackey for Monroe and the LGRB by continuing to promote their personal agenda on this issue. Now another Brian (Nearing) is doing the same thing, probably as a result of Brian Mann’s efforts to make a mountain out of a molehill in the name of manufacturing “news”.
TNC worked to build consensus and support, creates a complex deal that addresses all concerns, earns praise for the way it is handled, no towns are against it… and yet it still might not happen.
Hard for me not to see this as a microcosm of Adirondack politics and culture.
Have to hand it to Monroe and gang though. They know how to jump on an opportunity, and they seem to have figured out that – just like Adirondack weather – opinions up here change every half hour or so… especially if you have time to influence them in the direction you want them to go.
It may be an effective way to forward an agenda, but it certainly doesn’t strike me as upstanding. The Review Board continues to come off very poorly here.
I think the state will eventually buy this land and then the battle over classification of this acreage will get hot and heavy. The preservationist forces will lobby hard to have it all classified as wilderness. It is not a public recreation issue at all. It is all about preservation.
Does Fred Monroe own a real estate first or something? Just what is his real interest in this?
i meant to say — firm…. real estate firm…. freudian slip
I visited some of this area over the weekend. Most of the roads are badly damaged from run off and it is unlikely they will ever be repaired. You couldn’t even walk in with a Hornbeck boat. Forget about bushwhacking; it will be years before the logging slash decomposes. TNC did a crappy job with the logging management. Cut and run.
There are purple boxes everywhere now. Has there been any reports of Emerald Ash Borers yet? How does DEC plan to manage and protect the forest preserve?
Dave,
You’ve got to realize that the forest products industry and recreational club leases are an important part of the economy. Easement purchases would keep those intact while giving public access at the same time. You can’t support a plan that could damage the local economies, can you? What not have it all? Easements would do it.
Not to mention forest protection, which CAN’T be done in the Forest Preserve.
Monroe’s group is correct. Easements are the way to go. Even Martens says 85% of recent purchases have been easements.
Mary,
Fred Monroe belongs to a private hunting club that has exclusive rights to use some of the Finch Pruyn property that will be bought by the State. He and some other people (including some who post here opposing the purchase) have personal agendas and conflicts of interest they never disclose.
Beyond that, many members of the LGRB and local governments are in real estate, or stand to benefit from their pro-development outlook. State purchase of Finch Pruyn and Follensby Pond will also create economic opportunities, but not the 19th Century backward looking kind that Monroe and his bunch want.
“The preservationist forces will lobby hard to have it all classified as wilderness. It is not a public recreation issue at all. It is all about preservation.”
Bob, this land will probably end up as Wilderness and then it will eventually become a zoo like we see in the HP Wilderness. Rutted out trails, campers denuding the forest for their fires, paddlers dragging in invasive as they hop from pond to pond, “fisherman” destroying the trout ponds with their bait-fish…….
This land is the “gem” that it is because of private stewardship that seems pretty indisputable. This is about public recreation not preservation. Look at every piece of propaganda on this project and you will see “finally the public that has been locked out for decades will have access”….
“manufacturing “news”.” ? Say what? Brian made up this story? Pesky journalists!
Paul, You and I do not disagree on results here just on agendas. I say it is a preservationist issue because from the preservationist point of view preservation is the desired result. The Adirondack Council is doing here what it often does which is to present the issue as a public access issue in order to disguise its real agenda which is absolute wilderness preservation. That is why I have said that the real issue is preservation. In pushing the public access argument the Council resorts to its old reliable class warfare argument. In this case the hunting club members, including Monroe, are cast as the elites who are depriving the public of the use of this land. I’ll bet that the average net worth of those hunters can’t come close to matching that of the average Council member. Frankly I think Monroe makes a valid argument here and my opinion is reenforced by the fact that they personally attack him rather than his position. By the way – I never met the man.
What (or who) is a “preservationist”? Its a term cropping up a lot lately – and seems to be derogatory.
Bob, I agree. But if preservation was the real agenda for the Council (and others including the TNC) then they would support private conservation easements that prevent development and keep recreational access to a minimum. The Forest Preserve model accomplishes one goal at the expense of the other.
Use of the word “preservationist” – at least by people of a certain political persuasion – seems to have become another attempt to label and then stereotype for the purposes of attacking those whose views they disagree with. Just like they have tried to do with “environmentalist” and, on a larger political scale, “liberal”.
They are pretty good at it, and they seem to have the other side always scrambling to re-name themselves.
Every one of Monroe’s points have been refuted ad nauseam on this blog.
And it is Monroe who is the irresponsible attack dog – just look at his recent false accusation that TNC inflated the price of land the State bought from TNC. Just like this Finch Pruyn “issue” the media took Monroe’s stance hook line and sinker and ran with it. Only the taxpayers became the sucker because of the resources the Attorney General’s office had to waste looking into another non-issue perpetrated by Monroe. The Attorney General completely exonerated TNC.
Monroe keeps crying wolf and it is time the media grew a brain and challenged his lies, misinformation and transparent agenda and stop sucking-up to him.
“You can’t support a plan that could damage the local economies, can you?”
Thankfully, I don’t have to attempt to answer your politically leading question, because the towns whose local economies would be impacted by this have all had their input incorporated into the deal, and their concerns were addressed to everyone’s satisfaction – which is why none of them vetoed the deal.
I would define the “preservation” agenda (not a negative idea) as the one that has the main goal of keeping the land as wild as possible remembering that it needs to be done realistically. Someone who supports this is what I would call a “preservationist”.
The best way to do that is to ensure that the land is protected from development (at least in any significant level) and that human use of the land is kept at a minimum. A good example of that would be the way the Finch Pruyn land has been managed for the past 150 years. The result is quite striking. The top of Mt. Marcy, with hoards of hikers stomping the alpine vegetation on a July day is the result of a different agenda. It certainly isn’t one I would define as “preservation”.
Dave, I think that some of these groups have earned the reputation that they have. When you say one thing and do another it confuses people.
Dave, all of those towns who did not veto the deal have now adopted resolutions opposing it. Three of those towns have adopted separate resolutions specifically supporting the clubs. They understand the economic importance of pay to play recreation.
I am one of those club members.
Instead of worrying about defining the word “preservationist” how about asking Monroe and the flip-flop town officials the definition of AGREEMENT.
The preservationist agenda is to eliminate human interaction with nature.
The conservationist agenda to to benefit mankind through interaction with nature.
The town veto only applies to land that is purchased with EPF funds. There was one case where the town vetoed a deal and then the state just went outside EPF funding and made the acquisition anyway. I am not sure that town decisions have much bearing on what the state wants to do anyway. At best they can agree to a deal for a snowmobile trail or some other “bone” that gets thrown their way. The whole thing is sad. If the towns veto a deal I assume the state could transfer funds from the EPF (like they are always doing) and make purchases anyway.
Has the state ever put together a real economic impact statement (positive or negative) when it comes to one of these large land deals. Have the towns been shown what the tax base could look like if the land was developed in some other way? Shown how the towns could benefit from the acquisition? Has the state ever considered paying the towns for not only the property tax but the economic value that is lost by making the land Forest Preserve? If we really want to preserve land in this public manner we should all (as a state) be prepared to do what it takes finacially. These towns have been fooled for long enough.
myown, do you think it is fair for us as a state to pay the towns for any lost economic value from the Forest Preserve acquisitions?
Working forests are worth $477.00 per acre per year to New York’s GDP according to DEC’s website. When 65,000 acres of productive forestland are acquired for Forest Preserve, it stands to reason that the negative economic impact is $29 million per year. This takes into consideration a “value added multiplier effect”.
See page 2 of this PDF:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/economic.pdf
The SLMP specifically states that productive forestland should not be acquired, but rather easement protection is a better solution. See page 7 of this PDF (large file) :
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/adk.pdf
Paul, should a private landowner pay the town for any lost economic value if he doesn’t develop his land?
The State pays higher property taxes than private owners who get all sorts of tax-benefits that the rest of us subsidize. So it is a wash. State land requires much fewer services than if the land was developed, so the towns and school districts get a good deal. How many highly developed towns have property taxes lower than towns with large amounts of taxpaying Forest Preserve? There is plenty of land better suited for the limited demand for development in the Adirondacks.
Paul, what about when it works the other way ’round? Should Keene have to pay the state for the revenue it gains from having the High Peaks in its back yard? It’s not as if this land was producing a lot of revenue for the towns to begin with. Why should the state pay the town for what theoretically maybe could have been its economic value if it was, what, built up like Lake George? Turned into a bunch of water parks? What, exactly, is its “lost economic value”?
And if it was turned into a theme park with condos and McDonalds, what would be the lost economic value of its lost beauty?
John,
Thank you for telling us you are a club member affected by the Finch Pruyn deal. Obviously, it is a bigger issue for someone in Mr. Monroe’s position and strange that he apparently does not reveal that information or see any conflict of interest.
myown,
The different special interest groups include:
Private landowners.
Local governments.
The State.
The forest products industry.
Private recreational clubs.
Public recreational users.
A non-profit NGO.
What would you say if there was a solution to satisfy all of the different special interests? Could you see a mix of public and private use on the same land, especially if it helped the local economies?
In legal terms “AGREEMENT” = “CONTRACT”, something that is conspicuously lacking in the state / conservancy relationship relative to the Finch property.
Monroe has disclosed the fact that he is a club member on numerous occasions. I don’t think that is an important issue, other than the fact that he recognizes the economic importance of recreational leases, since he has direct experience and knows first hand how much they spend in the local towns.
Similarly, Finch Pruyn’s foresters can tell you how productive this property is.
Is anyone willing to make a FOIA request to DEC to see just what kind of agreement they have with TNC? I’d sure like to know!
Moderator, why are you withholding my comment from 5:01? It was quite pertinent to the conversation. Please advise.
Working forests are worth $477.00 per acre per year to New York’s GDP according to DEC’s website. When 65,000 acres of productive forestland are acquired for Forest Preserve, it stands to reason that the negative economic impact is $29 million per year. This takes into consideration a “value added multiplier effect”.
See page 2 of this PDF:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/economic.pdf
The SLMP specifically states that productive forestland should not be acquired, but rather easement protection is a better solution. See page 7 of this PDF (large file) :
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/adk.pdf
“Is anyone willing to make a FOIA request to DEC to see just what kind of agreement they have with TNC? I’d sure like to know!”
More tin foil hattery about the DEC and TNC…
Is the strategy here to keep making accusations so that the TNC and the State have to waste time and money proving them false?
“Dave, I think that some of these groups have earned the reputation that they have. When you say one thing and do another it confuses people.”
I am not sure what this is even in reference to.
Are you talking about hikers and alpine vegetation again? If so, why? This almost seems like a game… how can we fit hikers and alpine vegetation into every conversation.
For the record though, have you ever heard of the Summit Stewards?
Fact is, the hiking community did recognize the damage that was being caused, and has made significant efforts to address it. And those efforts have indeed been paying off.
Is that one of the “actions” that “confuse” people you are talking about?
From past discussions, I have a general idea of what groups of recreationalists you support. If there is an equivalent effort by those group to address the problems of their recreation, I am unaware of it.
Working forests are worth $477.00 per acre per year to New York’s GDP according to DEC’s website. When 65,000 acres of productive forestland are acquired for Forest Preserve, it stands to reason that the negative economic impact is $29 million per year. This takes into consideration a “value added multiplier effect”.
The SLMP specifically states that productive forestland should not be acquired, but rather easement protection is a better solution.
John 5:16 — “What would you say if there was a solution to satisfy all of the different special interests?”
Ummm. There WAS a solution that everyone agreed to before some of them UN-agreed.
(aside) Typical conservative goal-post-movers… (eye roll).
“all of those towns who did not veto the deal have now adopted resolutions opposing it.”
After working to come up with a comprehensive plan that included their concerns, and agreeing to it… they changed their mind with Fred Monroe and opposed it.
I know the towns are now on on your side of the issue, so maybe it is hard to see this as anything but a positive development… but none of that strikes you as strange, mismanaged, dishonest, or worse?
If the other side ever pulled a stunt like this, I can only imagine the indignant outrage (rightly so) that would be on display.
Sometimes it seems like the natural state of things in the Park is to re-argue and re-discuss settled issues.
Funny that nobody ever complains about the former owners of Finch who busted the unions so they could sell the plant and the land to faceless investors from out-of-state in a deal that was financed largely by the sale of the woodlands to TNC.
Meanwhile the new owners have sold the power generation portion of the business in some cock-a-may-me deal in which they want to get out of their property tax obligations because they say the power plant doesn’t have any real estate except for a parking lot, or something since the actual turbine spitting electrons into wires is actually just resting inside Finch property and isn’t real-estate. Or some crazy deal like that.
In the old days you could be a crook and make a decent living without even a high school education. Now it seems like you need an Ivy League law degree to learn how to be a crook.
Knuck and Dave, I find it difficult to have a meaningful dialogue with you.
I present facts, you present “feelings”.
There is one rather amusing element lacking in this discussion. There would not be any discussion if the people who claim to be for property rights when it comes to what they want to do with THEIR property, but don’t see a problem when they want to strip property rights away from anyone who wants to sell THEIR property to the state.
People complain the APA won’t let them do this or that with THEIR property. But at least the APA doesn’t tell you that you can’t sell your property to Joe Blow. Hell, you can even sell your property to a religious organizations and other so called not-for-profits, thus removing the property from the tax rolls. But god forbid you sell to the state who does pay taxes.
Just saying there is a lot of hypocrisy that goes on in the Adirondacks.
Sheesh — the Adirondacks are a treasure. I am surprised a lot of folks, at least on this string of e-mails, want to make it like everywhere else, full of private development. Cannot we have at least one large, relatively unbroken special place to go to in east that is not like everywhere else?
No John. I presented the ONE pertinent fact: there was a deal and then people who apparently don’t know how to keep a deal broke the deal. That isn’t a feeling.
And it seems you have a problem with “feelings”. Maybe you need counseling. Normal people experience feelings as an ordinary part of life. They’re great. Sometimes I feel happy, sometimes I feel sad, ennui, excitement, anger… it’s all part of being a human being.
John, your $29m figure sounds great, but I think it’s a safe bet it is out of date. Timber companies are selling their land: why do you think that is?
“John, your $29m figure sounds great, but I think it’s a safe bet it is out of date.”
Walker what did the state offer TNC for this land? When they announced the deal they said they still had to negotiate a price. I don’t think they even have a price now. Strange way to do business on behalf of the tax payers.
“The State pays higher property taxes than private owners who get all sorts of tax-benefits that the rest of us subsidize.”
myown, this is baloney. Take a look at the tax rolls before you make an outrageous claim like this.
Let me give you one example:
A private business on Lower Saranac lake:
4.85 acres of land tax value $1,114,300 or $229,752 per acre
State owned land on the same part of Lower Saranac lake:
7420 acres of land tax value $5,971,400 or $804 per acre
That seems considerably lower to me??
Walker, it’s information directly from DEC’s website. The administrator would not allow me to post a link. DEC commissioned a study and they came up with the $477.00 value. Timber companies are selling their land because of the tax benefits from purchasing raw materials from TIMOs, hence the interest in the land, and the purchase of 94,000 acres last year by a TIMO. The TIMO has a 20 year contract with Finch.
Knuck, you have resorted to name-calling and personal attacks. Predictable behavior from your ilk. If you truly believe there was a DEAL, let’s see it. There were a lot of “deals” that went unfulfilled, like TNC selling some land to the towns, like TNC deeding the snowmobile connectors to the towns, like TNC “drawing a box” around my club, etc. There was never a “deal”, just a lot of hot air and smoke & mirrors.
Klein, you have intentionally left out the most important element, that is, PERMANENCE. If the state said, “we’ll buy it and see how it works for three years, and if it doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to, we’ll sell it on the open market, with easements to protect the clubs and forest management.” then that would be great. But it doesn’t work that way. When the state makes a purchase, it is forever. Damage done can not be reversed.
My point is this: Why take the risk? Why not use easements instead? I know of at least one TIMO who would buy eased land, and the owner told me so directly. He’d like to purchase 65,000 acres of productive forestland, with a supply agreement, with recreational leases, and with public access.
Why take the risk?