NY Prop 1 2025

Unofficial results show it's a yes, not surprising. What's interesting is how close it was, especially given how the amendment was worded and presented to voters. As in only half of the facts.
Now, I'll be curious to hear where this 2500 acres are coming from that wasn't disclosed prior to the vote.
 
Campgottagopee said:
Yes, exactly.
I don't think anything will happen if it ends up being a no vote. I mean, what could possibly be done?
I'd be curious to know what trees were actually cut. Certain groups consider 3" and under "timber", which is laughable.
The precedent would be set for other groups, clubs, towns, etc that it's ok to improve your trail systems and economy.
I haven't researched it but I'd be curious to know how much revenue groups like ORDA generate vs snowmobiling in NY.
Click to expand...
Interesting. As someone uneducated on this I voted yes.

I would point out that the forever wild language in the constitution is a double edged sword. You are likely aware, but it does not allow for any healthy forest management (at least some of us must know more about this than me): there is a proper amount of thinning you want to do in a well managed forest for the health of the eco system. The constititional language has been interpreted to NOT allow that. That is of course different than this.

Also, the language is a master class in how you ask the question. It was pretty harmless looking standing alone.

Separately, I would not have an issue with snow mobile trails if the communities actually wanted them (obviously there are some issues about how close they could be to residences etc for noise).
 
tirolski said:
Huh? Based on the yer article, whatdya think was the loophole they could slide thru?
Click to expand...
Preface: this is all speculation on my part. However, back then, I don't think ORDA had any idea about doing major improvements at Mt van Ho that would violate DEC rules.

I agree with everyone here scratching their heads over the wording of the proposition.
 
DomB said:
Interesting. As someone uneducated on this I voted yes.

I would point out that the forever wild language in the constitution is a double edged sword. You are likely aware, but it does not allow for any healthy forest management (at least some of us must know more about this than me): there is a proper amount of thinning you want to do in a well managed forest for the health of the eco system. The constititional language has been interpreted to NOT allow that. That is of course different than this.

Also, the language is a master class in how you ask the question. It was pretty harmless looking standing alone.

Separately, I would not have an issue with snow mobile trails if the communities actually wanted them (obviously there are some issues about how close they could be to residences etc for noise).
Click to expand...
I feel the common sense vote was, yes. Unfortunately common sense isn't a 2-way street for certain groups, such as PTA. PTA pushed hard for this approval, their cutting of "timber" rhetoric was shoved aside for this special group. The group being NYS and ORDA. They are the only group that could even think of getting away with this. They also are supporting a group that lost a record $50 million, not to mention all the millions of taxpayer money the get handed to them each year.

The snowmobile connector trail was approved by DEC, 5 towns and their elected officials. This also was going to be a land swap deal. The trail was all but complete, then PTA swans in waiving their Article 14 flag loud and proud! Timbe, timber, timber! The sue. They win in court and NYS had to pay them $30,000. The winter activity of snowmobiling generates 100's of millions in revenue each year for NYS. It's also funded by snowmobilers themselves. The trail would've greatly improved local economies as well as the livelihood of those living there. You know, locals.

It wasn't until the trail being shutdown that PTA came on my radar. I couldn't imagine why any group would be putting brush ahead of people. The only way I know to combat that is by voting. This is why I voted no. I'm very pleased it was a close vote, meaning people are paying attention. Hopefully the NYS Constitution will be changed to actually improve the lives of those living inside the blue line.
 
Last edited:
DomB said:
I would point out that the forever wild language in the constitution is a double edged sword. You are likely aware, but it does not allow for any healthy forest management (at least some of us must know more about this than me): there is a proper amount of thinning you want to do in a well managed forest for the health of the eco system. The constititional language has been interpreted to NOT allow that. That is of course different than this.
Click to expand...
So true
Old growth forests are not sustainable, nor healthy. Proper forestry management needs to come back in the ADK. It will create jobs and a better economy.
This won't happen until someone, or a group of someone's Protect the People of the ADK from Protect the Adirondacks.
 
Peter Minde said:
... everyone here scratching their heads over the wording of the proposition.
Click to expand...
Twas propositioned one time by a lady dressed impeccably by the elevator while we were waiting for someone to come down the elevator before an Expos night game in Montreal. “Can I be of service to you for the evening?" Folks new what the wording of the proposition meant. I went to the game in Olympic Stadium and bought a red white and blue Expos hat. Might still be around somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
© Copyright 2008 - 2025 NYSkiBlog
Join | Subscribe | Advertise | Privacy
NYSkiBlog is for the rest of us: regular people with a sense of adventure, who love to ski.
We zig when they zag. To connect with us, follow us:
NYSkiBlog Facebook.
NYSkiBlog Twitter.
NYSkiBlog Instagram.
NYSkiBlog RSS.
Back
Top