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 02-07-2012, 03:39 PM   #21
ADKHUNTER
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hudson Valley
Posts: 885
Perhaps the new developements will in time end the "eyesore".
ADKHUNTER is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:50 PM   #22
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 529
First of all, my friend, I knew about this since it was first proposed. But / and it is apparent that the APA and the DEC and hundreds or thousands of desperate people living in the Adirondacks had NO interest in hearing or considering anything the opposition had to say. Second, the downtown area of Tupper Lake IS an eyesore and stating that is not an attack on the people that live there. I acknowledge that they may not have the resources for beautification and development of their downtown area, which is why I made the suggestion to try and find a way to fix up the downtown area as an alternative to this, for tourism and economic development. And as far as private property goes the APA DID NOT do their job here - no matter which side of this you fall on.
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:57 PM   #23
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADKHUNTER View Post
Perhaps the new developements will in time end the "eyesore".
That's a possible risk. I say that because successful development and economic activity brings more demand for successful development and economic activity. When people are there and they have money they will want things and if given to them it will bring more people and money. That is when you have to go back to the very very basics and remind yourself that you are in the Adirondacks. So I feel this genie ought not be let out of the bottle to begin with. People cannot be trusted to do the right things. Bare in mind this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 05:14 PM   #24
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
FD, I wasn't suggesting that you weren't entitled to your opinion, far from it. What I was suggesting is that you have a rather obtuse view of the issue. The Adirondacks are a mixed use area with both public and private land holdings. I think you are confusing the two. The APA actually did its job properly for once. It weighed the rights of the property owners to develop within the model designated for the area against the possible negative impacts such development would cause. The did this in an objective manner which was in accordance with the oversight authority they are granted by the NYS legislature. Condemnation of the outcome of the application is fine, but its just talk. Its not going to make anyone go back and change the decision. You can get up on your soapbox all you want and cry foul and say the APA are a bunch of shills for development if you want, thats your right. The truth of the matter is that the board in its current form is a very balanced group of individuals with a variety of backgrounds who are not working on the behalf of some mysterious big money organization. Thats just delusional conspiricy crazy talk. I think the fact that it was an almost unanimous decision on the part of the board (only 1 dissenting vote) illustrates that there was overwhelming satisfaction by the board members that the project met the requirements for appropriate development. You don't have to agree, but casting aspersions on Tupper Lake and the APA is a poor way to go about presenting your point of view. If you were a little more open minded you might be able to understand how development projects like this have often benefited communities like Tupper and have helped the folks living in these towns achieve a better quality of life.

Try going to an APA meeting sometime before you say they aren't doing thier job properly. Make a donation to the Tupper Lake Chamber's Village Beautification Fund if you'd honestly like to see things improve there. Otherwise, stop talking crap about things you obviously don't understand.
Commissionpoint is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 05:39 PM   #25
yellowcanoe
Member
 
yellowcanoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,174
Seems like Forestdweller might not have known Tupper Lake in more difficult days. Back in the early sixties the mills were closed..the ski area to follow. It was indeed a very sad looking area but populated with people who were willing to work hard and cared.

I applaud the Wild Center and hopefully the new project to form a basis for a new local economy!
yellowcanoe is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 06:10 PM   #26
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 529
This may bring some temporary construction jobs. Will the skills required even come from the people in Tupper Lake or will outsiders benefit more? After this is built how many permanent jobs will remain as a direct result of it and what will they pay? Just seems to me that people come out in support of it but it's quite possible they won't benefit from it - either directly or indirectly. And you may say that the APA did a good job here, but I have spoken to people from Adirondack Wild, the Adirondack Council and Protect the Adirondacks and they believe that the APA did not follow the law in approving this. Perhaps that is wishful thinking on ALL of their part, but then tell me - WHY hasn't anything of this scale and magnitude ever been approved of by the APA before since it's founding? Could it be that it's because the organization was founded to simply not allow something like this to go through?

And like I said earlier, people may benefit from this and the economy may pick up - at the expense of the environment in the Adirondack Park.

And tell me one more thing - HOW will the APA justifiably say no to everybody else who comes along requesting something similar?

It's funny, when it comes to conservatives they love to tell a person on unemployment that they shouldn't receive unemployment for a long time and they should pick up from where they call home and go to where the work is, but when it comes to a bunch of hippies trying to protect a beautiful and rare place, hell we have to stay right here and bring the jobs to us - Adirondack Park be damned. That is what you call wanting it both ways.

The sad thing is when things aren't good people's thinking and vision becomes muddy and cloudy and outrageous things don't seem as outrageous.
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 06:32 PM   #27
yellowcanoe
Member
 
yellowcanoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,174
Read the history of Tupper Lake..it might be enlightening as far as the town and the perception of wilderness.

http://tupperlake.net/TupperLakeHistory.htm
yellowcanoe is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 07:15 PM   #28
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 529
What does the perception of wilderness mean? That since it was once logged that it can never be considered wilderness again even if the forest grew back?
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 08:11 PM   #29
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest dweller View Post
This may bring some temporary construction jobs. Will the skills required even come from the people in Tupper Lake or will outsiders benefit more? After this is built how many permanent jobs will remain as a direct result of it and what will they pay? Just seems to me that people come out in support of it but it's quite possible they won't benefit from it - either directly or indirectly. And you may say that the APA did a good job here, but I have spoken to people from Adirondack Wild, the Adirondack Council and Protect the Adirondacks and they believe that the APA did not follow the law in approving this. Perhaps that is wishful thinking on ALL of their part, but then tell me - WHY hasn't anything of this scale and magnitude ever been approved of by the APA before since it's founding? Could it be that it's because the organization was founded to simply not allow something like this to go through?

And like I said earlier, people may benefit from this and the economy may pick up - at the expense of the environment in the Adirondack Park.

And tell me one more thing - HOW will the APA justifiably say no to everybody else who comes along requesting something similar?

It's funny, when it comes to conservatives they love to tell a person on unemployment that they shouldn't receive unemployment for a long time and they should pick up from where they call home and go to where the work is, but when it comes to a bunch of hippies trying to protect a beautiful and rare place, hell we have to stay right here and bring the jobs to us - Adirondack Park be damned. That is what you call wanting it both ways.

The sad thing is when things aren't good people's thinking and vision becomes muddy and cloudy and outrageous things don't seem as outrageous.
Debate is good, its a good way to communicate our own views, and get those of others.

You mentioned 3 organizations. The Council, Protect!, and ADK Wild. Unfortunately, and you may not have known this, but with the exception of The Adirondack Council you are backing your views with the opinions of radical organizations. Yes, they are radical environmental extremists. While they certainly have a right to thier views, its not like anyone really takes them seriously. The leadership of Protect! and Wild in particular are cast offs from legitimate groups who found thier radical views so unplaltable and thier methods so unseeming that in some cases they were asked to step down as to not sully the good names of real groups trying to represent real views of Park residents and visitors alike. Thats when they formed thier own groups under the guise of caring about the environment, when in fact they only reperesent thier own narrow views of what is acceptable and don't want to hear about any other possibilities. Thats not debate, thats not discourse, thats totalitarianism, and its why they have been marginalized to laughable status in local decision making. Unfortunately they are good at disguising thier motives and unwitting folks get sucked into thier BS thinking they are helping the situation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You make an error in suggesting the APA has never approved a project on this magnitude before. I suspect you don't remember Keene Valley or Lake Placid before 1980. I suspect you have no idea what or where Green Harbor is, didn't see NCCC before the expansion, or remember what the PSC campus looked like before the Waterfront Center, Buxton, New Cantwell, Essex House, Franklin Hall, Hillside or the Weill Library was added. (those are the names of several commercial buildings on Lower St. Regis Lake bordering NYS lands which collectively equal a few hundred thousand square feet)

Clearly you haven't considered the restaurants, grocery stores, mechanic shops, gift stores, and other commercial establishments which will soon take up residency in Tupper (hopefully occupying and refurbishing the downtown district) after new homes are built and the people that live there start creating demand for such things. Those are not only jobs, but good jobs and entrepreneurial oppertunities for Tupper Lake residents. Maybe the best chances anyone there has had since, as Yellowcanoe said, the mills closed 50 years ago.

Dont' drag conservatives or hippies into this. Its not part of our discussion here, and last I checked neither the national conservative movement nor the longhair tie-dye party have infiltrated the APA or DEC. We don't discuss those types of politics here not only because its against forum rules, but because in most cases that type of politics have no place in our discussions and only serve to create rancorous discourse which is unproductive.

For the record, I actually live in the Park, and have for my whole life. I went to high school here, went to college here, and have worked my entire career here. My judgement hasn't been clouded or muddied by hard economic times, and I consider myself lucky to have not been affected by the current recession as much as some. I don't advocate slash and burn, clear cutting, unchecked development, or bulldozing forest lands. I do however advocate for the rights of private property owners to do what they like with thier property so long as they conform to the regulations and guidelines set out by the APA and DEC. In my area we have a third layer of oversight called the LGPC. If you can meet all the requirements those agencies demand before building or developing you are ok in my book and so is your project.
Commissionpoint is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 08:26 PM   #30
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowcanoe View Post
Read the history of Tupper Lake..it might be enlightening as far as the town and the perception of wilderness.

http://tupperlake.net/TupperLakeHistory.htm
Thank you Yellowcanoe for the very cool link. I learned some things I did not know before from reading from those pages.

My perspective of wilderness is that its manmade in the lower 48. True wilderness has been gone for generations and what we have now is a facsimilie created by those who had the forethought to set aside lands for those who came after them to enjoy. True wilderness is a hard thing to find in modern times and is most likely only existant in places like Alaska, Siberia, and the Yukon.
Commissionpoint is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:07 PM   #31
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 529
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 at 09:21 PM..
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:19 PM   #32
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
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.
Commissionpoint is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:42 PM   #33
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
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
Pumpkin QAAD is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 11:45 PM   #34
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
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.
Commissionpoint is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 06:38 AM   #35
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 529
Quote:
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.
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 08:29 AM   #36
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,932
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
redhawk is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 08:30 AM   #37
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,932
Quote:
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
redhawk is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 08:56 AM   #38
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 529
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.
forest dweller is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:04 AM   #39
kwc
loser
 
kwc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Johnstown NY
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
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?
__________________


Once a year, go some where you've never been before.
kwc is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:08 AM   #40
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 529
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.
forest dweller 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 06:46 PM.


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.