MohonkPreserveNeighborsAssociation

So why doesn't the couple that the MPNA are taking to court, or even a few climbing locals, squat on some obscure parcels of land and call it their own? Hunt, log, build a cabin on a piece of land then take 'em to court for squatters rights

JSH wrote:The underlying truth of Frank's statement is that the records of who owns what go back so far and so disorganizedly here in the backwoods of the East, that title disputes really are common and difficult. (I can't comment on superiority, but .... it's 95 and humid today; and the weekend is "50% chance" of rain. You do the math!)

Julie,

The MPNA is shocked by the profound ignorance of this statement. Would you care to explain how land title is so disorganized and disputes are common? Thanks

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

RockinOut wrote:So why doesn't the couple that the MPNA are taking to court, or even a few climbing locals, squat on some obscure parcels of land and call it their own? Hunt, log, build a cabin on a piece of land then take 'em to court for squatters rights

I'm not going to bother looking up the laws for New York, but "squatters rights" or adverse possession laws in the US are rarely as sensational as the stories that are told.

Ryan-
I was being sarcastic....sorry if that was lost over the web

RockinOut wrote:Ryan- I was being sarcastic....sorry if that was lost over the web

No, my bad... I didn't wade through all the MPNA posts. Figured there was a chance it was in reference to this land dispute crap.

Here is a list of civil actions listed in ulster county with the Mohonk Preserve:

1. Index #77-226 oct 7 2003. Mohonk Preserve is the plaintiff and lost.

2. Index #04-525 March 17 2004-2010. Mohonk Preserve is the Plaintiff. This case has just finished and we are awaiting a decision.

3. Index# 05-1722 5-16-2005. Mohonk Preserve is the Plaintiff. This settled.

4. Index#09-2747 2009. Mohonk Preserve is the Plaintiff. This case is current.

The Mohonk Preserve has been the Plaintiff in EVERY lawsuit involving land. For those of you not familiar with the legal jargon, it means that The Mohonk Preserve is the one suing their neighbors.

Thanks.

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

Oliver Brown was the plaintiff in Brown v. Board of Education. For those of you unfamiliar with legal jargon, that means Brown SUED his child's TEACHERS.

We just posted a bunch of docs on Gunks.com Enjoy

The same discussion is at

gunks.com/ubbthreads7/ubbth…

For example:

Advocacy group Wrote: " A. MPNA has no problem with the decision, in fact this is another case of strong arm tactics by the Mohonk Preserve, and once again they lost." "Glenn Hoagland states "Our established land protection program ONLY works with willing sellers" Louise was not a willing seller, they bought her mortgage and foreclosed on her. Do you support this kind of land acquisition practice?" "Even some other land preservationists have accused the conservancy of overzealous tactics"

From Don: I can see your posts basically have to do with arguments against the Preserve, for alleged strong arm tactics to acquire property.

I am sure, as with any business, there are happy an unhappy transactions as well as mistakes. I am sure, as with any business, it cannot be represented by any one person or incidents having to do with one person. And business change over time, sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad depending on when, where, who, and how. The Preserve was set in motion for good, and that good is to acquire land for public use, and it is done in a way that the land is kept as close as possible to its natural state, and that is good, and it has done good, and it will continue to do that good.

If the Preserve is doing something illegal, then that is a reason for concern, that is for the courts to decide, not us, that is what they are there for. But if a judge has made a decision that nothing wrong has been done, why do we now need to retry the case here? This is not a court room and ultimately it is unfair to argue things meant for court disputes here. And actually it is completely illogical to pretend we can now do so, to weigh all the facts. Get a lawyer if you think you have a case and go to court. There either a judge or a jury will hear your complaints and then come to decision. How do you expect gunks.com etc. to now see into these things like a judge would with court orders? You cannot, because it is impossible. And if they have not done anything illegal, if you cannot bring them to court, it is because the laws of our land have determined that nothing wrong has been done. And if you have a problem with that, then you need to go about seeing how you can change laws for the good of mankind and forget about this one incident that involves you and your personal affairs. Then that would be the right thing to do.

In the meantime, I remember years ago when the Marriott Corporation wanted to build on Lake Minnewaska, but there were problems to overcome with water use, sewage and other issues. No one wanted to see them there. And I remember when White Horse Ledge used to be only woods, now there is a fence at the base of the talus, and the other side is heavy development with a fence. Someday all that will be removed by someone like the Preserve.

The bottom line is that in these things, at the end, we will either be left with open wide spaces or privates lands for commercial use. If it is not the Preserve that is buying up property, if it cannot compete somehow, if it is not a strong worldly and stable force it would be defeated. In this case you would instead be dealing with Marriott or someone else most likely for some sort of commercial venture with very little concern for these same concerns that we have with the Preserve. Maybe someone like the curry company who runs Yosemite Valley who lease the land from the state.

The bottom line is that in the future there is going to be someone buying up property here, it will either be the Preserve or it will be someone else with bigger plans. And unless the Preserve is able to control its property, unless we can stand behind them, then someone else like Marriott will turn it into something far beyond whatever problems you can now ever imagine.

We are in a new age, and these crags are marked for deletion. Ultimately we only have only two choices, the Gunks are no longer neutral ground. It is either the Preserve and these wide open spaces or a Marriott type venture and wide development for commercial gain. We need to support the Preserve, and in doing so we will continue to support the ridge.

Am I confused or just plain old stupid? Why would any climber who wants to climb stop donating to the preserve to help an organization that wishes to take away climbing for all and acknowledge a single owners rights? Im assuming this organization is not in a climbers best interest. Am i wrong? Even if I was Mr. Land rights why would I want limited access to climbing? One of us is lacking some good old common sense. It may be me, maybe my logic is flawed and Im too slow to understand why i should want limited access. Explain your cse to us tell us why we as climbers should take up your cause

donald perry wrote:..And I remember when White Horse Ledge used to be only woods, now there is a fence at the base of the talus, and the other side is heavy development with a fence. Someday all that will be removed by someone like the Preserve...

In terms of development and climbers not coexisting, you could pick a better example than the White Mountain Hotel to make the point. They might have developed the land but there are no issues with access and they even allow free parking in their lower lot. It may not be woods, given the extensive growth in the area over the last 30 years, it could have been a lot worse.

They charge $17 per day to use their land. Lame. Just like the tactics they use to land grab....I mean preserve.

yeah it's a bit pricey but the annual pass isn't unreasonable in my opinion. They have a fair amount of overhead and they have to bring in something to maintain the preserve.

wankel7 wrote:They charge $17 per day to use their land. Lame. Just like the tactics they use to land grab....I mean preserve.

Yeah really lame. It would be way better if someone like you would buy the land and open it up for free. Oh and make sure you budget for trail and parking lot maintenance, and a couple porta-potties with service every other week. Don't forget about a free campground. You could just put up a voluntary collection box. That should cover the costs of... none of it.

cjdrover wrote: Yeah really lame. It would be way better if someone like you would buy the land and open it up for free. Oh and make sure you budget for trail and parking lot maintenance, and a couple porta-potties with service every other week. Don't forget about a free campground. You could just put up a voluntary collection box. That should cover the costs of... none of it.

You must climb there. If you do then you are on the inside looking out.

From the outside looking in $17 per person per day is insane. And yes I have climbed there. I know a season pass is cheap and they are just nailing tourists.

Does the preserve make their financials public?

Mohonk Preserve is a 501 (c)3 non-profit, use some sleuthing and poke around.

I'll take $17 day fees over suburbs on top of cliffs. Even at my most destitute, the then $15 day fee was worth not belaying off of a fire hydrant.

Das Capital. While Europe had revolutions, we still had slavery. Live with the legacy. And yes, I am a landowner within 20 minutes of the cliff...I'll buy a life membership if they'd pull some tricks and displace my neighbors or take the half-acre of land in my yards off of my hands so I don't have to pay taxes on it and still enjoy the benefits of open space.

DL

wankel7 wrote: From the outside looking in $17 per person per day is insane.

People pay this to climb plastic in the gym for 3 hours on a very regular basis.. would you rather climb at the gunks all day or climb in the gym?

membership pays for itself in like 5 days. even for someone like me who gets there on a very random basis it's worth getting.