Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NYCO Constitutional Amendment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NYCO Constitutional Amendment

    This fall NYS voters will be asked to vote for or against "Proposal 5," which would amend the "forever wild clause" to allow a land trade with an Essex County mine.

    Here is my view:


  • #2
    I don't want to see another one of these political fights on here but I am in the same boat: I am firmly against this!

    I wonder how many voters actually know what this really means?

    I'm also pretty disappointed in our appointed officials that it even got to this stage. It doesn't give me a good feeling for the future...

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting article Bill. I was unaware of this, thanks for bringing it to attention.
      After reading through I think I have to agree with you.
      I think the line "The facts show little more than a corporation seeking public land for industrial purposes" says it all.
      No thanks.
      Last edited by Justin; 09-23-2013, 08:11 PM. Reason: added my first thoughts

      Comment


      • #4
        I'll be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about any of this but my question is, would it be worse to extend the existing mine or to have them petition the state to develop a mine on another piece of land and have it voted on and passed so there's now 2 seperate mines? Forgive my stupidity but I would like to know more about this.
        Last edited by rollinslover64; 09-24-2013, 05:01 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rollinslover64 View Post
          I'll be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about any of this but my question is, would it be worse to extend the existing mine or to have them petition the state to develop a mine on another piece of land and have it voted on and passed so there's now 2 seperate mines? Forgive my stupidity but I would like to know more about this.
          NYCO already owns land nearby on another mountain where they can begin mining. When the current mine reaches the end of its life, they will be required by law to "reclaim" it--i.e., fill it in and plant trees.

          So they can keep mining on their own land and not bother the voters of the state.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bill I. View Post
            NYCO already owns land nearby on another mountain where they can begin mining. When the current mine reaches the end of its life, they will be required by law to "reclaim" it--i.e., fill it in and plant trees.

            So they can keep mining on their own land and not bother the voters of the state.
            Bill, do I read correctly that a no vote would shoot down the RL proposal?
            If so I will be voting yes based on the RL situation. It's a shame that we couldn't vote for each case separately!

            Comment


            • #7
              I have been on the fence about this particular amendment for some while. At this point in time, I have made up my mind as being opposed to this proposal. Bill has made a well-organized and well-written explanation as to his concerns, and he states it far more eloquently than I do. However, it is clear from Article XIV that the lands of the CURRENT forest preserve are not to be exchanged. Perhaps it is appropriate in cases where we protect the livelihood of certain towns such as with ensuring power supplies, but this is simply in the name of corporate greed. It may not appear as such, but it is.

              If the mining company owned land around Lake Colden, and made this proposal in such a (more scenic) portion of the park, would there be ANY debate about this? There would be an overwhelming ‘no’. In my opinion, this is only being considered because this is not a prime area of the park. This is setting a dangerous precedent for “defining” values of different portions of the park. The forest preserve IS the forest preserve. No one portion is more important or valuable than any other portion. Perhaps aesthetically, but certainly not actually.
              High peaks: Summer: 46/46 (1st iteration); 29/46 (2nd); 11/46 (3rd); 7/46 (4th) Winter: 7/46 (1st); 1/46 (2nd)

              The other 56: Summer: 55/56 (1st); 12/56 (2nd); 4/56 (3rd); 3/56 (4th) Winter: 13/56 (1st); 3/56 (2nd); 1/56 (3rd); 4th (0/56)

              Comment


              • #8
                Here is what I find "interesting" if not scary. We have a governor whom is clearly on the side of development, who hasn't shown the appreciation for the wilderness that past governors have and now suddenly we are dealing with amending the Forever Wild portion of the Constitution.
                My skeptical self warns me that this is but a precedent and that regardless of the issues, including the RL fiasco it's setting the plate for meddling with the amendment in favor of developers in the future.

                Just for the record I agree whole heartedly with Bill.
                "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


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Alpine1 View Post
                  Bill, do I read correctly that a no vote would shoot down the RL proposal?
                  If so I will be voting yes based on the RL situation. It's a shame that we couldn't vote for each case separately!
                  I believe that the RL issue is Proposal 4, here is a copy of all the proposals http://www.elections.ny.gov/ProposedConsAmendments.html

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Alpine1 View Post
                    Bill, do I read correctly that a no vote would shoot down the RL proposal?
                    If so I will be voting yes based on the RL situation. It's a shame that we couldn't vote for each case separately!
                    Originally posted by Paleofreak View Post
                    I believe that the RL issue is Proposal 4, here is a copy of all the proposals http://www.elections.ny.gov/ProposedConsAmendments.html
                    Alpine1, I apologize if I gave the impression that both amendments were married to each other, but they most definitely are not.

                    If you follow Paleofreak's link, you will see that there are actually six amendments on this year's ballots. Proposal 4 covers Raquette Lake / Township 40, and Proposal 5 is NYCO. Each one should be its own line item on the ballot.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bill I. View Post
                      Alpine1, I apologize if I gave the impression that both amendments were married to each other, but they most definitely are not.

                      If you follow Paleofreak's link, you will see that there are actually six amendments on this year's ballots. Proposal 4 covers Raquette Lake / Township 40, and Proposal 5 is NYCO. Each one should be its own line item on the ballot.
                      Actually I was being lazy by asking...
                      Thank you Paleo for clarifying with your link

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Can someone please tell us where the 1,507 acres the state would receive in the swap lie? Bill Ingersoll's claim that they are lowlands without much scenic interest notwithstanding, I would prefer to judge for myself.

                        Edit: Never mind. Found it. There is some prime real estate in what NYCO wishes to swap. Direct access from a road to Slip and Saddleback, and the Arnold and Hardwood Hill parts I believe have vistas from open rock, don't they? Sure would like to get into those places . . .
                        Last edited by Gregory Karl; 09-25-2013, 04:46 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gregory Karl View Post
                          Can someone please tell us where the 1,507 acres the state would receive in the swap lie? Bill Ingersoll's claim that they are lowlands without much scenic interest notwithstanding, I would prefer to judge for myself.

                          Edit: Never mind. Found it. There is some prime real estate in what NYCO wishes to swap. Direct access from a road to Slip and Saddleback, and the Arnold and Hardwood Hill parts I believe have vistas from open rock, don't they? Sure would like to get into those places . . .
                          There is already direct road access to Slip and Saddleback. I've been to both, and had no difficulty getting to both. The new lands would be primarily downhill from the Jays, along Derby Brook. If I were to do those mountains again, the routes I used in 2008 would still be more direct.

                          As for Hardwood Hill, read the very first line in this article.

                          The map below is my understanding of where the proposed parcels are located. Note that none of these are described in any way in the text of the amendment, meaning that these parcels are speculative.
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bill I. View Post
                            There is already direct road access to Slip and Saddleback. I've been to both, and had no difficulty getting to both. The new lands would be primarily downhill from the Jays, along Derby Brook. If I were to do those mountains again, the routes I used in 2008 would still be more direct.
                            I'm not worried about the directness of the routes particularly. I've climbed both as well, Slip from a rather indirect route, over the the shoulder of Saddleback and then through the beaver swamp in the saddle to which the Derby drainage leads.

                            Originally posted by Bill I. View Post
                            The map below is my understanding of where the proposed parcels are located. Note that none of these are described in any way in the text of the amendment, meaning that these parcels are speculative.
                            If the parcels are ultimately defined as illustrated on the map, I say take the deal, run, and don't look back.

                            Satellite imagery of Hardwood Hill sure suggests substantial open rock to me. Haven't been there yet.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bill I. View Post
                              The map below is my understanding of where the proposed parcels are located. Note that none of these are described in any way in the text of the amendment, meaning that these parcels are speculative.
                              I am not opposed to this amendment on basis of principle. But I do have some concern about the sincerity of those involved in this amendment for the simple reason that, as Bill says, the actual text of the amendment makes no mention of specific properties. None of this will be determined until after the fact. The cynical side of me would rephrase and say that "none of this will be announced until after the fact", i.e., the real deal may already be in place but with the deal makers unwilling to talk about the details.
                              Originally posted by Gregory Karl View Post
                              If the parcels are ultimately defined as illustrated on the map, I say take the deal, run, and don't look back.
                              Problem is that there is no way of knowing apriori "if the parcels are ultimately defined as illustrated". It will be too late before that detail is known.
                              Scooting here and there
                              Through the woods and up the peaks
                              Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


                              "Pushing the limits of easy."™

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X