Afternoon Read: Syracuse paper explores Tupper Lake fight
Here at NCPR we’ve covered the debate over the Adirondack Club and Resort so exhaustively that we sometimes get lost in the weeds and the detail. It’s refreshing when a journalist from “outside” comes in and takes a new, broad look at the dispute in Tupper Lake.
That’s what Hart Seely at the Syracuse Post-Standard has done. His report gives a broad, balanced, human look at a complicated battle that has raged now for nearly a decade. Seely gets at the heart of just how nasty this dust-up has become.
Lately, the local paper has treated Phyllis Thompson like Public Enemy No. 1. In the normally congenial pages of the Tupper Lake Free Press, she’s become “Queen Phyllis,” a “bully” who throws her weight around, putting neighbors out of work. One letter writer encouraged local businesses to deny her service, and an editorial piped in, “Who can blame them?”
Ouch. Thompson is, of course, a 69-year-old landowner who has joined in the lawsuit aimed at invalidating Adirondack Park Agency permits for the new resort. Read the full article here. It’s a great, broad primer on the whole affair.
.png)
It is a pretty good article but it really could use some editing.
“For 40 years, the state has sought to balance an ever-shifting Adirondack economy with the protection of 6 million, mostly pristine acres of public land.”
This is not accurate. Currently there is 2,524,726 acres of public land in the Adirondack Park. 6 million?
Also this:
“But critics see a looming boondoggle and a sign that the historically hard-line pro-environment Adirondack Park Agency has betrayed its original directive: to keep the Adirondacks “forever wild.””
Since when is this the APA’s directive? “Forever Wild” is related to the 43% of the park that is under state ownership. The APA is really only tasked with classification of that land not much more. The other 50 or so percent of the land that isn’t water and is private is where the agency has jurisdiction and “forever wild” has absolutely nothing to do with it.
With that said the way that some folks are acting in Tupper Lake is nutty.
Well McClelland and his propaganda rag has officially made us Tupper Lakers look like a bunch of spiteful, stupid, hicks which is of course not true. Anytime the project is mentioned in other media it points the the Free Press (oxymoron in this case).
Although I strongly disagree with the lawsuit I hardly think printing people’s houses in the paper and hanging up signs is an effective means of discourse. We look like bullies to the outside world.
That’s strange… an objective journalist like yourself views this article and sees nothing out of the ordinary about it. A journalist with an agenda views this article and is upset that it doesn’t reflect his and his paper’s biases.
http://poststar.com/blogs/i_think_not/another-newspaper-story-rounds-up-the-usual-suspects/article_69bb4a14-f625-11e1-b853-001a4bcf887a.html
It’s not much of an article. A primer, yes. But not great. Nowhere does the article mention that the project followed APA zoning, that it meets all the requirements of the law. Thompson’s statement that ends the article — that the ACR was required to do a wildlife survey, but didn’t — is allowed to stand, as if it were true. But it isn’t, is it? I don’t think the law requires a wildlife survey. It’s unfortunately typical journalism, as practiced these days — talking to one side, then the other; recapping the history; summarizing the debate — and you’re done. No exploration of the validity of the claims from either side and very little context for either. There is a bit of context showing the decline of Tupper Lake. But when preservationists say this project will ruin the Park, or even this particular area, how true is that?
The only reaction you will have down here to an article like this is from the people, who like the reporter, are under the wrong impression that the Adirondacks is a 6 million acre park comprised only of public land. Or at least wish and hope that it someday will be.
Brian (MOFYC), how can any journalist support an article that has inaccurate information in it?
Here is another one:
“In Tupper Lake — the latest front in the war for the Adirondacks — the battle has turned personal.”
What war? Sensationalism along with some incorrect facts.
I heard Brian’s story this a.m. This isn’t my fight. As an outside observer I was very uneasy with Mr. LaValley being front and center on this. If it were me I would want to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. No matter how much integrity Mr. LaValley has and how well he is regarded, it looks bad for him to be so strongly backing a project related to his professional endeavors, ie real estate. If we were talking about the development of light industry or some other kind of economic development it would be a different matter.
People considering projects such as this one need to learn from the mistakes and experience of others. In the 70’s Vermont communities faced similar issues as Tupper Lake does today. Back then it was very difficult to watch locals become second class citizens in their own hometowns, no longer able to afford a house or even to rent. Jobs as chambermaids or mowing lawns are not living wage jobs or jobs that will keep our children in the North Country. Be careful what you wish for.
Would LaValley be selling any of these places? I would assume the developers would. That is where the money is. Rather than a conflict this may be competition for his firm? But maybe if it goes well it could help his business.
Also, many factions in the debate, preservationists included, have said that “tourism” will be the engine of the Adirondack economy. They are all wishing for the same thing just in different ways.
Not a bad attempt at a balanced article but it does have several innacurate details, ex. normally congenial TL Free Press??? Only if you share the owners viewpoint, ARISE running the ski area 4 yrs, close, its actually 3 yrs. But the biggest ommission IMO is the total absence of any of the financial aspects the developers are proposing to finance it. With Foxman and Lawsons checkered financial background, their lack of paying property and school taxes for years on the properties they currently own, the Fed Tax liens on Lawson for non payment of $540000. of income taxes for 07-09 and all the local and regional businesses and suppliers they have stiffed in the past few yrs I would have thought the reporter would have made that a central part of the article. The financing is what has many people in Tupper very wary of this project. The PILOT program puts all current local taxpayers (and county taxpayers) in jeopardy. Using tax dollars to finance the developers infrastructure cost is insane. You can’t supply services to the new wealthy homeowners in the development and not get any tax revenue into the local coffers. That is a sure way to raise all existing local taxpayers burden to subsidize the wealthy newcomers. If the populace of Tupper Lake is actually made aware of the potential ramifications of the proposed PILOT you will then see some serious opposition to this financial fiasco. The problem is they will never be made aware through the local newspaper or even the ADE. Brian Mann we need your investigative skill to get the truth out there.
Dave,
There is no PILOT program that has been approved is there?
You are referring to what was proposed. Hopefully that will be well vetted prior to any approvals.
I made comments similar to the ones I made here on Will’s Post-Star blog several days ago and he’s decided not to publish them. Shame. I always thought him more open minded. Kudos to NCPR for not being afraid of actual dialogue.
Will Doolittle criticizing another reporter for being unbalanced and inaccurate. Well, I guess he would know all about that.