Key facts in NY Post article on Nature Conservancy Adirondack deal questioned
On Monday, New York Post writer Fred Dicker reported on what his sources described as an apparent sweetheart deal between New York state and the Adirondack Nature Conservancy.
The headline says it all: “NY gave environmental org. absurd $3.7M profit for forest.”
Dicker — himself a frequent critic of conservation efforts in the Park — builds his story in large measure around the comments of Fred Monroe, head of the Local Government Review Board.
Monroe, who says he was Dicker’s initial source for the story, has been pressing for a moratorium on land deals in the Park.
But Dicker also quotes a local appraiser in the North Country, who appeared to question the deal on professional grounds:
“This price was not indicative of property values in the area generally,” said James Gonyo, Clinton County’s director of real property tax services.
But the accuracy of the Post’s account is drawing scrutiny. In the Adirondack Daily Enterprise Thursday, Mike Lynch reported the following:
James Gonyo, Clinton County’s director of real property tax services, was quoted in the Post as saying the purchase price was “higher than we would have assessed it at.”
He told the Enterprise something different.
“Let me tell you what I told that guy (Dicker),” Gonyo said.
“I told him I really couldn’t tell him much about the sale. What was not in there at all was that we did not use the sale for comparison purposes simply because it was in several towns and wouldn’t be allowed, so I really hadn’t done any investigation.”
Dicker also suggests that the purchase price paid by New York state represented a “little-noticed giveaway” revealed only by his paper’s probe.
But a review of press coverage of the Domtar deal shows that the purchase prices — the amount the Nature Conservancy paid and the amount paid by state officials — were both disclosed in detail.
Here’s a report from Associated Press writer Mike Virtanen, published in January 2009.
The state paid $10.8 million for the easements on 84,000 acres, and almost $10 million to own the 20,000 acres, most of that added to New York’s Forest Preserve. They include 3,830-foot Lyon Mountain and a mile of shoreline on nearby Chazy Lake…
…With individual donors contributing $4 million, the conservancy in 2004 paid Domtar $6.26 million for 19,960 acres…
Dicker’s initial article also failed to note key details, including the fact that that the transaction followed the state’s receipt of two independent appraisals of the land, an internal review by the Department of Environmental Conservation, and a separate review by the New York state Comptroller’s office.
The Post article also appears to confuse the collapse of the national housing and real estate market with the very different market for timber tracts.
On his radio show, Dicker has been open and unambiguous in his attacks on green groups and New York state’s management of the Adirondack Park.
As other reporters — and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo — pursue the facts of this case, it will be interesting to see how much of the Post’s story holds up.
Brian,Thank you for filling in a lot of missing information.
Too bad Mr. Dicker didn't fill in some of that information before filing his report.
The first clue that the story may have been slanted was that it appeared in the Post. The second that it was written by Dicker. The third that Fred Monroe was a source.
How much taxpayer money has Fred Monroe spent pursing his personal goals? Doesn't his wife work for the board he chairs? What's going on here? What services does the the Government Review Board provide to taxpayers?
Brian, I am missing something here. What are the "key facts" that appear to be inaccurate. Doesn't the AP article just back up what the Post reported. Don't you guys write stories based on facts from other stories all the time. All the selling prices appear to be accurate. The appraisals don't appear to be indicative of the market price? The best (and maybe even most recent) comparable for this land was the 2006 TNC purchase that took place at 6.3M. That is what the state should have first offered TNC. Again, the appraisal should only be a cap. The state knows that TNC wants to sell to NYS. This is a unique negotiating position. If the TNC doesn't like it they should sell to another buyer. They are not going to do that, so NYS gets it for 6.3M.
First Doolittle-gate, now Dicker-gate. Monroe really should find more competent journalists to conspire with.
How much taxpayer money is Coumo going to spend chasing after this story?
…and Monroe was the guy that some people suggested would be a balanced, less controversial alternative for the APA board?
Fred Monroe (along with his predecessor Bill Thomas who now sits on the APA board) presided over the Warren County Board of Supervisors as they spent the county reserve fund to nothing during the fat years and now the county is in a financial crisis. The county board is overwhelmingly Republican and now they are faced with having to cut services, cut employees and raise taxes. Maybe Fred Dicker can do a story on that.
Yet again we're reliant on Brian Mann to provide context to the work done by other journalists with an ax to grind. Now you know why I keep donating to NCPR.
The Albany Times Union reports that the Conservancy also paid over three million in taxes, debt service, and surveying/subdivision work during the three years they were waiting for the state to purchase the land.Odd how Dicker and Monroe fail to mention that.
The Adirondack Daily Enterprise has an editorial today referring to Dicker's article as "lobbying" for a moratorium on state land purchases
Here are the Conservancy's numbers on the project: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/newyork/news/news3434.html
Why did NYS Attorney General jump on Gov. Paterson's quick request to investigate the purchase price? The findings of that report will be interesting to read.
There is no Doolittle-gate, unless you are referring to my in-depth series of stories on the conflicts of local people with the Adirondack Park Agency. Debating issues these stories brought up, as was done at length here and elsewhere, is a good thing to do, I think. Referring to my hard work as Doolittle-gate is childish, insulting and, also, since you don't identify yourself, cowardly.
I think Doolittle-Gate is entirely appropriate. Anyone reading the facts and discussion can determine for themselves the nonsense you pulled. This story is no different. The only thing childish is your unwillingness to admit your role in concocting a non-story.
Good for Fred Monroe for exposing this!!! This practice of using public money (particularly with the fiscal condition of this state) without any scrutiny must stop. Since when is this such a vital interest that this fund is set up for the enjoyment and profit of these environmental groups? Why is the use of this money not subject to the same process as when forest preserve has to be used? Lets have two acts of the state legislature and state wide referendum needed when land is proposed to go in to the preserve just like it is when a proposal is made to take some out.And another thing lets redirect half of this fund ($120 million) into an account for use in the redevelopment of the hamlets and the villages and towns of the park.In other words, lets follow the Adirondack Park Act as it is written!
To Anonymous: (I figured I would write you since you mentioned me, Carol Monroe, wife of Fred Monroe)To answer your questions:The Review Board represents Adirondack residents and local government at the APA. The APA is charged with many responsibilities regarding sate lands. The Adirondack residents and local governments are greatly impacted by state land purchases. The Review Board is required to report to the Governmor and legisltature. How does it help you, the taxpayer? If you ever needed to fight for your constitutional rights as far as your private land, you would see the benefits of relying on the Review Board.As far as my job with the Review Board, I have been a secretary for the RB for over 11 years. I was hired by Joe Rota, the past (retired) Executive Director. Fred was hired after me (7 years ago) as Executive Director. He was interviewed along with other candidates and the Review Board Committee selected Fred based on his experience with Adirondack issues and knowledge of the law, not to mention his fair and balanced nature, and intuitive committment to the Adirondacks and its people.As far as your tax dollars paying for any of the Review Board paying for Fred's personal goals. So far from the truth…Fred and I personally spent over $6,000 to convert our walk out basement to an office for the Review Board, of which we have never asked or expected any payment for in rent or other. Another part of our downstairs has been set up (by us) to use as a storage area for archives. We pay for all the utilities personally, ie electric, oil, phone and computer service.Accusations can be so harmful to the spirit of a human being so I felt compelled to answer your questions to perhaps keep negativity away from something that truly helps many people, perhaps not you at this time, but maybe your neighbor or family member.
Doolittle-gate is a very appropriate term for Doolittle's sorry excuse for objective journalism. He readily admitted he didn't bother to review's the apa's case files. Instead based his series on the subjective accounts of a couple people who 'feel' they are victimized. Even Fred Monroe didn't buy these stories. Doolittle-gate is a great term for his attempt to smear people under the guise of journalism. Just like Rather-gate tried to smear Bush.
Carol -Thanks for posting your views here and for explaining your role with the LGRB.To other folks, I want to repeat our policy here of discussing issues respectfully and avoiding ad hominem attacks.It's fair to raise questions about the role and agenda of the LGRB.But no credible source has questioned the Monroes' personal integrity.Similarly, Fred Monroe has publicly defended the personal integrity of Mike Carr, director of the Adirondack Nature Conservancy.If these two participants in the debate can wrangle and argue respectfully, so can the rest of us.–Brian, NCPR
This is the language of the law that creates the review board:1. For the purpose of advising and assisting the Adirondack park agency in carrying out its functions, powers and duties, there is hereby established the Adirondack park local government review board. Such board shall consist of twelve members, each of whom shall be a resident of a county wholly or partly within the park. No more than one member shall be a resident of any single county. Each member shall be appointed by or in the manner determined by the legislative body of each such county.2. The members of the review board shall serve for such terms as shall be determined by their respective appointing authorities. Any member of the board may, if authorized by his appointing authority, designate an alternate to serve in his absence.3. The review board shall elect, for such term as it may determine, a chairman from among its membership and such other officers as it deems necessary.4. The review board shall meet regularly at least four times each year. Special meetings may be called by the chairman and shall be called by him at the request of a majority of the review board.5. No member of the review board shall be disqualified from holding any other office or employment by reason of his appointment hereunder, notwithstanding the provisions of any general, special or local law.6. The members of the review board shall receive no compensation for their services but their respective appointing authorities may provide for payment of their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties hereunder.7. In addition to any other functions or duties specifically required or authorized in this article, the reviewboard shall monitor the administration and enforcement of the Adirondack park land use and development plan and periodically report thereon, and make recommendations in regard thereto, to the governor and the legislature, and to the county legislative body of each of the counties wholly or partly within the park.
Other than language regarding the who serves on the board and how often they meet, the relevant language on what the board does:"For the purpose of advising and assisting the Adirondack park agency in carrying out its functions, powers and duties, there is hereby established the Adirondack park local government review board. Such board shall consist of twelve members, each of whom shall be a resident of a county wholly or partly within the park. ""In addition to any other functions or duties specifically required or authorized in this article, the reviewboard shall monitor the administration and enforcement of the Adirondack park land use and development plan and periodically report thereon, and make recommendations in regard thereto, to the governor and the legislature, and to the county legislative body of each of the counties wholly or partly within the park."I really cannot see how the TNC/DEC issue relates the the ALGRB's statutory mission.
So, what does is the state funding of ALGRB used for? Was any used in this TNC flap?
Anon 8:17: "Lets have two acts of the state legislature and state wide referendum needed when land is proposed to go in to the preserve just like it is when a proposal is made to take some out."This is perhaps the best suggestion made on these pages in a long time. This sounds like a very fair idea that would solve lots of the problems we now have and lessen the effects of any special interests involved. This is a fabulous idea! Brian, and others, don't you think this makes sense?And Carol, don't listen to the hacks on this site. The LGRB is doing a great job considering the task you have at hand and the fact that the APA act unfairly gives the board no vote on any matters.
Chef,I did a ton of reporting for those stories and, as has been hashed out here in great detail, nothing in the APA files contradicted any reporting I did. Nor has anyone, including Brian Mann, found a single thing in those stories that was incorrect. I don't want to refight this argument, but do feel compelled to respond to characterizations of my work that are false. The series of stories is continuing — The Post-Star has already published another one: http://www.poststar.com/news/local/article_8b660872-3956-11df-9775-001cc4c03286.htmland, I believe, they have something to contribute to the ongoing debate about Adirondack land use and the APA.
Ton of reporting? I just read the latest Doolittle piece and he talked with the "victim", a neighbor and the town supervisor. He's well on his way to earning another journalism prize for the Post-Star
9:54,So you're saying that because LGRB has no statutory authority with respect to TNC, Fred Monroe has no right to comment on TNC? Whatever happened to free speech?
He can say whatever he wants. LGRB is funded by NY taxpayers. Was any state fund used in this witch hunt?
9:05,do you have any evidence that any state funds were used?