UPDATE: Are green groups exaggerating the Big Tupper resort’s impacts?
UPDATE: You can now read the Adirondack Explorer version of this news story here. The print version provides some additional context and wrestles with other issues that the radio version couldn’t tackle.
Over the last year, NCPR has partnered with the Adirondack Explorer magazine to look in-depth at key aspects of the landmark Adirondack Club and Resort project in Tupper Lake.
In our review of the economic foundations of the project, we found that developers were making claims about sales and economic benefits to the community that were difficult to substantiate. You can find that story here, where some business leaders expressed deep skepticism about sales figures, marketing strategy and the potential for the resort’s success.
In our review of environmental concerns raised by green groups, meanwhile, we found that the scientific and regulatory basis for those claims was far less clear-cut than critics of the project asserted. You can find that story, which aired this morning, here.
This is complicated stuff, with a lot of grey zones. Here are some of the takeaways from our research:
-Environmental groups have generally declined to acknowledge that the project would be built in the context of a well protected Park landscape. Over the last decade or so, roughly a million acres of private timberland have been protected from all real estate development.
-If economically successful, the 6,200 acre tract of private land near Big Tupper will be significantly developed over the next fifteen years. But at least 1,200 acres of the property will remain substantially undisturbed and state officials say only about 18% of land zoned as “resource management” will be directly impacted.
-Once built, the resort will obviously leave the private land in question far less wild. But roughly 200,000 acres of permanently protected land sits right next door in Follensby Park and the High Peaks Wilderness. That’s a lot of nearly identical habitat in close proximity that will never be fragmented.
-Environmental groups have occasionally portrayed the private forests that would be impacted as pristine forest, but the area has been disturbed by roads, intensive logging, a ski resort, and hunting club activity for decades.
-Environmental groups are asking APA commissioners to judge this project based on specific concepts of clustered residential development developed in the last decade that aren’t clearly detailed in state regulations. Adopting those standards would require the Agency to set a significant policy precedent in the context of a permit review for one private project. (Some green groups dispute this and say the Agency has clear legal authority.)
-Most experts interviewed by NCPR — and most of the testimony in the hearing record — agreed that a more clustered design would, in fact, reduce the environmental impacts of the project substantively, potentially leaving more of the open space undeveloped and linked together in large swaths of forest.
-State officials and environmental groups agree that a comprehensive wildlife survey is still needed. However, no one has yet identified any endangered or rare or at-risk species that might be threatened by the development. (Some groups say the rusty blackbird, a species in decline statewide, may be adversely impacted.)
-Environmental groups also want the project to be judged in the context of potential Park-wide cumulative impacts that might follow if other future resorts were built with a similar design. But APA regulations as currently written don’t include standards for regional cumulative impacts. (They do allow for consideration of future cumulative impacts with a single Park community.) Again, it appears that a new substantial new precedent would have to be established.
-Environmental groups are asserting two additional standards that don’t appear to be clearly supported in current state regulation. First, they claim that residential development is largely inappropriate in areas zoned for “resource management.” But the APA has long stated unambiguously that home-building is a “compatible” use on those lands. Also, activists have argued repeatedly that the project is simply “too big.” But “bigness” isn’t a regulatory standard and the developers are proposing far fewer homes than APA zoning rules allow.
-Sprawl is a major concern for green groups and for most scientists. But if successful, this project would represents a small fraction of the new homes permitted in the Park every year. (Three hundred permits are granted on average annually. The resort developers hope to build between 40 and 50 homes yearly.) Most of the homes now being allowed inside the blue line receive very little review and aren’t required to follow even minimal clustering guidelines.
-Environmental groups have leveled serious accusations at state scientists and officials, claiming that their findings and sworn testimony during the adjudicatory hearing have been manipulated or changed due to political pressure. Those are serious allegations and if true would likely reflect criminal activity on the part of state officials. So far, NCPR has been unable to substantiate those claims.
Finally, let me acknowledge that reporting the results of NCPR’s research will obviously be controversial in some circles. So let me restate the purpose of these articles.
The role of NCPR and the Adirondack Explorer isn’t to reach conclusions about the ACR project or its merits. Our job is to look skeptically, impartially, and as factually as possible at the claims made by all sides.
We did that first with financial concerns about the project. We do the same here with environmental questions. As always, your comments and feedback are welcome.
Tags: adirondack club and resort, apa, environment, land use, politics
I don’t really think that these groups are necessarily “exaggerating” the potential impacts.
I do think they are trying very hard to stop the development as planned if they can. I don’t see that they have the law on their side. That isn’t the APA’s fault they don’t write the rules.
The main reason for the debate is the ambiguity of the law. One single word is where the problem lies: “undue”. That is wide open!
I am listening in on this meeting and I do see that the agency is now presenting data related to a decrease in the population of Tupper Lake. I am not sure why this is relevant?
My major concern is sprawl. If the project goes through I will probably personally benefit because those will likely be my customers. My personal point of view is that the region would be better off with more development in dense clusters closer to services with better access for everyone to wilderness areas and less of private owners landlocking lakes and ponds.
I am very skeptical of developers’ premises because they never seem to come to fruition and the final outcome is usually a some infrastructure leading to nowhwere that disturbs the landscape and the environment without the benefits that were promised to the communities. What will happen to all the recent great camps after the New Gilded Age collapses? What will happen to these places when the generation that builds them passes and their kids don’t want to pay for the upkeep on a place they only visit for a week a year? All it will take is one night of frozen pipes and the dream will be a disaster.
There are better ways to help communities than with endless half-baked development schemes.
This reads as a critique of the legal tactics and technicalities they are using to to try to stop the development, not the actual potential environmental impact of that development.
Is it surprising that the “two sides” are exaggerating? Its too bad the ACR couldn’t be persuaded to go with a greener design – but maybe after they go broke and sell the permits to some other developer maybe something better can get done.
Peter, I don’t know if either side is exaggerating? I think they are just doing whatever they can to prove their point.
Look at the testimony of one expert that a proper amphibian survey of a small portion of the property would take 10 years and lots of money to do. One face that is true but is it practical? Of course not. ANY development will have any impact on the environment, that isn’t an exaggeration it is a fact. It is a fact that we all have to deal with. I know that I live in a house that wasn’t there at one time many years ago.
One important point that is made here is that any of this development if done piecemeal would get a permit with no problems and no publicity. Here the developers are really being penalized for laying it all on the table.
If you think the APA act allows too much you have a beef with the legislature. If you think the APA act is too restrictive on development you have a beef with the legislature.
When I was young, I vacationed in Meredith, New Hampshire. This is in the lakes region of New Hampshire. There was little development when I was a child, but of course a building boom of second homes and resorts did occur.
It is hard to say that one resort or one hotel makes a crucial difference in the environment. It is cumulative. First, there is one new house, then 20, then 30. The same thing with the new roads, power lines, sewage treatment.
If you want to see what the cumulative effects are, visit the Chamber of Commerce for Meredith.. or any travel web page and look at what has developed in Meredith over the years. Most everything has been built in the last 30 years.
It is the cumulative development. When is the development too big? After saying yes to one or two resorts, can you say no to the third or the twentieth?
There are no real answers. But the ACR resort is too big for the area.
But really, if they start small, it will be just a matter of time until it is too big.
Eventually, the area will look like Meredith, New Hampshire. Very upscale and quite a different place than what it was in the early 1980’s.
Is this inevitable — I don’t know the answer. But my children will probably remember Tupper Lake in the same way I remember Meredith, New Hampshire.
-If economically successful, the 6,200 acre tract of private land near Big Tupper will be significantly developed over the next fifteen years. But at least 1,200 acres of the property will remain substantially undisturbed and state officials say only about 18% of land zoned as “resource management” will be directly impacted.
What about the indirect impacts? Bear corridors? Just because a tree isn’t cut down doesn’t mean that there’s no impact. The proximity of human activities will impact the adjacent, undisturbed forest.
-Environmental groups have occasionally portrayed the private forests that would be impacted as pristine forest, but the area has been disturbed by roads, intensive logging, a ski resort, and hunting club activity for decades.
All of which have a much lower impact on the forest than second home development and the constant influx of construction equipment over the coming decades.
-Environmental groups are asking APA commissioners to judge this project based on specific concepts of clustered residential development developed in the last decade that aren’t clearly detailed in state regulations. Adopting those standards would require the Agency to set a significant policy precedent in the context of a permit review for one private project. (Some green groups dispute this and say the Agency has clear legal authority.)
So? Make the lawmakers and policy makers go through the process and update the regs to incorporate modern land-use thinking.
-Most experts interviewed by NCPR — and most of the testimony in the hearing record — agreed that a more clustered design would, in fact, reduce the environmental impacts of the project substantively, potentially leaving more of the open space undeveloped and linked together in large swaths of forest.
This statement pretty much refutes the first point, doesn’t it?
-State officials and environmental groups agree that a comprehensive wildlife survey is still needed. However, no one has yet identified any endangered or rare or at-risk species that might be threatened by the development. (Some groups say the rusty blackbird, a species in decline statewide, may be adversely impacted.)
Right, because the study hasn’t been done yet. Why is this question framed as a Catch-22?
-Environmental groups also want the project to be judged in the context of potential Park-wide cumulative impacts that might follow if other future resorts were built with a similar design. But APA regulations as currently written don’t include standards for regional cumulative impacts. (They do allow for consideration of future cumulative impacts with a single Park community.) Again, it appears that a new substantial new precedent would have to be established.
The size and scale of the project could be the trigger to enact a park-wide view of the project’s impact.
-Environmental groups are asserting two additional standards that don’t appear to be clearly supported in current state regulation. First, they claim that residential development is largely inappropriate in areas zoned for “resource management.” But the APA has long stated unambiguously that home-building is a “compatible” use on those lands. Also, activists have argued repeatedly that the project is simply “too big.” But “bigness” isn’t a regulatory standard and the developers are proposing far fewer homes than APA zoning rules allow.
Second home building is quite different from primary residence building. No one wants to deny a landowner the right to build his home. But a vacation place? Not so much. That’s a luxury, not a god-given right.
-Sprawl is a major concern for green groups and for most scientists. But if successful, this project would represents a small fraction of the new homes permitted in the Park every year. (Three hundred permits are granted on average annually. The resort developers hope to build between 40 and 50 homes yearly.) Most of the homes now being allowed inside the blue line receive very little review and aren’t required to follow even minimal clustering guidelines.
Mary addressed this quite nicely above.
-Environmental groups have leveled serious accusations at state scientists and officials, claiming that their findings and sworn testimony during the adjudicatory hearing have been manipulated or changed due to political pressure. Those are serious allegations and if true would likely reflect criminal activity on the part of state officials. So far, NCPR has been unable to substantiate those claims.
What have you done to subtantiate the claims?
Listening to the hearings it amazes me how little the commissioners know about the details of this huge project. How can they possibly make a determination on this in only 3 meetings? They need to spend a lot of time to understand all of it before they could deceide on a permit or a permit with conditions. Looking at the phasing presented so far it seems the developer want to sell great camp lots hoping to recoup some $$$ quickly and the ski area seems to be an afterthought. Even if they got the green light to go full speed ahead I really don’t think there is a market for these very expensive lots in a time when beautiful waterfront properties aren’t selling.
Verplanck – These are good questions that you raise. I’ll answer them as best I can.
-If economically successful, the 6,200 acre tract of private land near Big Tupper will be significantly developed over the next fifteen years. But at least 1,200 acres of the property will remain substantially undisturbed and state officials say only about 18% of land zoned as “resource management” will be directly impacted.
What about the indirect impacts? Bear corridors? Just because a tree isn’t cut down doesn’t mean that there’s no impact. The proximity of human activities will impact the adjacent, undisturbed forest.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT IMPACT IS GREAT ENOUGH TO REPRESENT AN “UNDUE, ADVERSE IMPACT” ON ECOSYSTEMS OR SPECIES. SOME GREEN GROUPS SAY THE ANSWER IS YES. APA BIOLOGISTS AND SOME INDEPENDENT EXPERTS WE SPOKE TO DOWNPLAYED THOSE CONCERNS. MANY OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL LOTS INCLUDE FIVE-ACRE BUILDING ENVELOPES WITHIN PARCELS THAT ARE BETWEEN 100 AND 1,500 ACRES IN SIZE. SO THAT LEAVES A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM FOR CRITTERS TO MOVE AROUND. THE APA BOARD WILL DECIDE WHETHER THAT’S GOOD ENOUGH…
-Environmental groups have occasionally portrayed the private forests that would be impacted as pristine forest, but the area has been disturbed by roads, intensive logging, a ski resort, and hunting club activity for decades.
All of which have a much lower impact on the forest than second home development and the constant influx of construction equipment over the coming decades.
-THAT’S TRUE. BUT IT’S ALSO TRUE THAT THIS IS A HUMAN-IMPACTED AREA CURRENTLY. THAT’S IMPORTANT CONTEXT.
-Environmental groups are asking APA commissioners to judge this project based on specific concepts of clustered residential development developed in the last decade that aren’t clearly detailed in state regulations. Adopting those standards would require the Agency to set a significant policy precedent in the context of a permit review for one private project. (Some green groups dispute this and say the Agency has clear legal authority.)
So? Make the lawmakers and policy makers go through the process and update the regs to incorporate modern land-use thinking.
-SOME ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE INDEED PUSHING FOR AN UPDATE TO THE REGULATIONS TO DEAL WITH THINGS LIKE CUMULATIVE IMPACT AND CLUSTERING. BUT THAT PROCESS WOULD REQUIRE LENGTHY RULE-MAKING AND SOME PEOPLE ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA OF THE APA DOING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF ONE PERMIT.
-Most experts interviewed by NCPR — and most of the testimony in the hearing record — agreed that a more clustered design would, in fact, reduce the environmental impacts of the project substantively, potentially leaving more of the open space undeveloped and linked together in large swaths of forest.
This statement pretty much refutes the first point, doesn’t it?
-NO. EVERYONE AGREES THAT THERE WILL BE IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND HABITAT. THAT’S A REALITY WHENEVER PRIVATE LAND IS DEVELOPED. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CURRENT DESIGN OF THE RESORT DOES ENOUGH TO MITIGATE AND MINIMIZE THOSE CONCERNS. OBVIOUSLY THERE’S A LOT OF DEBATE ON THIS POINT. THE APA BOARD WILL DECIDE THIS QUESTION.
-State officials and environmental groups agree that a comprehensive wildlife survey is still needed. However, no one has yet identified any endangered or rare or at-risk species that might be threatened by the development. (Some groups say the rusty blackbird, a species in decline statewide, may be adversely impacted.)
Right, because the study hasn’t been done yet. Why is this question framed as a Catch-22?
-THE LACK OF A WILDLIFE SURVEY HAS BEEN VERY CONTROVERSIAL. BUT IT’S ALSO TRUE THAT AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF REVIEW AND DEBATE, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC SPECIES OF CONCERN. THAT’S RELEVANT INFORMATION. IF GREEN GROUPS OR STATE SCIENTISTS KNEW ABOUT A SPOTTED OWL-LIKE PROBLEM IN THAT AREA OF THE PARK THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTENTION.
-Environmental groups also want the project to be judged in the context of potential Park-wide cumulative impacts that might follow if other future resorts were built with a similar design. But APA regulations as currently written don’t include standards for regional cumulative impacts. (They do allow for consideration of future cumulative impacts with a single Park community.) Again, it appears that a new substantial new precedent would have to be established.
The size and scale of the project could be the trigger to enact a park-wide view of the project’s impact.
-THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA, IN THEORY, BUT I CAN’T FIND ANY LEGAL BASIS FOR IT. (I’VE BEEN ASKING AROUND TO MAKE SURE I’M CORRECT ON THIS POINT AND IT APPEARS THAT I AM.) THERE SIMPLY AREN’T RULES CURRENTLY FRAMING CUMULATIVE IMPACT AS A MEASURING ROD FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. AND THE APA HAS TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
-Environmental groups are asserting two additional standards that don’t appear to be clearly supported in current state regulation. First, they claim that residential development is largely inappropriate in areas zoned for “resource management.” But the APA has long stated unambiguously that home-building is a “compatible” use on those lands. Also, activists have argued repeatedly that the project is simply “too big.” But “bigness” isn’t a regulatory standard and the developers are proposing far fewer homes than APA zoning rules allow.
Second home building is quite different from primary residence building. No one wants to deny a landowner the right to build his home. But a vacation place? Not so much. That’s a luxury, not a god-given right.
-AGAIN, THE APA DOESN’T HAVE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HOMES.
-Sprawl is a major concern for green groups and for most scientists. But if successful, this project would represents a small fraction of the new homes permitted in the Park every year. (Three hundred permits are granted on average annually. The resort developers hope to build between 40 and 50 homes yearly.) Most of the homes now being allowed inside the blue line receive very little review and aren’t required to follow even minimal clustering guidelines.
Mary addressed this quite nicely above.
-IT’S OBVIOUS THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TYPE WOULD BRING ABOUT CHANGE THAT SOME PEOPLE DO NOT WANT. BUT IT’S ALSO FAIR TO POINT OUT THAT UNLIKE NEW HAMPSHIRE VAST AREAS OF THE ADIRONDACKS ARE PERMANENTLY PROTECTED — INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF STATE LAND THAT SURROUND TUPPER LAKE.
-Environmental groups have leveled serious accusations at state scientists and officials, claiming that their findings and sworn testimony during the adjudicatory hearing have been manipulated or changed due to political pressure. Those are serious allegations and if true would likely reflect criminal activity on the part of state officials. So far, NCPR has been unable to substantiate those claims.
What have you done to subtantiate the claims?
-I HAVE GOOD SOURCES AT THE APA AND IN OTHER STATE AGENCIES. I’VE BROKEN A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF STORIES BASED ON LEAKED INFORMATION AND ANONYMOUS SOURCES IN RAY BROOK. I DID MY BEST TO USE THOSE CHANNELS TO IDENTIFY ANY FACTUAL BASIS FOR THESE SUSPICIONS AND COULD NOT. NOR HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS LEVELING THE CHARGE — PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY — PROVIDED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION. THIS ISN’T DEFINITIVE. IT’S JUST THE BEST THAT MY REPORTING HAS GATHERED SO FAR.
–Brian, NCPR
mary, I don’t think that the two places are similar. I certainly don’t see hundreds of thousands of acres of protected land adjacent to the town you describe. Also this project requires most of the lots to be very large in comparison to what you see in the area that you describe. No doubt Winnipeasaukee was poorly developed. What they are trying to do here is avoid the same mistakes. The land probably will eventually be developed. Do you want 50 one hundred acre lots or 5000 one acre lots like you see in the area you describe? I too would like to see zero lots but that isn’t in the cards.
The developers are going to have a hard time selling this development. You would think (at least I would think) that they would have an easier time marketing the lots if the whole thing were packaged as an eco-friendly green development. Instead they chose the gilded-age sprawl model which they modified a little in the (vain) hope that the environmental groups would back off.
No question that Tupper Lake needs/deserves something good to happen for a change, but it is hard to imagine this development working out.
I’m still not seeing a discussion about environmental impacts here – other than in a very round about sort of way. What I see is lots of debate about the law and about regulations.
Are people concerned with the environment making specific environmental objections that you have found to be questionable?
Dave –
There are really two aspects to my story. The first is a debate over whether this project would have “undue, adverse impacts” on the environment. That’s something everyone disagrees about.
Secondly, if there are significant concerns, there is the debate over whether the law and regulations and precedent exist that would allow the APA to demand a significantly more environmentally friendly project.
–Brian, NCPR
verplank, what is a “bear corridor”?
“Second home building is quite different from primary residence building. No one wants to deny a landowner the right to build his home. But a vacation place? Not so much. That’s a luxury, not a god-given right.”
This is no ones business but the land owner, who happens to have a right to his or her property based on the US constitution (described by our founders as “god given”). The owner has to abide by the regulations but he or she has many rights.
Besides, couldn’t these properties easily (and quite probably when you look at what happens with many “second” homes) be or become someone’s primary residence? Last time I checked the Adirondacks were attracting a pretty good number of retirees. Curt Stiles (formerly of the APA) is a good example in his large home on Upper Saranac Lake.
I would prefer the land be developed in the woods rather than on the shoreline.
A key argument of the experts who say the fragmentation is not “adverse”, in this case, is that it borders 200,000 acres of preserve. As the one proponent cited, this development is just “a blip”. If there is already so much protected land that development is not a threat, why even have the APA at all? Yet, isn’t one of the main issues surrounding national parks that the park boundaries are “political” and don’t represent the ecosystem boundary? Fundamentally, isn’t that why we have the APA? Otherwise, build all around the High Peaks wilderness and call it central park.
Isn’t the act designed to have a cohesive approach to land management throughout the entire 6 milion acres so it can be viewed in it’s totality and not by smaller far flung planning boards? I also thought that is what makes the Adirondack Park so unique and special, compared to our national parks.
“If there is already so much protected land that development is not a threat, why even have the APA at all?”
Simple thoughts, I think that many people are coming close to making that conclusion (some already have).
What is it that some people want? The law in RM land says that a lot should be 42 acres. The strictest requirement in maybe all of the US. You need to have rules that people can understand. If 42 acres is not enough what would folks recommend? 100 acres, 1000 acres? 42 already, as we see here, shuts out most people from being able to afford to live in these areas already.
“If there is already so much protected land that development is not a threat, why even have the APA at all?”
Because the APA is not just tasked with protecting land from development, it is also tasked with making sure that when development does take place that it happens in a responsible way that is in line with the natural characteristics of the Park.
“There are really two aspects to my story. The first is a debate over whether this project would have “undue, adverse impacts” on the environment. That’s something everyone disagrees about.
Secondly, if there are significant concerns, there is the debate over whether the law and regulations and precedent exist that would allow the APA to demand a significantly more environmentally friendly project.”
What I am saying is that all I see here is the “second part”.
I understand that you disagree with some of their strategy (how things are potrayed, etc) and their interpretation of APA Law and powers.
What I am asking is, what are the specific environmental impacts that people are objecting too? And do you think they are unfounded?
I have to admit, I don’t understand this part of the process. It’s like the APA staff is spoon feeding the commissioners what they need to know. Shouldn’t they have been reading the volumes of pre-filed testimony and listened to the oral testimony directly? It seems like the staff is just handing them some crib notes? Don’t all the parties deserve more then this? That said, Ms. Ulrich seems well versed and is running the meeting well. But the questions from some of the others make me cringe almost as much as the staff’s response. What are we paying these people for?
dave, Brain doesn’t “disagree with some of their strategy”? He is just trying to report out what is going on. Like we often see with these kinds of contentious debates is that someone mistakes a reported fact with some sort of judgment call.
“What I am saying is that all I see here is the “second part”.” Well, lets have it. Do you think the law allows the APA to demand a different kind of project?
Seems to me that they can use the act to judge the permit application and then deny or approve it. It isn’t their job, nor do they have the resources, to do the planning as well as the permitting?
“Shouldn’t they have been reading the volumes of pre-filed testimony and listened to the oral testimony directly?”
ST, the board has other jobs and lives outside these monthly gatherings. We are paying the staff do do just what you describe analyze the data and make recommendations to the board (“spoon feeding” as you describe it).
We pay chefs to prepare our food not digest it for us. I don’t like this part of the process. The comissioners should be more knowledgeable. This is very important and should have their full attention not the minimal amount. I don’t have a problem with the staff helping, answering questions but these people don’t seem like the best or most knowledgeable decision makers.
ST, I agree this is not ideal.
It would be like a supreme court law clerk hearing oral arguments in a case then getting together later on with the justices and telling them the parts they think are important. Don’t we want our judges to actually hear and read the testimony themselves? This process needs to be changed.
Mary,
Development is not inevitable, even in lovely places. Tupper Lake and Saranac Lake are smaller than they were decades ago. They have less industry, fewer jobs and fewer people. And the question really isn’t what individuals would like to see happen in their hometowns, and how they would like those towns to look in 10 or 20 years. The question is, what does the law allow? People everywhere are allowed to do things with their property that some of their neighbors don’t like. But they are allowed to do them, by law. You can argue the results won’t look nice, or something wonderful will be lost, and so on, but unless you can get your preferences incorporated in law, they are meaningless.
Simple Thoughts, You nailed it, listening to this webcast I am shocked at the lack of knowledge the commissioners are exhibiting. I find I know answers to questions they don’t even though I have only read the local newspapers and listened to radio reports. This is really scary no matter what side of the ACR you are on, this process really seems flawed. A huge, precedent setting project like this and the commissioners haven’t even read the application or much of the hearing record. How can they possibly make an informed decision?
The APA board is not made up of individuals with necessarily any experience in land use planning. Usually none. Often the only discernible prerequisite is some past involvement with the Adirondack Council or some other environmental group.
Simple Thoughts 2:37pm. The commissioners could have gone to any of the adjudicatory hearings to listen to all the testimony. The only ones I heard of that went to any of them were Stiles and Mezzano and just a few meetings for a very short period of time. You’d think with a project of this size and importance that all or most of the commissioners would have spent considerable time getting the testimony firsthand so they could understand it in context. Sure seems like there is a lot of room for improvement in the whole process.
Holy Reading Assignment, Batman!
If there are rules to make or change, if there are precedents to worry about, then NOW is the time to do it, not after things begin to get out of hand. Having grown up in a place that was swallowed by sprawl, I’m sensitive to the everlasting loss of what’s there now, be it a favorite fishing spot, great overlook, swimming hole, or berry patch. No matter what size the lots are, when they become the property of an individual, they are off limits to the public.
Simple thoughts, Where were you when the Patriot Act was passed–and nobody who passed it read it?
Can ask the same question about most legislative body’s decisions, unfortunately.
Too tight, you can’t change the rules governing this decision now. Can you imagine having gone through a seven year process and then being told that we’re going to change the rules? And I say this as someone who has serious doubts about the ACR.
If you mean, now that we’ve seen the flaws in the current laws, let’s change them now before the next development proposal rolls in, I’m with you.
This summer and autumn, visitors from Italy and England, both exclaimed (unsolicited), how fortunate we, who live in the Adirondacks, are to have such a breadth of wilderness. How much we take our treasure for granted.
“Well, lets have it. Do you think the law allows the APA to demand a different kind of project?”
I can’t formulate an opinion on this without knowing what the environmental impacts of the project will be. And I don’t know how anyone else can either. That is the point I’ve been trying to get at. Most of what I’m reading amounts to debate over legal tactics, the law, and precedent setting.
Missing from the discussion is exactly, specifically what kind of environmental impacts we are talking about here. Absent that, I find it impossible to make an informed decision.
“Well, lets have it. Do you think the law allows the APA to demand a different kind of project?”
State environmental law requires them to consider alternatives.
“Environmental groups have leveled serious accusations at state scientists and officials, claiming that their findings and sworn testimony during the adjudicatory hearing have been manipulated or changed due to political pressure. ”
It must be that environmental groups don’t yield to political pressure. Whew. That’s a relief.
Will Doolittle: “And the question really isn’t what individuals would like to see happen in their hometowns, and how they would like those towns to look in 10 or 20 years. The question is, what does the law allow?”
Good planning requires that individuals in a town agree on what the town should look like in 20-30 years and then write the laws (zoning codes) to match that vision. If I remember correctly it’s been about 20 years since the Town of Altamont tried to update a Master Plan that would allow it to control most zoning (although the current project would still have been overseen by the APA) but the voters rejected the plan in a fit of pique. Am I mis-remembering the facts on this?
Dave, in the testimony from the green group experts they talked about what the impacts would be and the offered alternative designs to minimize them. The developer has been adimant that he can’t sell lots using those alternative designs. I know a developer would hate to do this but seems like he would have saved lots of time and money if he worked/consulted with the green groups from the start, got them on his side. I know they offered to help. In the hearing they showed e-mails from some offering help but he declined. I know it’s his project, he is taking the financial risk and wants to do it his way but the reality of a development this size within the blue line is different. Get the green groups on your side and this would have gone through much easier.
Hi folks – FYI, we have a new report up this morning looking at potential impacts of the project on amphibians, and concerns about lack of a detailed wildlife survey. Check it out at ncpr.org.
Brian, NCPR
Simple, 8:16 am, The developer has taken a position that he has to have the project his way and his way only from day one. He will say they tried to appease the environmental groups etc, by taking out the east ridge part of the project and modifying other aspects. But the truth is he was never going to get approval for the east ridge anyway, and he knew that. Your statement, “he is taking the financial risk” shows you don’t really understand the basic financial scheme the developer is proposing. As proposed the developer will be taking very little financial risk since he will not be responsible for paying for the bulk of the infrastucture in the project(water, sewer, roads, electric) I won’t go into the details here but this is the infamous PILOT program where the infrastructure is paid for by the property owners within the project. Their property taxes are forfited by the school, town and county taxing entities to pay the infrastructure costs normally borne by the developer. As the Hearing record shows, the taxing entities may not get any tax revenue at all but will be responsible for providing services to the new wealthy second homewners in the development. This will in turn raise all the existing locals tax burden because the project residents will not be paying their fair share of taxes, or maybe none at all. Personally I’ve never heard of a PILOT program where there was no guaranteed payment to the taxing entities but the Tupper Lake Town Board seems ready to jump right on board with this one. Scary.
KHL:
I’m in favor of planning, too, so that, for example, Queensbury and Moreau don’t end up as a hellish mix of cheap housing developments, shopping plazas and traffic. But local people have to want it and pass laws to get it. The laws, or the lack of them, must be followed.
Tom, I know. I agree. I would not say Foxman is taking “very little financial risk ” as you have but I understand what you are saying. The point of my post was that the developer should have worked with the green groups as they offered to help.
This might have a bearing on the discussion …
http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/2011/11/17/the-apas-slippery-criteria/
I apologize that this is a bit off topic, but since the PILOT has been brought up in this conversation, has any more information about the details of the PILOT come to light via these latest hearings? Or is that topic for additional hearings? Just curious…..
Clapton, Yes there has been more info in the official Hearing record. The most recent documents had to be foiled because the developer withheld them in the Discovery process. The foiled documents show that the FCIDA has serious doubts about the legality of the proposed PILOT and their Bond Counsel has never heard of the type of PILOT the ACR has proposed. Specifically the concept of Sub-PILOT, where the individual homeowners within the project site would each enter into a PILOT with the FCIDA. Testimony showed no precedent for this anywhere. Little to no chance the type of PILOT will be approved by the FCIDA and if they do, it will likely be challenged in the courts.
Interesting info on the expert Brian Mann uses in this report. Hal Salwasser.
http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/article_f38e0dac-5cbf-5ea7-ac58-eb466772b5e7.html
Hi folks –
I’ll be reporting more about the PILOT arrangements and other financial matters relating to the resort on Monday.
This article about Hal Salwasser is interesting and is new information to me.
To read his on-line bio, and credentials, go here: oregonstate.edu/leadership/forestry/
I will point out that Salwasser’s perspectives were not unique.
I interviewed or spoke on background with a number of experts on forest ecology, and drew from testimony by APA biologists shared his view about the landscape-level “forest fragmentation” impacts of this project.
Obviously, I also spoke with other experts — quoted in the story — who feel that the fragmentation impacts of this development would be much more significant.
–Brian, NCPR
Dale – Interesting article on OSU and academic freedom. Salwasser isn’t necessarily wrong about the ACR, but it does imply that he is more of an industry shill than he should be.
Excellent points Will! Queensbury and Moreau are good examples of towns with zoning laws that did pretty much what the laws were written to do; and also good examples of the adage “be careful what you wish for.”
An example of a town without zoning (and a better analogy to Tupper Lake) would be Whitehall, a town in serious decline where the people are seemingly incapable of agreeing on a vision for the future. The town/village leaders have been without a town hall for years and there is no end in sight. Whitehall has gone from a slightly fraying but still bustling little town to what I believe is technically known as a “hell-hole” in a few short decades. Lack of zoning has not helped in any way to lure good business. Having billboards sprout like spring flowers hasn’t helped. Having junk yards wherever people want to put them hasn’t helped.
Tupper Lake should be thankful it is in the Park and comes under APA jurisdiction or TL could be even more like Whitehall than it already is.
For now TL should be looking far into the future and trying to discern the repercussions of the decisions they make today. Don’t sell out future generations for short term gain — even though that is the traditional American Way. Look to the development in North Creek as your example and your warning.