G.R.I.P (Gardiner Residents for Individual Property Rights)
Rail Trail
Home | Our Purpose | Breaking News! | Open Space Plan | Zoning | Rail Trail | Bond Referendum | Becoming a Member | Members Page | Links | Send Letters to Editors | Calendar of Events | Letters from the Other Side | Contact Us

UPDATE - 9-2008.  After waiting for more than a year for reimbursement of the promised $100,000 grant from NY State for the Rail Trail, a check finally arrived. 


However, it is for only $49,000 and not the full amount assured by the town board over and over again.   In order to get the full amount requested in the grant, the town would have had to spend additional, unspecified amounts of money...good money after bad, in our view.  

This is a perfect example of how grants can backfire,  and that there's no "free money" or guarantees  of reimbursement.  Even if there were the taxpayers would still be paying ourselves with dollars out of our own pockets....just a different pocket.  

Remember this the next time the town board tries to sell a program with cries of "it won't cost the taxpayers a penny".  There's no free lunch.



The Town budget was approved at the November 2007 Meeting for the 2008, pending a few contingent changes. One item was $70K in expenditure by the town in 2007 for the purchase of the Rail Trail, with no indication of when or where a corresponding amount to offset would be coming back into the town. Supposedly, the town is receiving a grant funding of $100K, of which $70K will be "paid back" into the town reserve funds, and the remaining $30K will be put into a Rail Trail reserve fund yet to be established. GRIP will be closely following when and how this grant money will be coming back to the town, and what strings will be attached to it.

On Tuesday 9/13/07, the Gardiner Town Board voted 5-0 to purchase the Rail Tail, with $70K of taxpayer money.  This is in response to the continued desire of the Walkill Valley Land Trust to flip the property to the town, and the pleas of the Walkill Valley Railtrail Association about their inability to keep up with the cost of upkeep of the property.  More to follow!

Gardiner Rail Trail Saga by Marion Kells

Railtra

ER      For more than two decades the question has cropped up in Gardiner  -- to take over (buy) , or not to take over the portion of the old railroad bed that runs through our town. Recently, Louis Benson and Joe Katz formed a committee to look into the question. After some investigation they suggested that, in their opinion, it was time for Gardiner to purchase the property. And they gave several reasons for it. They gave none of the reasons for approaching such a purchase with caution, if not downright refusal. And in the ensuing months, the euphoria over possibly owning the rail trail has the Town Board on the brink of ownership. That would be ownership by the taxpayers of Gardiner.

      The committee mentioned relatively small sums for the purchase and other costs that would be incurred if the town bought the rail trail. They never were able to give a figure for how much it costs the Town and Village of New Paltz to operate and maintain the rail trail in their jurisdictions. That would be a very important, even deciding, figure to know.

      The reasons Gardiner does not now own the rail trail, and some history of the years-long discussion are interesting.

      In March of 1982, notices were sent by New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) announcing the abandonment of portions of the Conrail right-of-way (ROW). The notice informed towns through which the ROW ran, that they would have preferential right to acquire the property, and that the towns must advise NYSDOT of their interest by certain date, or those rights would lapse.

      In May of 1983, the supervisors of New Paltz, Gardiner, Shawangunk and Montgomery contacted NYSDOT asking that their four towns be granted preferential status. Negotiations concerning purchase price and other considerations would involve the towns, NYSDOT and Conrail.

      Following that period,  attention to the rail trail was low priority for the Gardiner Town Board.  The towns of Montgomery and Shawangunk purchased the ROW in their towns in October 1985.

      By 1988 a group calling itself the Wallkill Valley Railroad Associates (WVRA) made a bid for the ROW traversing Gardiner and the Town and Village of New Paltz. A June 1988 letter from Matthew Bialecki, representing the WVRA, apprised the Gardiner supervisor of the intention of the group, if their bid was accepted, to sell off the ROW to the municipalities. He added that if the municipalities were not interested,, WVRA would sell to private individuals, most likely adjacent landowners.

      Later in 1988, the ROW came to the interest of the Wallkill Valley Land Trust (WVLT), which had organized for the purpose of furthering land preservation. How the WVRA was eclipsed by the WVLT is not clear, but from that point on, the WVLT controlled the ROW. They stated that their association with the Trust For Public Land  made it possible for them “to participate in projects which might otherwise be beyond our financial or technical ability”.

      The WVLT issued a Declaration stating what obligations they or any subsequent owners of the ROW would have. These “rules” would be in effect permanently,  and dictate how the ROW would be administered.  Apparently, the Town and Village of New Paltz agreed to the “rules”, and contracted with WVLT early in 1989, to purchase their portions of the ROW. There followed a flurry of letters to the Town of Gardiner urging them to “sign on”. Clearly, the WVLT, not wanting the responsibility of ownership, hoped to turn over the rail trail, with their added Declaration of restrictions, as quickly as possible.

      During that period Gardiner town boards changed from election to election, but those boards were always only lukewarm to any takeover of the ROW. The reluctance by Gardiner in the ROW discussions was for several reasons:  the well-known (but now past) Gardiner aversion to spending taxpayer money for non-essentials; the apprehension about taking on a liability with possibility of lawsuits; demands by a few that more and more amenities be added to the rail trail; the demand by WVLT to impose restrictions on use of the trail, even if Gardiner owned it; WVLT would not guarantee title or the value of quit claims; the contention by the Town and Village of New  Paltz that they had the power to commit the Town of Gardiner to purchase Gardiner’s portion of the ROW; and, among additional reasons, the correct assumption that the rail trail would benefit New Paltz residents and other outsiders, far more than Gardiner residents  and serve as a unique corridor of access to our town, and the properties abutting the trail, that could have undesirable consequences.

      In July 1988, the Gardiner Town Board sent a questionnaire to Gardiner residents whose property abutted the ROW. The results of this questionnaire were almost unanimously against the use of the ROW as a rail trail or linear park.  Also, the Town Board received letters from other taxpayers in the town, objecting to the use of tax dollars in such a purchase and continued upkeep.

      At a meeting in June, 1989 between the Gardiner Town Board and the WVLT, the Gardiner Town Board gave their final NO to any takeover of the ROW.

      A February 7, 1991 letter from Steve Ruelke, Project Manager for WVLT, to the Gardiner Town Board, announced that purchases by the Town and Village of New Paltz of their portions of the ROW were completed. He added that the offer to the Town of Gardiner to purchase their ROW portion was now null and void. However, the door was not shut to possible negotiations in the future.

      Mr. Ruelke went on to outline some of WVLT’s  plans for the rail trail:  their intent to improve the trail between 44/55 and the Town of New Paltz; decking the Forest Glen bridge; brush clearing and ditching; working with the Wallkill Valley Railroad Association, volunteers committed to operating, managing and maintaining the entire 12 miles of trail; planning a small railroad museum; organizing nature walks and other activities.

      The WVLT’s annoyance with Gardiner’s turn down was thinly concealed. Newspaper reports had then saying that Gardiner was “putting up smoke screens”, and Gardiner Town Board members wouldn’t participate in the rail trail scheme because they  were “afraid of new ideas”. And periodically, throughout the 1990s, feelers were sent from the WVLT to Gardiner officials to see if a change in boards might have brought about a change in minds.

      An example of such an attempt to spark Gardiner’s interest occurred in 1993. WVLT asked that Gardiner agree to act as municipal sponsor for a grant application under the ISTEA Transportation Enhancement federal program. The plan was that if WVLT succeeded in receiving the grant, the money would suffice as Gardiner’s payment for the rail trail. It was learned that by being a municipal sponsor for the ISTEA grant, Gardiner could be left in the sorry position of being responsible for the rail trail if the other parties failed their part of the agreement. In addition, the town board asked WVLT to release Gardiner from the restrictions placed on the rail trail by the WVLT Declaration. They refused, and once again, Gardiner had to deny WVLT’s request.

      CODA:  The above decisions of the past Gardiner town boards are proven to have been wise. Time after time stories in the local papers have told of vandalism, intrusion on private property, necessity of police involvement, and continued demands by trail users for additional amenities. All of these problems and costs would have been the responsibility of Gardiner taxpayers, had we bought the ROW.  

      The facts that Gardiner has within its borders a fine town park, as yet not fully developed, a state park on the Shawangunk Ridge, along with the recently added Awosting Reserve and Tillson Lake land, other parcels in the town set aside for future parks, and expansive yards where most residents do their recreating, all work against Gardiner taking on still more park land.

      It is unreasonable that Gardiner should buy the rail trail. Gardiner will not be deprived of it, since it runs through our town. It is owned by a group pledged by their Declaration to continue it as a rail trail. Working with the Wallkill Valley Railroad Association, they have the clout to obtain grants (already proven), and they have the enthusiasm of the people who are interested in such a linear park. It is just and fair that those who believe in it should shoulder the burden, not all the taxpayers of Gardiner.

     

     

RAILTRAIL PURCHASE UPDATE!

On Tuesday 9/13, the Gardiner Town Board voted 5-0 to purchase the Rail Tail, with $70K of taxpayer money.  This is in response to the continued desire of the Walkill Valley Land Trust to flip the property to the town, and the pleas of the Walkill Valley Railtrail Association about their inability to keep up with the cost of upkeep of the property.  More to follow!
 
GRIP is of the opinion that this is a total waste and abuse of taxpayer funds!  In fact, the town supervisor when asked about funds was not even sure about how much money was actually in the reserve fund that they plan to deplete for this purchase.   Shame on you Gardiner Town Board!  Only 8 people in the Townwide survey sent out by Supervisor Zatz cited the Rail Trail as a priority for the town.  That's $8,750 per interested taxpayer. 

At the 9/5 meeting, there was almost another vote to purchase the rail trail - however Councilman Bialecki (who was not at the previous meeting) said he'd like the town to hold off for another week until the Wed 9/13 meeting. Could it be he's having second thoughts about how the purchase of the Rail Trail might be being "railroaded" by the rest of the town board? Also, Ruth Elwell from the Wallkill Valley Railtrail Association was at the meeting lamenting how much money the care and upkeep of the trail has cost them in the past (tens of thousands of dollars!), and how they just can't keep up the fundraising needed to continue to maintain the property! So, we have to ask, why should the taxpayers be straddled with the cost and the responsibility?  There is NOT ONE GOOD REASON FOR THE TOWN TO SPEND $70k IN TAX MONEY ON THIS PROPERTY!  The Walkill Valley Land Trust who purchased the property for an unknown amount from the railroad, and now wants desperately to offload it to the Town of Gardiner, has threatened to “close” the property to towns’ people according to a recent conversation with one of the town councilmen.  And, we’d love to know exactly how they propose to do it, since it would entail posting and 24/7 supervision of the property, just as it would if the town owned it!  NOT ON OUR DIME…NOT ON OUR TIME! 

WHY?__________________________________________________________

It seems as if our local goverment is bent on the purchase of the "RailTrail" from the Walkill Valley Land Trust, who currently owns the title.  We have a number of potential problems that might arise, both for the town as a prospective owner, and for the private property owners who's land borders the trail.  Some issues are

  1. Lack of policing
  2. Inability to fence property since it is linear, unlike a park such as Majestic
  3. Littering
  4. Privacy intrusions
  5. sanitary issues
  6. vandalism
  7. crime (robberies, rapes, murders)
  8. liability issues for propery owners bordering trail
  9. land title issues, since title usually reverts to original owners when ceased to being used as a railroad.
  10. Easements or buffer issues onto private land
  11. conservation restrictions passing to the town from the trust

The Town of Gardiner has not, to our knowledge, spoken to the people who will be the most directly affected by the "trail" sale, and that's the property owners.  And, like any responsible property buyer, has the town asked the questions of the WVLT about the history of many of the issues listed above?  How many times have the police been called to respond to problems over the years?  How many times has the WVLT been sued or taken to court over liability issues?  What was the original purchase price of the property, and is the trust making undue profit from the one potential buyer?  In other words, are we getting a  good value for the money?

And the most important question for the town is...Why?  Why buy something that is clearly not going anywhere, not likely to be purchased by anyone else, and will need to be constantly maintained by the town at great cost to taxpayers for the indefinite future? If the WV RailTrail Association is having such a difficult time paying for and managing the upkeep of the Rail Trail, why would it be any less difficult for the town?

The recent town wide survey distributed by Supervisor Zatz asked Gardiner voters what their priorities for the town were.  A total of 8 (eight) people stated that the RailTail was a priority for them.  That is 2/10ths of one percent of the voters in the town...a dismal return of support for an unsupportable issue.