Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Current and Historical Affairs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-09-2012, 11:11 AM   #81
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commissionpoint View Post
Theres more to it than that though right? I think a lot of people get confused and start drawing comparisons to National Parks, and the rules that govern them. Really the two concepts are vastly different. The Adirondack Park is somewhat of its own model. Its a multi use park with both public and private holdings. Thats a pretty unique thing and I think it adds to some of the misunderstanding people have about what exactly it is. Its never going to be a place that halts all development as much as its never going to be a place that develops everything.
You are right about this. I wonder whose brilliant (sarcasm, for those of you who cannot tell!) idea that was, being that the two ARE incompatible. I don't want the Adirondacks to be the suburbs - I already live in the suburbs. Nor do we need more mediocre places like the Poconos.

Regardless, the Adirondacks (and the APA) were created with the understanding that when in doubt lean more towards conservation. This APA ruling does seem to set a new precedent.
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 11:11 AM   #82
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frhill View Post
Glen,

One thing we do agree upon is that construction jobs are not any kind of sustainable solution. But I don't think tourism is either. Those jobs are mostly low paying, low mobility, and seasonal to boot.
I make quite a good living in the tourism industry. It affords me a very nice home and lifestyle. I know bartenders and waitresses who make close to 6 figures. So its situational. Making beds in a motel won't put you on the Fortune 500 list, but there are other jobs where you can do quite well and a lot of that icome can be pure cash in the case of those who make gratuities.
Commissionpoint is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 11:15 AM   #83
Frhill
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest dweller View Post
With regards to paragraph number one, as has been pointed out already a few times here, people in search of wilderness are having a harder and harder time finding it - it's a lot more scarce than communities with good economies are.

And in response to your second paragraph, how can you say that your financial well being has no effect on your local economy? You spend money in your local community, don't you? What would happen to your local community if you and your neighbors for some reason stopped spending money in the businesses in your community? Things are connected and interrelated.

Responding to your first point, why should the desire for wilderness experiences trump opportunity for local residents? I'm not trying to be obtuse but I really do want to understand why some people think that their personal valuation of wilderness is more important than the views held by local community members?

I never said that my financial well-being has no effect on my local economy, but I see how you might have interpreted what I wrote that way. What I meant is that my personal financial situation is in no way dependent on my local economy. I put plenty of money into the local economy (through purchases, taxes, etc.) but I don't depend on it to make my living.
Frhill is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 11:27 AM   #84
Frhill
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commissionpoint View Post
I make quite a good living in the tourism industry. It affords me a very nice home and lifestyle. I know bartenders and waitresses who make close to 6 figures. So its situational. Making beds in a motel won't put you on the Fortune 500 list, but there are other jobs where you can do quite well and a lot of that icome can be pure cash in the case of those who make gratuities.
You are right, it absolutely is situational. I'd bet the vast majority of folks waiting tables and bartending in the Tri Lakes don't make anything close to six figures though. I'd also argue that jobs in tourism which afford a "very nice home and lifestyle" make up a relatively low percentage of that industry's workforce.
Frhill is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 11:33 AM   #85
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frhill View Post
Responding to your first point, why should the desire for wilderness experiences trump opportunity for local residents? I'm not trying to be obtuse but I really do want to understand why some people think that their personal valuation of wilderness is more important than the views held by local community members?
Because wildreness, especially in the eastern United States, is a far more scarce thing than a decent economy. A person can go in search of a good job and a living if they have skills and find it somewhere in the northeast, but even though there are forests elsewhere in the northeast, the Adirondacks are the closest we have to true wilderness here in the northeast. So if it were a 50 / 50 split between a good economy and an abundace of wilderness I might get behind them building and developing right there, but it's not and so I cannot. I don't think environmentalists are being unreasonable to be the ones to ask the locals to consider this and go looking for work instead of bringing it to them at the cost of altering the backcountry.
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 11:36 AM   #86
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frhill View Post
Responding to your first point, why should the desire for wilderness experiences trump opportunity for local residents? I'm not trying to be obtuse but I really do want to understand why some people think that their personal valuation of wilderness is more important than the views held by local community members?
I must agree fully. Someone putting thier recreational pursuits above someone elses home and livlihood is beyond selfish. Your view is not obtuse at all. Thinking your favorite passtime is more important than someones home and family is obtuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frhill View Post
You are right, it absolutely is situational. I'd bet the vast majority of folks waiting tables and bartending in the Tri Lakes don't make anything close to six figures though. I'd also argue that jobs in tourism which afford a "very nice home and lifestyle" make up a relatively low percentage of that industry's workforce.
I would tend to think those working at MLI or some of the higher endd places do close to that. My friend from school days who works at LPPB has been there 15 years, she would have left long ago if it didn't support her lifestyle. I do well because I am at the top of the food chain in my organization, and apparently people seem to appreciate what I do so I get a lot of business.

I'll check you guys later. One of those things the tourism industry affords me is an unhealthy addiction to classic cars. Today is a new starter and glow plugs for the '66 Mercedes 200.
Commissionpoint is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 11:40 AM   #87
Frhill
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest dweller View Post

Regardless, the Adirondacks (and the APA) were created with the understanding that when in doubt lean more towards conservation. This APA ruling does seem to set a new precedent.

The Adirondack Park and the APA were created with minimal (if any) resident input. To see how few people were actually involved in the creation the APA, State Land Master Plan, etc., read George Davis' piece (chapter 17) in The Great Experiment in Conservation (Porter, et al). So the understanding to "lean more towards conservation" was an understanding between a select few parties, not between these experts and the populace of New York State in general or the residents of communities in the Park. This history is in part responsible for the resentment many Adirondackers feel towards outside interests.
Frhill is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 11:47 AM   #88
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
Desire for a wilderness experience trumping the desires of the local community is a change in the scope of the argument.

What we are talking about is preserving natural resources (Land, Water, Forest) versus exploiting them (even to a small degree) for economic gain.

If there was a regulation put forth that said 1 of the wild forest would be off limits to human wilderness experiences every year to preserve the resource I would be all for it.

Wilederness experiences, including peak bagging, hunting, kayaking are all forms of consumption albeit at different degrees and significantly less consumption and less permanant than condo developments.

So in my opinion offering the public a wilderness experience is an economic trade off with the resource. Is it less total and permanant consumption than what Tupper Lake wants, in most cases yes.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 11:48 AM   #89
Frhill
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest dweller View Post
Because wildreness, especially in the eastern United States, is a far more scarce thing than a decent economy. A person can go in search of a good job and a living if they have skills and find it somewhere in the northeast, but even though there are forests elsewhere in the northeast, the Adirondacks are the closest we have to true wilderness here in the northeast. So if it were a 50 / 50 split between a good economy and an abundace of wilderness I might get behind them building and developing right there, but it's not and so I cannot. I don't think environmentalists are being unreasonable to be the ones to ask the locals to consider this and go looking for work instead of bringing it to them at the cost of altering the backcountry.
But why does the fact that it's scarce make it universally valuable? Aren't there people who don't believe in wilderness? At its heart, "wilderness" is a construction, not a reality. Moreover it's a construction with a pretty particular history (and an exclusionary one at that) that is relatively recent.
Frhill is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 12:21 PM   #90
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
I get what you are saying, but I consider wilderness a lack of construction.

Once you start building it's very difficult to reverse course and go back to wildneress because then it becomes peoples homes. Then you have to exploit more land to make sure the people that have "always" lived there have enough jobs and so the vicious cycle continues.

Why does the project to save Tupper Lake have to be the largest one ever approved by the APA?
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 12:41 PM   #91
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commissionpoint View Post
I must agree fully. Someone putting thier recreational pursuits above someone elses home and livlihood is beyond selfish. Your view is not obtuse at all. Thinking your favorite passtime is more important than someones home and family is obtuse.
That is like the fourth assumption that you have made about people's motives that couldn't be further off the mark. My desire to have more wilderness exist is for the natural world itself. The fact that I hike, paddle and camp near there is secondary and not much of a consideration for me. I may never experience the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in person but that doesn't mean I don't care if it get's opened up for oil development.

Last edited by forest dweller; 02-09-2012 at 01:48 PM..
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 01:17 PM   #92
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
Forest I think that was in response to what you wrote:

"With regards to paragraph number one, as has been pointed out already a few times here, people in search of wilderness are having a harder and harder time finding it - it's a lot more scarce than communities with good economies are."

The part about people in search of wildness implies for recreation or maybe hermitage! lol.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 02:01 PM   #93
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
Forest I think that was in response to what you wrote:

"With regards to paragraph number one, as has been pointed out already a few times here, people in search of wilderness are having a harder and harder time finding it - it's a lot more scarce than communities with good economies are."

The part about people in search of wildness implies for recreation or maybe hermitage! lol.
Fair enough, and I can see how it might be interpreted that way, but people who love nature and wilderness love it for more than the recreational side of it, which, I believe, some people don't understand. And that was in response to a question over why the desire for wilderness should trump the locals desire to develop. I should have asked why the thief robs the bank...because that's where the money is. Well, the borders of Tupper Lake is where the wilderness is - not many other places. It's not as simple as "I want to go camping there so leave it alone". It's for nature itself. The desire to go camping there is a secondary afterthought. I go to experience nature and I try to leave it as close to how I found it. It's not the same thing as if I demanded, "I want a Six Flags rollercoaster park there, locals be damned!"

Last edited by forest dweller; 02-09-2012 at 09:22 PM..
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 04:02 PM   #94
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,932
I'm curious. How many people understand that trees are necessary to remove carbon dioxide and produce oxygen? And that the forests actually help to control World Climate.

The argument here is how the resort will (and whether it will is pure speculation) affect a minutely small amount of people. When you put development versus forest and wilderness in that light then compared to the populations that if will ultimately effect in an adverse way the individual rights really don't hold a bit of water.

I would ask anyone who feels that something should or should not be done because it will affect them who they thought they were and what they thought made them special. There are thousands of people every year who for one reason or another have to find a new livlihood, often by moving to where the jobs are.

So explain to me why an individual or a group of individuals is so special that everyone should cater to their needs.

Also as far as the argument of why someone should have to move, rather then have resources destroyed to create a livlihood. The answer is simple. It's easier to move an individual then it is a forest.

Americans had no problem forcing the indigenous people who lived here off their land, so what's different now? When there is less unoccupied land and more people?
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

Last edited by redhawk; 02-09-2012 at 07:26 PM..
redhawk is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 06:57 PM   #95
fisher39
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,006
forest_dweller, I hope that you and others that are upset about this put your energies into pushing for legislation to keep this from happening again. Personally, I'm not happy that this has gotten the green light, but my understanding of it is that it conformed to the law... which leads me to think that the law should be changed.
fisher39 is offline  
Old 02-10-2012, 10:05 AM   #96
Frhill
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
I'm curious. How many people understand that trees are necessary to remove carbon dioxide and produce oxygen? And that the forests actually help to control World Climate.

The argument here is how the resort will (and whether it will is pure speculation) affect a minutely small amount of people. When you put development versus forest and wilderness in that light then compared to the populations that if will ultimately effect in an adverse way the individual rights really don't hold a bit of water.

I would ask anyone who feels that something should or should not be done because it will affect them who they thought they were and what they thought made them special. There are thousands of people every year who for one reason or another have to find a new livlihood, often by moving to where the jobs are.

So explain to me why an individual or a group of individuals is so special that everyone should cater to their needs.

Also as far as the argument of why someone should have to move, rather then have resources destroyed to create a livlihood. The answer is simple. It's easier to move an individual then it is a forest.

Americans had no problem forcing the indigenous people who lived here off their land, so what's different now? When there is less unoccupied land and more people?
I think a lot of people understand this. In fact, I’d bet there are people who have read this thread that understand it much better than you or I do. You make a valid point but it is based on some unsupported assumptions.

The first assumption is that development in the Park is going to destroy its ability to sequester carbon. It is important to remember that roughly half the park is already protected against development and logging. That’s a lot of mature forest for carbon sequestration. A second assumption seems to be that development of the remaining Park lands will result in large-scale removal of the forest. How likely is it that this will ever happen? Even the ACR is setting aside something like 3,800 acres of its Resource Management classified land to remain wild.This isn’t out of altruism, but to satisfy APA open space criteria. Any future developments will have to satisfy these as well. Remember too that some of the private land in the Park is already developed. It’s not like there are 3 million acres of privately owned virgin forest out there awaiting the ax. A report on Adirondack forests and climate (at usclimateaction.org) seems to indicate that managing forests (ie not leaving them as “wilderness”) is beneficial for carbon sequestration as it “promotes young and vigorous regeneration that sequesters significant amounts of carbon in biomass,” so a mixture of forest preserve and managed forest is most desirable. Without any data that address the above points, the assertion that the resort will have an adverse impact on a greater number of people than it will help doesn’t hold water. Without any real data the impact of this project and others like it on carbon sequestration in the Adirondack forest is pure speculation.

The issue of whether people should have to move to make a living has been discussed ad nauseum. We all have our own opinions on it. Again, your response seems to ignore the fact that it’s been necessary for many young Adirondackers to leave their homes in search of economic opportunity for generations now. I certainly had to, and that’s part of the reason why I’d like to see young folks have at least SOME local opportunity. I’d hardly characterize folks wanting a chance at some local economic opportunity as a group that feels “everyone should cater to their needs.” It might well be “easier to move an individual than it is a forest,” but doesn’t this picture change if we are talking about an entire community and not just one individual?

As to your last point: are past atrocities and injustices the benchmark for our current policies? Are you saying that because Indigenous people were forced off their land in the past that it’s ok to do so now with other groups? As an aside, the removal and erasure of the presence of Indigenous people from the land is always the first step towards “wilderness.”

The issue of setting a precedent has been a big part of this discussion. What if ACR sets a precedent for big failure? I think it highly unlikely that this project will ever succeed, if it even gets started. There is a lot of high-end inventory already on the Adirondack real estate market: so much so that people can find already-built properties in desirable areas for significantly less than what an ACR “Great Camp” will cost. This project gaining APA approval and then financially crashing and burning might send the best kind of message to developers waiting in the wings, one that says these kinds of developments in the Park are simply not economically viable. Call me cynical but I think the only way to stop widespread, large developments in the Park is to show that they can’t turn a profit. I think money is the only kind of “green” argument that will sway developers.
Frhill is offline  
Old 02-10-2012, 10:52 AM   #97
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
Wow, that was a well thought out, well written and very convincing argument.

If these statements are taken as fact then the question becomes: has the APA thought about how a partially constructed or subsequently failed project will effect the environment and the local economy?

Folks in Tupper may end up worse off by making decisions based on a projcect that is doomed to fail. Such as buying or upgrading a home, spurning other career choices due to perceived opportunities close to home.

If the muni bonds fail that are financing the project it may also hurt the ability for local governments to borrow money in the future. I'd watch the language very closely to see if the town is also on the hook for the debt service.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline  
Old 02-10-2012, 04:14 PM   #98
richard1726
46er2618
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: 06333 & Pittsburg, Berlin GR, Edmonton
Posts: 388
Tupper Lake is not Lake George V, Lake Placid V or even Long Lake V. It is more like Watertown, NY. Real estate is all about location and for many concidering a the second or third home, the market it is about bragging rights. My vacation home in Lake Placid, Cape Cod, or Okemo just doesn't have the same ring to it as "my vacation home in Tupper Lake". And I bet most of the people who live in or have a vacation home like Tupper lake just the way it is, there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

There are so many places that already have the "location" name recognition it seems inconceivable that Tupper Lake could compete with any success in the vacation home market. Maybe it could have in 1980 but not now with all of the competition. There are so many vacation home spots.
In the early 80s I spent so time in two very undeveloped "NOW" locations. St. Kitts and Manta, Equador. Both, at the time had no hotels and you were more likely to be bit by a monkey in the bars than enjoy your time on the beaches. Two men were actually bit by monkeys in our groupe of 90 men in Manta, (they had to get the rabies shot regimen for a couple of weeks). The country, St. Kitts had just hired a Madison Ave, NY firm to guide them through development, same in Manta. Both spots were undeveloped, Tupper Lake has already been developed first via lumber interests with by the looks of things with out much of a plan as was the custom years ago. It will be very difficult to reengineer the town to a Vacation Home market especially when development money will not be used to change the town scape, and not that it should be.
richard1726 is offline  
Old 02-10-2012, 08:36 PM   #99
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,631
Too many people.... such a political statement.....globally/////eh?
__________________
Be careful, don't spread invasive species!!

When a dog runs at you,whistle for him.
Henry David Thoreau

CL50-#23
chairrock is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 11:38 AM   #100
Tyler
Member
 
Tyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 31
I just saw this thread. I am extremely upset by the APA's decision. As a young person who has seen more and more wilderness destroyed every year in this park, my faith in it retaining a "wilderness" feel 40 years from now has been shaken.

I hope no one moves into these houses. Stop trying to ruin one of the last great wilderness areas east of the Mississippi.

If you want a revitalized economy, move to a place that has more jobs. The wilderness should be retained and kept forever wild. Don't destroy what makes this place special just to bring a few extra fleeting dollars here.
__________________
46-R # 6,026
Tyler is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.