In honor of The Beaver full moon now playing.
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colours from our sight
Red is gray and yellow, white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion
Last edited:
NY Prop 1 2025
- Thread starter Scoobert
- Start date
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colours from our sight
Red is gray and yellow, white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion
Who knows, Hope she’s doing good.
She was pretty.
Our boss told me, “It’s hundred dollars Canadian”. I believe he knew the going rates at that time.
I’m curious where and how much the 2500 acre proposition is.
Does the cash come outta ORDA’s budget?
Last edited:
x10003q
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2020
Just a reminder that NYS owns just 44% of the Adirondack Park. The rest is privately owned.
From the Adirondack Park Agency:
"The boundary of the Park encompasses approximately 6 million acres, nearly half of which belongs to all the people of New York State and is constitutionally protected to remain "forever wild" forest preserve. The remaining half of the Park is private land which includes towns, farms, timber lands, businesses, homes, and camps.
The state of New York owns approximately 44 percent, or roughly 2.6 million acres of land within the Park's boundaries. The remaining private lands are devoted principally to forestry, agriculture, and open space recreation."
Also, roughly 123k people live in the Park in 101 towns and villages.
From the Adirondack Park Agency:
"The boundary of the Park encompasses approximately 6 million acres, nearly half of which belongs to all the people of New York State and is constitutionally protected to remain "forever wild" forest preserve. The remaining half of the Park is private land which includes towns, farms, timber lands, businesses, homes, and camps.
The state of New York owns approximately 44 percent, or roughly 2.6 million acres of land within the Park's boundaries. The remaining private lands are devoted principally to forestry, agriculture, and open space recreation."
Also, roughly 123k people live in the Park in 101 towns and villages.
MarzNC
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2020
The history of commercial timber harvesting evolved in the Adirondacks from the initial forays to clear land for farming long before the idea of creating the Adirondack Park started. In the early years, only the larger trees of a couple of species were taken out. By 1850, New York was selling more timber than Maine. Initially the only trees cut were pine and spruce . . . because those logs would float. Floating logs down a river was the only way to get them to a sawmill and on to market. Needless to say, things changed with the technology. In particular, the building of railroads that meant shipping the logs didn't require a river. Then the only trees of interest were spruce.
I bought the book by Paul Schneider called "The Adirondacks: A History of America's First Wilderness" in Saranac Lake a while back. Didn't finish reading it until a few months ago. Chapter 18 of 28 is about the timber industry inside the Blue Line.
DomB
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2020
This is something they should put into a prop to amend for. I have not met a single person against it. Maybe not done because no special interests with money pushing for it haha
MC2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2020
Wait, you voted “no” to a bunch of development (of ski trails!) because you thought it might force the hand of NYS legislators to change the forever wild law?
Come on, man.
If the prop failed, no politician would think “we should really rethink how we develop inside the blue line”, they would think “wow, people really want to protect Adirondack land. Maybe groups like Protect the Adirondacks have a point”
I guess my question is, if the proposition said “snowmobile trails” instead of “ski trails”, would you have voted the same way?
Campgottagopee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
Yes
To your question, it isn't a legit one. Protect has already proven their stance on snowmobile trails. They would never support such a thing. It doesn't meet their agenda. I never said I wanted to change the forever wild clause. I'm hopeful the language is changed to support economic growth.
I hope you're wrong about no politician wanting to improve the economy inside the blue line as it is desperately needed.
Campgottagopee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
This is a copy and paste from FB:
Anyone with half a brain knows that when you're in any big city and see someone running an illegal card game known as '3 Card Monte', you DON'T play.
Why?
Because the guy flipping the cards around and telling you to find the Ace of Diamonds is too fast and running a sleight of hand scam on you. You'll think you know where it is after watching his moves but the moment you put the cash up to bet, suddenly the card is switched.
With election day behind us, I wanted to be perhaps the only journalist in all of New York State to point out that the voters just played a game of '3 Card Monte' without knowing it.
I'm talking about the Proposal #1 they voted on, on the flipside of their election ballot.
Prop 1, if you just read short paragraph above the YES or NO box you had to check on your ballot, told you that IF you voted 'YES', the state would be using a small portion of land at something called the Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Complex and in exchange be getting a generous amount of land in return.
So this, for you, sounds like a great deal. Give us a couple hundred acres of land to develop and you, the taxpayer, get back a couple THOUSAND acres as a kind of thank you, where you can hike and look at birds, whatever you like.
Who wouldn't take that deal, right?
So, it begs the obvious question.
Why are they asking you to vote on it?
Answer-
Because, Mount Van Hoevenberg is a state-run facility in Lake Placid and to do this, let's call it 'land swap', they need your PERMISSION FIRST, as a voter, to expand into 'protected land' that is deemed 'forever wild' and in order to cut down trees and build things there, the state needs to amend the state constitution.
So, my dear voter... they needed your permission BEFORE they could chop a single tree and displace a single squirrel.
But where's the '3 Card Monte' part of this I mentioned?
Oh, yeah.... small detail.
They already started developing into the 'forever wild' land years ago.
Let me say that again slowly for the people in the back-
Proposal 1 on the NYS ballot yesterday was asking the voter's permission to take land that they ALREADY TOOK.
To quote Joe Martens, the Chairman of the Olympic Regional Development Authority, "This amendment, very simply, would authorize activities that have been going on there for a very long time."
This is a bit like your friend asking if she can borrow your favorite red dress, AFTER she already took it from your closet and wore it to the party.
In other words, this 'asking permission' is a bit of an afterthought.
The vote was close and by a fairly slim margin, people checked that YES box and told the state they could take the land they already took.
What would have happened if you voted NO and Prop 1 failed?
Let's quote Joe Martens again, "If the amendment is not approved, we'll go back to voters again and better educate them."
In other words, whether you said YES or NO on Prop 1.... it didn't much matter.
The people in charge would just keep having votes until you smartened up and said 'Yes'.
They took the land in violation of the NY State Constitution and this entire vote yesterday was nothing more than a 'clean up in aisle 7' type move by the state.
To complete the '3 Card Monte' metaphor, you were never going to guess where the Ace of Diamonds was in this game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy the Proposal passed. At least now people who love nature get an extra 2,500 acres of protected land to frolic in, in exchange for land that was already taken without legal authority.
I just wish our state officials asked our permission before borrowing our favorite red dress.
John Gray Writer
Anyone with half a brain knows that when you're in any big city and see someone running an illegal card game known as '3 Card Monte', you DON'T play.
Why?
Because the guy flipping the cards around and telling you to find the Ace of Diamonds is too fast and running a sleight of hand scam on you. You'll think you know where it is after watching his moves but the moment you put the cash up to bet, suddenly the card is switched.
With election day behind us, I wanted to be perhaps the only journalist in all of New York State to point out that the voters just played a game of '3 Card Monte' without knowing it.
I'm talking about the Proposal #1 they voted on, on the flipside of their election ballot.
Prop 1, if you just read short paragraph above the YES or NO box you had to check on your ballot, told you that IF you voted 'YES', the state would be using a small portion of land at something called the Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Complex and in exchange be getting a generous amount of land in return.
So this, for you, sounds like a great deal. Give us a couple hundred acres of land to develop and you, the taxpayer, get back a couple THOUSAND acres as a kind of thank you, where you can hike and look at birds, whatever you like.
Who wouldn't take that deal, right?
So, it begs the obvious question.
Why are they asking you to vote on it?
Answer-
Because, Mount Van Hoevenberg is a state-run facility in Lake Placid and to do this, let's call it 'land swap', they need your PERMISSION FIRST, as a voter, to expand into 'protected land' that is deemed 'forever wild' and in order to cut down trees and build things there, the state needs to amend the state constitution.
So, my dear voter... they needed your permission BEFORE they could chop a single tree and displace a single squirrel.
But where's the '3 Card Monte' part of this I mentioned?
Oh, yeah.... small detail.
They already started developing into the 'forever wild' land years ago.
Let me say that again slowly for the people in the back-
Proposal 1 on the NYS ballot yesterday was asking the voter's permission to take land that they ALREADY TOOK.
To quote Joe Martens, the Chairman of the Olympic Regional Development Authority, "This amendment, very simply, would authorize activities that have been going on there for a very long time."
This is a bit like your friend asking if she can borrow your favorite red dress, AFTER she already took it from your closet and wore it to the party.
In other words, this 'asking permission' is a bit of an afterthought.
The vote was close and by a fairly slim margin, people checked that YES box and told the state they could take the land they already took.
What would have happened if you voted NO and Prop 1 failed?
Let's quote Joe Martens again, "If the amendment is not approved, we'll go back to voters again and better educate them."
In other words, whether you said YES or NO on Prop 1.... it didn't much matter.
The people in charge would just keep having votes until you smartened up and said 'Yes'.
They took the land in violation of the NY State Constitution and this entire vote yesterday was nothing more than a 'clean up in aisle 7' type move by the state.
To complete the '3 Card Monte' metaphor, you were never going to guess where the Ace of Diamonds was in this game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy the Proposal passed. At least now people who love nature get an extra 2,500 acres of protected land to frolic in, in exchange for land that was already taken without legal authority.
I just wish our state officials asked our permission before borrowing our favorite red dress.
Andy_ROC
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2021
I voted yes-- I'll support a lot of things that help people get out and enjoy the outdoors and play in the woods. Interestingly in my county (Monroe) 63% voted yes despite the overall close margin statewide.
I'm also w/ @Campgottagopee -- more lands for trails, bike and snowmobile. Snowmobile trails become bike trails in summer and fall. Those bike riders also get hungry, drink beer and need places to stay which would give business owners a longer season to earn a living. In my opinion we don't need to leave so much "untouched nature" in order to protect nature. The more opportunity we create for people to enjoy nature will encourage more people to care about nature--- which in the end protects nature. Just my opinion of course.
I'm also w/ @Campgottagopee -- more lands for trails, bike and snowmobile. Snowmobile trails become bike trails in summer and fall. Those bike riders also get hungry, drink beer and need places to stay which would give business owners a longer season to earn a living. In my opinion we don't need to leave so much "untouched nature" in order to protect nature. The more opportunity we create for people to enjoy nature will encourage more people to care about nature--- which in the end protects nature. Just my opinion of course.
in case law got a good start in the '30s with MacDonald at The Ho?
