The Adirondack Council’s take: The Park is boosting prosperity
John Sheehan, spokesman for the Adirondack Council, published a provocative essay in the Albany Times-Union on Sunday.
He argues that the Adirondack Park is an economic success story, and a model for rural development.
Local officials in the Adirondack Park should stop blaming the Adirondack Park Agency and state land acquisition for wrecking the Adirondack economy. The economy isn’t wrecked. It is one of the most robust rural areas in the Northeastern United States. Being a park is helping, not harming, the Adirondacks.
Sheehan makes some interesting and valid points about topics we’ve debated intensely here at the In Box.
But he glosses one very problematic issue:
Much of the Park’s “prosperity” is the result not of a robust private sector, but a booming taxpayer-funded government bureaucracy.
Sheehan acknowledges this fact, but seems unconcerned about it:
[M]ost Adirondackers (33 percent) work for local and state government. That includes towns, villages, counties, school districts and state agencies.
While such jobs don’t lead to riches, they do have their perks.
The jobs rarely go away. Towns and counties don’t stop providing services, regardless of economic conditions.
Public employment offers generous benefits and retirement plans. A large percentage of Adirondack local governments pay generous health benefits for their employees, with 36 percent requiring no employee contribution at all.
The problem, of course, is that many of those jobs are indeed going away.
The local property tax base is stretched to the limit.
And Albany appears increasingly reluctant to fund Adirondack schools, prisons, local governments, social service agencies, etc.
Tupper Lake’s school district is faced with the loss of one-fourth of its teaching staff next year.
Moriah Shock and Lyon Mountain Correctional facility are targeted for closure.
Local residents have very little control or say over their economic futures.
When environmentalists tout the Adirondack Park as a model for rural development world-wide, it’s hard to imagine that this is what they mean.
For the Park to be a true success story, all that public land needs to drive a healthy, prosperous, and environmentally sustainable private sector.
So far, it’s hard to argue that this has happened.
Your thoughts welcome below.
.jpg)
Mr Sheehan too believes that public employees have their health insurance completely or largely paid for by the taxpayers. I would argue these public employees receive their health care as part of a fairly collectively bargained compensation package. Public employees are not collecting welfare and if you think they are you are simply wrong.
In my opinion, some of the demographic data 'supporting' a healthy Adirondack economy may be somewhat skewed by a handful of successful regions of the Adirondacks. When analyzed by region or community, a much different conclusion can be drawn. I would agree that local residents have very little control over their economic future from a legislative perspective. Since the public sector jobs are no longer going to be a guaranteed economic development tool in the Adirondacks local residents now more then ever need to take charge of their economic futures. The formation of local community groups and committees to study the local economic issues and develop strategies to improve their local economies is necessary to move our region forward.
"[M]ost Adirondackers (33 percent) work for local and state government."Interesting discussion though Mr. Sheehan doesn't really help his case by having a significantly different definition of the word 'most' (33%) than us math and language geeks (at least 50%+1)
Matthew Rogers, the same thing can be said about the economy of the state, country or world: a healthy economy may be somewhat skewed by a handful of successful regions. Regions who are dragging behind should attempt to bring ideas from the successful regions into their community. Personally I think some of the places that are doing the worst need new blood. Newcomb is dying the fastest and has has the same supervisor for decades. He may be a great guy, but at some point you need to try a different course.
“Sheehan acknowledges this fact, but seems unconcerned about it” Brian, I agree that John Sheehan seems to shows little concern for the fact that much of the Adirondack economy is a house of cards. But it is not surprising; I really don’t think that this issue is of any real concern to Mr. Sheehan or the group that he represents. Remember what the mission of the Adirondack Council is. This letter, I assume, is not meant as a piece to analyze the complexity of the economic situation in the Adirondack Park, but to justify two very important aspects of the councils mission. Those two things are expansion of the Forest Preserve, and strengthening state imposed land use regulations. Almost every single “call to action” or lobbying effort by the Adirondack Council appears to be focused on these two main goals. To “preserve” the Adirondack wild character, from the Council’s perspective, you need to do two things either add it to the Forest Preserve, or regulate it to the point where little or no development can or will occur. If you have some short-term economic signals you better tout these as positive to your cause before they blow away with the states bottom line. It might help close a new land deal with the state, or maybe help the legislature decide to go for a budget that restores open space land money. This article has little to do with the “health” of the Adirondack economy. One part of the Council’s mission states: “augmented by vibrant local communities”. Have we seen any “calls to action” to try and restore ORDA funding in budget proposals? Of course not. If a “vibrant local community” is an unintended consequence of the larger goals of wilderness preservation than so be it. But to actually be involved in any efforts to as you say, “drive a healthy, prosperous, and environmentally sustainable private sector”, forget it.I am curious about this post. Brian, these are issues that you have written about here where you feel have positive implications for the Adirondack economy. You have written that the addition of more Forest Preserve land can bolster the tourist-based economy of the region. You have also written that perhaps the APA is a “model for good government”. You have defended the agency and environmental groups (TNC most recently) from what you see as unfair and biased stories in the media. Why do you now seem to back away from conclusions that might mirror many of your own? Don’t you feel that these two things above have had a positive economic impact on the area?From my perspective anyone who advocates surrounding an Adirondack town with Forest Preserve land to the point where it has no where to grow in the long-term, and then advocating for regulations that severely limit any development on the remaining private land on that “island” is simply advocating for that towns eventual demise. But perhaps, even with a graduate degree in business, I have a too narrow and simplistic view of how a growing economy operates.
Anonymous, Yes grouping of data for multiple towns, regions, states, etc. will always skew the results. That was my point. When you look at the Park as one region, it is no wonder that one can come away with the perception that everything is fine. That is why each community needs to address their own issues, find out how they are doing and begin to discuss what can be done to improve their situation.I read this morning that the ADK Daily Enterprise is holding such an event in Saranac Lake. They are holding a workshop with interested people to develop workable marketing solutions for local businesses. A perfect example of taking local issues into the local's hands.
Did John Sheehan work for the APA? Does he get a state pension??
Any restorative economic policy in the Adirondacks would include the renewable natural resource base, whether for farming or forest products. Eliminating the forest products resource base from revenue generation makes no sense at all. Forest Preserve eliminates that resource base permanently.
If you don't believe that having the Adirondack Park boosts prosperity please paint a realistic picture of what the local economy (economies) would look like if the Park never came into being. Does anyone really believe that this area of northern NY–an area that hardly anyone nationally even knows exists except for the Park–would be a great economic engine, prosperous and vital?
I agree, the designation as the Adirondack Park with the history and all the recreational and ecological benefits clearly benefits the region. The big question is how best can communities capitalize on these well-known assets?
12:12,Given that the unions give huge campaign contributions to politicians, they are virtually guranteed lavish benefits. This differs from private sector unions where labor and management are on opposite sides of the bargaining table. It's not welfare but it's unaffordable, not available to private sector employees, and unjust. As far as the Park gaining population, I'm not sure what Sheehan is talking about. Census data indicates that the 2 Parks located completely in the Park: Essex and Hamilton have lost population. Though I suppose we'll need data from counties partially in the Park to get the full picture.Moreover, the low paying seasonal tourist jobs associated with the Park are not the jobs of a healthy economy.
In 1986 I started primarily driving truck for a public employer. People I knew drove truck in the private sector, They did not understand how I could work for those wages and almost laughed at me. Today, they don't laugh so much. My compensation is public knowledge and is fairly and "justly" negotiated by parties on different sides of a very wide negotiating table. The same plans are available to all people who act as a group. Are there ways to improve of course? Of course. If it was me I wouldn't plow the roads 24-7 during the snow season it would save everyone alot of money except insurance companies(must be they have some political influence too, huh?). But if people slow down(there are enough police to make sure they do) everything would be fine. And there are lots of other good ideas(not radical right wing 'Beck type' stupidity) that could save lots of money and are politically palatable.
The point of my original post wasn't that union workers or state employees are overpaid. My point, really, was that the state can no longer afford to pay the bill to employ so many people — at least with those salaries and benefits.That's not a political statement, or ideological — and it's certainly not disrespect for government workers.It's just math. The one way to continue paying for all the government workers in the Adirondacks is to raise taxes on people elsewhere.I don't hear any support in Albany (or anywhere else) for that kind of thing. –Brian, NCPR
About the large percentage of public sector workers in the ADK's: any rural area will have a higher percentage of public sector employment than a more urban area.There are places in the west where school kids are sent to town to live during the week because the population is so sparse. Public sector employment could be reduced if you did something like that, maybe send all the kids in Long Lake and Newcomb to Tupper Lake for the school week for instance. Is that what we want? Perhaps we turn all of Hamilton county into one township in another county. I'm sure you all could help with ideas.
When I was in college (quite some time ago) I remember a book called How To Lie With Statistics. It basically said anyone can make numbers to support there certain position on an issue. Some Adirondack communities are probably doing OK and some are probably dying. The ones that are dying might be do to overregulation of development and/or the continuation of state land purchases. This is why projects like what is proposed in Tupper Lake must be approved. Tupper Lake is certainly a dying community.
Anon 8:13. I don't think Tupper Lake is dying but if the project is approved in its current state I think it could kill Tupper. If this project is not economically viable without a PILOT program it should not proceed, period. Tax breaks for the rich second homeowners that only benefit the developer are no way to help the economy of Tupper Lake or any other small town in the Adirondacks.
The PILOT would provide more than what is currently being generated. Dont you think the 30 Tupper Lake School district employees who might loose there jobs might be able to keep them with a Pilot arrangement. Also Tupper is dead by definition look at the current proposed Village Budget. They did an excellent job of cutting spending and yet the tax rate still increases. Dont have to be a Harvard Economist.
Mr. Sheehan is out to lunch, taking another roll as GrandMaster-Spin. Must be he does not get very deep into the Adks., into places like Tupper, Newcomb and Indian Lake. And obviously he has not been around long enough, like most of the Adk Council self-righteous to witness and recognize the stark, depressing difference in these towns between 1960 and now.Buy some more forestry lands and take them out of production.
John Sheehan states the obvious — that the Adirondack Park is critical to the health of the economy of Adirondack towns and villages. Then he stretches the point this way — "State land acquisition and the land use regulations of the Adirondack Park Agency are the driving force behind that success."Is that true? The Park exists separate from the APA and did for many years. Without the APA, the Adirondacks would still have the Adirondack Park. Would it be better off economically or worse off? I don't think the answer is easy to determine. But I do think Mr. Sheehan is trying to make it appear that, without the APA, the Adirondacks would not enjoy the benefits of being the home of the big, beautiful Adirondack Park, which is false.
Doolittle – Obviously Sheehan is trying to spin it for his own interest group's agenda. That is what interest groups do. Unfortunately we have certain journalists around who have their own agendas and have a platform to spin their own yarns under the guise of journalism.
To determine if this “hypothesis” is correct you would have to measure some of the economic impact of tourism in a similar place where there are not state imposed land use regulations and the type of public land we see in the Adirondacks. In science we call this an experiment without a “control”. You are just speculating why you had a particular outcome after the fact. Would it have been better if it were done a different way? Are there places where the economy benefits more from tourism, as a percentage of the economy, where these variables are not in place? Would the economy of the tri-lakes be better if the high peaks had been protected as a national forest way back when? National forest that would have allowed permits to operate ski areas in a number of the high peaks? These areas may have then attracted young entrepreneurs to open small companies in the shadow of the mountains like we see in some western resort towns. It is safe to say that the Adirondack Council probably would not want that even if it meant more “prosperity” for the Adirondacks. So I think it would make sense for groups like this to stick to their core agenda, which is land preservation, and skip the after-the-fact macro and microeconomic analysis. I can appreciate this piece they have written, and it could actually be true, but it also may not hold any water at all. The CARDI report posted here recently showed this as a key finding: “Low population density and loss of young adults are the North Country’s defining demographic characteristics”. I could just as easily write an op-ed where I tout that acquisition of public land and APA regulations are the key reason this has occurred. It might be true, but then again it might just be completely wrong. There is no proven correlation here or there.
Paul, unfortunately in the field of land use planning, there are no controls. But regarding the comparison to national forests: The Adirondack park has ski areas and national forests have wilderness areas. Its hard to say how different it could be.
Anon 2:32. I agree the comparison is difficult. The National Forests also have large private job and tax base producing entities using that public land under a permit system for things like logging, mining, grazing, and ski resorts. That type of activity is banned in the Forest Preserve. The Adirondack ski areas are a shell of the larger resort areas we see out west. My guess is that we would have considerably more economic activity generated from a system such as this. I also predict (just a guess) that this type of development would make the area more attractive to other types of businesses.
Adirondack skiing vs western skiing: no comparison. Nothing to do with policy.
Paul is right, maybe we should allow grazing on the forest preserve ;-)
Mr. Sheehan is completely unqualified to draw such conclusions from the APRAP report.The fact is the APA Act DID reinforce the park as a region. It delineates a hard and fast boundary and within that boundary it sets down hard and fast land use regulation. These regulations dictate where land uses can and cannot occur and at what intensity. These are positive regulations in principle and theory. However, their practice and application has been abused. Furthermore, the land use plan is in severe need of review, and update. Land use matters. Land use needs to reflect and be responsive to the needs of the people as well as the ecological community. If land use tilts one way or the other too far one concern or the other will suffer. Land use has tilted too far to ecological preservation and the result is the people, the park's most precious asset, are suffering. I am not suggesting or advocating wholesale development. Balance needs to be restored before it is too late. We may already be there.
Anon 6:30PM. I agree with you there! But let's compare Vermont and NH resorts to the Adirondacks then. The Adirondacks could have considerably better skiing than NE if we could have developed the high peaks, or could develop some of the now available private land for skiing.Anon 6:34: We better send the loggers back in first!
Why keep purchasing land and then talk about closing State Parks?