Morning Read 2: NY Times weighs in with story on Big Tupper resort

The New York Times ran a major story on the Adirondack Club and Resort project.  As this is the first report that many influential New Yorkers will see about the development, I thought it was worth noting.

By and large, the story reported by Lisa Foderaro is fairly low-key, taking stock of the conflicts but also acknowledging that the decision was perhaps a bit less controversial that might have been expected.  Here’s a sample:

In the early decades of the Adirondack Park Agency, which was formed in 1971, tensions around private-property rights occasionally turned violent.

That pitch of anger has subsided. Now even some environmental groups talk about the importance of development. One such group, the Adirondack Council, endorsed the resort plan in the end.

Check out the full article here.

Tags: , , , ,

15 Comments on “Morning Read 2: NY Times weighs in with story on Big Tupper resort”

Leave a Comment
  1. Two Cents says:

    For downstaters, and on an introductory level, the article seems fair.
    Will it prompt interest in purchasing one of those properties/homes?

  2. Pete Klein says:

    I agree. Seems reasonable. Only time will tell if the developers are successful and Tupper Lake sees much in the way of benefits.

  3. Translation: as long we give big developers what they want, they won’t get angry. Ok, thanks for the shocking news.

    Godspeed to Tupper Lakers. Even aside from the environmental impact, good luck to them to not be ruined by this, given the gargantuan tax breaks (“PILOT”) in near-perpetuity that Foxman wants.

  4. Paul says:

    The APA’s point that the land is better protected in the long-term under these permits is a valid point that many folks seem to just overlook.

    Many people want to see no development, or development that is more restricted than the regulations allow but that isn’t a real option.

    Here you have forced the owners to develop the land less than they could have based on the rules.

  5. wakeup says:

    Pretty good article but why is there a picture of Ron Swanson? Oops, that’s Tom Lawson

  6. Paul says:

    Brain (the NCPR one), Do you know, has anyone ever tried to challenge the legality of the future deed restrictions placed on land by APA permits?

  7. Will Doolittle says:

    Brian, MOFYC,
    Who are you translating? I didn’t see anything in the article, Brian M’s intro or any of the comments that could be translated that way. If you’re talking about the excerpt from the article above, I believe you’re misreading it or are unfamiliar with the history. The “tensions” that “occasionally turned violent” involved local people, owners of small private properties and not big developers.

  8. Paul says:

    Will, how about you on my question above. You have followed this for years. Anyone ever try and challenge this? Seems almost like a sort of “black mail”? “You can have your permit but to get it you have to give away these rights that you had originally under the law”?

    An example is when the agency looks at a parcel and says okay we will issue this permit for one house, on a parcel that allows 3 houses, as long as you give up the right to build the other two. And not only do you have to abide by that rule but so does everyone else who ever owns the land.

  9. Will, I know you and your father have been vocal anti-APA activists so I may not know the history as well as you but I am familiar with it. My point is that as long as the APA lets people do whatever they want, there won’t be any “tension” among the property rights activists. The issue is that the job of a regulatory agency is to regulate. That’s necessarily going to piss people off.

  10. Paul says:

    “The issue is that the job of a regulatory agency is to regulate. ” The job in this case is to “administer” the law. They did.

    Also in this case it is my understanding that the developers only go some of what they wanted. Doesn’t look like they got angry about what they didn’t get??

  11. Will Doolittle says:

    I don’t know whether anyone has challenged the practice in court, but I think you raise an intriguing question.
    Brian, fine. My point was, the tension has not been primarily with “big developers” when it comes to the APA. Of course, a cop who fails to enforce the law will be praised by criminals, just as one who enforces “laws” that don’t exist will be cursed by law-abiding citizens. But you are casting the issue in black and white, when many gradations of gray are possible. I do not think the APA has ever been a complete ogre nor do I believe it is now a complete pushover.

  12. Why says:

    It’s funny how things switch it used to be the right-wingers who hated the APA, now it’s the lefties.

  13. Fedupwmalarky says:

    Couldn’t help but notice in the NY Times article a picture of Tom Lawson statnding in front of the flag. If he is such a big patriot it would be in his best interest to pay back all his overdue taxes to various governmental agencies. For starters he should pay the federal government the $538634.83 he owes in unpaid income tax for the years 07, 08 an 09. The tax liens show on under public search. He should also pay all the back taxes on his various property holdings in Tupper Lake along with the ACR properties which are behind on School, Town and County taxes, several for more than a year. He should also pay the Village of Tupper Lake the $13000. the ACR has owed them for over 5 yrs for a waterline upgrade. And he should also make sure he is current on his electric bills so the village doesn’t have to send the electric crew out to remove the meter from his house again for non payment. Maybe he can talk to his partner Michael Foxman about helping the federal government to recoup the $680 Million they had to lay out to bail out his failed Sunrise Savings and Loan in Florida in the mid 1980s. Tupper Lakers beware, if it sounds to good to be true it usually is.


  14. Paul says:

    I don’t know of other zoning agencies that use these types of “deed restrictions”. They may exist. All other deed restrictions are usually in place when a purchase is made (homeowners associations) or are put in place by the owner and not part of a quid-pro-quot like you see here. The agency does not consider them to be that but you have to feel that way sometimes if you are trying to get a permit. It is not like you have an option if you need to get the permit. Will or Brian if you have time I think this would be a good story to look into.

  15. michael coffey says:

    This is a large-scale, planned development in a place that needs it. Although it will take some time (decades), there are many things to be learned as we watch how it works out. A test case, of sorts.

    Glad to see Brian Mann’s piece in Adirondack Life sited….

Leave a Reply