Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

APA approves Tupper Resort

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I don't think it's radical to not want extensive development in the Adirondack Park, regardless of whose land it is. We do not have many places like this left, especially here in the northeast.

    You acknowledge development and economic success breeds more development and economic success. That can only be a bad thing for the Adirondacks and the Adirondack Park, if not for the people who insist on living there.

    Radical is wanting development and economic activity everywhere, even where it may not be appropriate. Radical is nothing is sacred.

    Radical is calling people who want a freeze on logging of the remaining 3% of old growth redwoods in California "radical".

    Who is really radical?

    Sounds like projection to me.

    And as far as the hippies and conservatives comment, I think I made a very good point, but you just pushed it aside. Why is it the same group of people criticise people on unemployment and suggest they leave where they call home to go find work, but refuse to do so themselves when the going gets tough for them? It's a serious question not a rhetorical one.
    Last edited by forest dweller; 02-07-2012, 10:21 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by forest dweller View Post
      I don't think it's radical to not want extensive development in the Adirondack Park, regardless of whose land it is. We do not have many places like this left, especially here in the northeast.

      You acknowledge development and economic success breeds more development and economic success. That can only be a bad thing for the Adirondacks and the Adirondack Park, if not for the people who insist on living there.

      Radical is wanting development and economic activity everywhere, even where it may not be appropriate. Radical is nothing is sacred.

      Radical is calling people who want a freeze on logging of the remaining 3% of old growth redwoods in California "radical".

      Who is really radical?

      Sounds like projection to me.

      And as far as the hippies and conservatives comment, I think I made a very good point, but you just pushed it aside. Why is it the same group of people criticise people on unemployment and suggest they leave where they call home to go find work, but refuse to do so themselves when the going gets tough for them? It's a serious question not a rhetorical one.
      You are missing the point. We have a good system of protecting our resources here in the Park. Development is contained by a sophisticated permitting process. What is radical is the idea that people should be forced from thier own homes and lives on thier own private land. Nobody born here was given the choice to have been born elsewhere. Not all of those folks have the education and/or financial resources to relocate and be a success elsewhere, and why should they?

      We have towns and villages here in the Park. Those places are not wilderness, wild forest, primitive or anything other than towns and villages. Development in these zones is not a free for all for anyone to come in and build whatever they want. Its highly regulated and all development must be contained to the scope of the permit. Its really that simple. When you get approved for a project, usually after a long and sometimes very expensive permitting process, you then have the go ahead from authorities to build.

      Development and economic success is not a bad thing or anything close to it. Its not bad for the Park, and its not bad for the people. Thats precisely what I meant about being obtuse. If it brings more economic success that means its working properly. People here have a right to aspire to greater oppertunities in life just like people anywhere else. We just have much more stringent guidelines about how you can go about accomplishing that.

      It is completely appropriate to revitalize failing Adirondack communities and to try to make life better for those who live there. It is completely inappropriate to suggest those same people should be made to suffer because they like living in an Adirondack town. Insist on living here? Really sir, you presume far too much.

      If I were you I would drop the hippie/conservative political commentary. I pushed it aside quite obviously and intentionally. As I said before its against the forum rules, and I suspect you will shortly draw the ire of the Administrator and have your posts redacted. Those aren't my rules, but the rules of the forum. It seems another instance of you having problems living within the guidelines the community at large has established for the betterment of all.
      Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

      WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!

      Comment


      • #33
        I can't build a shed on my property because of the APA. Clearly they are playing ball with the wishes of the local community that need some development because those footprints are massive. I don't mind not having a shed but there does seem to be an inconsistency in their policy. Clearly economic interests are being weighed in this case but not mine and others like mine.

        Id also like to point out that folks aren't going to buy those big expensive houses so not many will be built if any at all.
        A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

        Comment


        • #34
          How come you can't have a shed PumpkinQAAD? I have one. I might even build a pole barn sometime soon. Are they just effin with you or do you have a small lot or something like that that prevents it?

          I agree there is probably some community pressure involved in the Tupper project, but come on, those folks do need some help over there. Its about time somebody gave them some.

          What makes you think expensive houses won't sell? I see them selling $750k condos and 2 million dollar homes here all the time. The folks who can afford those can do just that. Afford those. I bet they sell way more of them than any of us imagine.
          Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

          WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Commissionpoint View Post
            Development and economic success is not a bad thing or anything close to it. Its not bad for the Park, and its not bad for the people. Thats precisely what I meant about being obtuse. If it brings more economic success that means its working properly. People here have a right to aspire to greater oppertunities in life just like people anywhere else. We just have much more stringent guidelines about how you can go about accomplishing that.
            If it brings more economic success that means it's working properly?

            It seems like you're ignoring the environmental impact side of things. There is no doubt you can get an economy moving again, but at what cost to the PARK side of things and the forest and environment, etc. I can only speak for myself; if I opted to live there I would be more understanding of the restrictions put in place there, and I probably wouldn't have expected this particular development to go through.

            There is forest on private land there, and even though it's private land many people expect it to remain forest. I'm not talking about what you can do within the hamlet itself - I'm talking about expansions and ecroachment into forested areas.

            And nobody, myself included, would like to see people suffer economically, but I also believe that there should be restrictions on what you can do to get yourself going economically - and the Adirondacks do have unique restrictions because of the park.

            If only there was a way to invest in downtown Tupper Lake to get the economy moving again. Of course if and when things picked up I wouldn't want to see new houses popping up where forest was 5 minuetes before, but I'm not totally heartless and would like to see them do well in a way that really benefited them and did minimal development, especially development that increased the population of the town or expanded the town.

            One more thing - Diamond Point on Lake George is a lot different than Tupper Lake. There may be more of an appeal to buy a multimillion dollar home on or near a beautiful lake that happens to be closer to "civilization" than in the flat lands of the northwest Adirondacks another 3 hours away. And it's looking like that is the only thing I can hope for now.

            And, boy, can you imagine what Lake George would have been like if less people had dug their paws into it? It's still a beautiful place but it's now more amusement park than natural area.

            Comment


            • #36
              Tried to delete this which was a duplicate post but was unable to, why?
              "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

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Commissionpoint View Post
                How come you can't have a shed PumpkinQAAD? I have one. I might even build a pole barn sometime soon. Are they just effin with you or do you have a small lot or something like that that prevents it?

                I agree there is probably some community pressure involved in the Tupper project, but come on, those folks do need some help over there. Its about time somebody gave them some.

                What makes you think expensive houses won't sell? I see them selling $750k condos and 2 million dollar homes here all the time. The folks who can afford those can do just that. Afford those. I bet they sell way more of them than any of us imagine.
                I'm curious. Who is going to buy those homes? The locals? No, they can't afford them. So they will be bought up by people who have no ties to the community. Then they will want more conveniences and pastimes and will harry the politicians into making those changes. After all, who wants to have to drive all the way to Lake Placid to shop? So in a couple of decades Lake Tupper is no longer the community it once was, housing and living costs have risen so much because of the development and the demand that the locals can no longer afford to live there.

                So, there are always consequences that have to be stirred into the pot to see the whole picture.
                "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

                Comment


                • #38
                  That's what I'm saying. If it fails to get the economy moving it could be a mini disaster and if it succeeds at getting the economy moving it could be another kind of disaster, for the Adirondacks, which certain people seem to not want to factor in, and, as Redhawk has pointed out, for the locals who may not have considered the bigger picture and it's possible negative side effects. As it stands now the only group of people guaranteed to benefit from this is the rich people who can afford to buy these houses. And let's call a spade a spade, aren't we learning the hard way on a national level that giving certain people everything does not necessarily benefit anybody else? It's hard to beat around the bush here and pretend that we are not talking about something that relates to a far bigger picture, if you catch my drift. Take the Keystone pipeline for example - there are many people duped into believing that if we build it many jobs will be created and it will bring relief at the pumps, but the only people who are really guaranteed anything are people in the upper echelons of the company itself and people who own lots of shares. And another guarantee is that the environment will be negatively impacted to some degree.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by redhawk View Post
                    I'm curious. Who is going to buy those homes? The locals? No, they can't afford them. So they will be bought up by people who have no ties to the community. Then they will want more conveniences and pastimes and will harry the politicians into making those changes. After all, who wants to have to drive all the way to Lake Placid to shop? So in a couple of decades Lake Tupper is no longer the community it once was, housing and living costs have risen so much because of the development and the demand that the locals can no longer afford to live there.

                    So, there are always consequences that have to be stirred into the pot to see the whole picture.
                    Those folks buying those homes don't have ties to the community NOW, but they may well develop those ties over time ... it's certainly not something that will happen overnight. And folks don't have to drive to LP to shop, they can go to Saranac Lake ...
                    Yes, the community of Tupper Lake will change. Perhaps many of the TL residents want that.
                    I'm not sure what sort of conveniences you're speaking of Hawk ... what other things will these new folks demand?
                    sigpic

                    Once a year, go some where you've never been before.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      They'll demand every modern convenience and luxury that they don't have, which equals more building and more degradation, when taking into consideration that the Adirondacks are a park, first and foremost.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        From the viewpoint of someone who lives in a resort community where life is a bit of a PITA for seven weeks a summer...

                        Those rich people with the $ 600,000 properties do contribute to the tax base. The locals live on less expensive property and its kind of a blessing. The rich people have property taxes three times mine. And we call them "seven week wonders". Only here seven weeks and pay tax year round. They have no kids in school here and no facilities need be built for that.

                        Local economy.. locals do do property management ie maintenance for 45 weeks a year and snowplowing. The job market is basically unaffected. People here have always done a variety of jobs and telecommuting is becoming widespread. So we might look at new ways to work..rather than the old brick and mortar economy.

                        So were it not for rich people I might not have the steady cheap tax bill I have had over the years.

                        We will see how it pans out. Our ramblings have no effect.

                        Rich people do NOT demand every convenience nor do they get everything they want. The Selectboard sees to that. They do enrich our lives in the summer and make us appreciate what we have year round. And many are working rich and have the property here for retirement.

                        So far out of forty seasonal neighbors, ten have become full time residents in retirement or being able to work from here and do give to the community far more than they demand.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          They pay taxes and contribute towards some public sector jobs and some private sector jobs indirectly as a result. Still wondering if the pros of this particular development will outweigh the cons.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Lets list the negatives.

                            Environmental degradation <--biggest concern
                            construction of permanant roads
                            construction of large footprint buildings
                            both = runoff issues into the river
                            Pollution from vehicles and garbage <--that's a big one.
                            Less diner stools at long lake
                            Traffic
                            With increased taxes means increased services and budget, which means more government, which means higher expenses --> More risk of fiscal mismanagment.

                            (I'm sure I missed some please feel free to add)

                            The APA does have authority to develop long range plan for the develoment of both public and private lands so the argument that this is private land and they should be allowed is not valid.

                            The agency strives to conserve natural resources such as water and timber.

                            The APA has set quite a few rules in place that should mitigate some of these issues such as vegetation removal and the shoreline and the distance houses need to be from the river, however close they still remain in my opinion. Maybe a concession was made and the houses will be further than the 50 foot requirement.



                            Anyone know the APA classification of the land in question? Rural/low intensity/hamlet?

                            I for one would rather see no development in the Daks and would suggest that folks that need to make more money should move out of the blue line. That being said the process is very restrictive against development right now. Even existing structures.
                            A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Some of the issues can be addressed. Here you are not allowed to have a lawn and cannot cut vegetation without a permit and then its very regulated within 100 feet of the shoreline. Permanent structures are not allowed within 200 feet.

                              When you have development you have to watch for water quality issues. And here there are monitoring teams and a watershed association. Degrading water means declining property values. And there is nothing that screams an alarm bell faster to a rich person than a decline in investment.

                              I would be interested in the classification of the land in question too. The setbacks and minimum lot size are TINY! Our minimum lot width is 225 feet..hence the rich people can only afford that size of waterfront lot (two acre property minimum).

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by yellowcanoe View Post
                                From the viewpoint of someone who lives in a resort community where life is a bit of a PITA for seven weeks a summer...

                                Those rich people with the $ 600,000 properties do contribute to the tax base. The locals live on less expensive property and its kind of a blessing. The rich people have property taxes three times mine. And we call them "seven week wonders". Only here seven weeks and pay tax year round. They have no kids in school here and no facilities need be built for that.

                                Local economy.. locals do do property management ie maintenance for 45 weeks a year and snowplowing. The job market is basically unaffected. People here have always done a variety of jobs and telecommuting is becoming widespread. So we might look at new ways to work..rather than the old brick and mortar economy.

                                So were it not for rich people I might not have the steady cheap tax bill I have had over the years.

                                We will see how it pans out. Our ramblings have no effect.

                                Rich people do NOT demand every convenience nor do they get everything they want. The Selectboard sees to that. They do enrich our lives in the summer and make us appreciate what we have year round. And many are working rich and have the property here for retirement.

                                So far out of forty seasonal neighbors, ten have become full time residents in retirement or being able to work from here and do give to the community far more than they demand.
                                I see much the same thing here, but my taxes are not that forgiving. I think a good part of that is just living in NY in general.

                                I have 15 houses which are close enough I consider them to be neighbors. Of those 4 are occupied year-round including my own. One of the others was a seasonal couple who retired and became full time.

                                What I have seen here so far as being the biggest objection to the Tupper project is the objection to and dislike of the wealthy. If Paul Smith's wants to build a gigantic waterfront student center on Lower St. Regis which is less than 5 feet from the waters edge and then salt the sidewalks and have that runoff go in the lake every spring along with trash and god knows what else thas ok because Paul Smith's is a college and they teach some environmental programs. If Developer A wants to build a 4000 square foot home within the setback guidelines and sell it to wealthy potential seasonal resident B from downstate they are both exploiting the resources and should be stopped immediately and chastized for thier efforts. The environmental argument being used is clearly a red herring.

                                I hate to use my alma matter as an example of how the playing field isn't level, but they did choose to develop in the way they did so perhaps they should have done things differently if they didn't want to be used as an example. With 14,000 acres they had plenty of oppertunity to locate that huge building somewhere else besides on top of the lake. Why did nobody protest the Waterfront Center or the Weill Library? Clearly they have had negative impacts on water quality and have increased runoff and pollutants directly into Lower St. Regis. I think the answer is simple. It wouldn't be 'PC' to attack and enviornmental college regarding thier development whereas attacking business people and developers is a badge of honor for some.

                                Get over it people. It passed, its going to be built, and despite what some may think 600 or 800 grand for a house isn't a lot of money. I applaud the APA's efforts on this project and give kudos to all of the board members for the hard work they put into it. I also wish the residents of Tupper Lake the very best, I know they had been fighting for this for almost a decade and I am happy to see that they have gotten what they fought so long and hard for. May the next 50 years in Tupper be exponentially better than the last.
                                Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

                                WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X