|
A Letter from Joan and Werner Wustrau!
We anticipated that the Friends of the Shawangunks would appeal Judge Cahill's ruling. They have endless funds to fight
the case. This organization will fight all property owners big or small that own property in SP1, SP2, and SP3 zones in Gardiner.
We find it hard to apprehend why the Friends of Shawangunks are fighting us - a private landowner owning over 40 acres
(owned over 100 years and paying taxes on it all those years) - to prevent us from putting in a roadway to our property.
It is costing us thousands and thousands of dollars to get our driveway and it is also costing all the taxpayers in the Town
of Gardiner because of the lawsuit against the Town. "Friends" of Shawangunks "; I don't think "Friends"
is an appropriate name and they certainly are not friends to the landowners and taxpayers of Gardiner.
FRIENDS OF SHAWANGUNKS WE SEND YOU A MESSAGE - WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY. We believe we are fighting for all the other
people that own lands by the Ridge.
Werner and Joan Wustrau
New Gardiner Administration off to a Disappointing Start
The new Gardiner Town Board is only a few months old, and has a disappointing record to date. Joe Katz ran a campaign
based on his lack of political party partisanship (he's a Democrat) and on a campaign cry of "Joe for Gardiner".
Warren Weigand (a registered Republican who acts like and caucuses with the Democrats) also tried to give the impression
during the election that he would be moderate and fair minded.
However, campaign promises rarely stand the test of time. One of their first acts in the new administration was to appoint
a fifth town board member to finish out the term that Joe vacated when he became Supervisor. Two very eager and qualified
Republican candidates applied for the position. It was a moment when Warren and Joe could have reached across the aisle and
shown their willingness to bring a qualified Republican candidate on board, particularly in Mike Bonner who lost the Supervisor
position to Joe by a mere 100 votes. Since there would still have been a Democrat majority on the board, it would have cost
them little, but would have shown their willingness to represent all Gardiner residents, not just those of one party.
So, instead of doing the right thing, both Joe and Warren voted to appoint a last minute entry and Democrat, Greg Finger.
In addition to being politically partisan, the board used a possibly illegal and definitely suspect executive session to
deliberate on their choice of board member. This was recently pointed out in a sternly rebuking editorial by the Kingston
Daily Freeman.
Another fault I see is in regard to a public financial report for the town hall construction, or rather the lack of such
a report. During Carl Zatzs' term I called for a report several times in letters to the editor, as well as requesting it
at town board meetings. However, Zatz flatly refused to provide the people with such an accounting. At this past January
meeting, I requested a public report from Supervisor Joe Katz, and was told emphatically "You got it!". Well, several
weeks later I did get a phone call with some dollar amounts quoted. I have since asked the supervisor by e-mail, again for
a written financial recap of the town hall spending, and that it be made publicly available. I haven't heard anything back
as of the writing of this letter.
The last issue is in regard to the town financial health, and a warning by Joe Katz made at the last board meeting. Even
though we are only two months into the fiscal year, he has already issued a caution about likely shortfalls in revenue and
needed belt tightening in every department. Had the board not been so eager to burn through a large majority of the general
fund reserves in the past, there would not be so much hand-ringing now.
This is not what I call"good for Gardiner".
Pam O'Dell/GRIP
Friends missed Some Facts - 12-8-New Paltz Times
The article that Mr. H. Neil Zimmerman (President of Friends of the Shawangunks) wrote that was published on November
22 is missing information relative to the real facts.
Apparently the information was not properly conveyed to him. Our plans were and still are to gain access to our property
via our deeded "right of way" (ROW) through the then-owners of 985 N. Mountain Road. What were requested from the
owners, were a maintenance agreement to be drawn up and a survey for the ROW, which had no description. The new owner, who
is also aware of our ROW, supports our endeavor to open up the ROW. Our submitted plans to the Town of Gardiner were only
for a driveway, not for a house!
We presented our plans for our roadway to both boards - walked the ROW (roadway) to our property with the ZBA twice as
well as with the new owner (several times). We have not at any time presented any plans for construction of a house to either
the planning board or the ZBA.
At one of our many meetings with the ZBA, a member of the board asked: "How do you know that you can get a BOHA for
a house on your property?"
This was seconded by a member of the public who added that she had rocks in her yard on North Mountain Road and did not
think that we could obtain a BOHA on our property.
She said if we couldn't, all the disturbing of the land and trees would be for nothing. A board member and the town's
consultant recommended that we demonstrate a BOHA and to also show its location on the map. We commenced with the preliminary
BOHA, which turned out not to be an issue. We then submitted the new map showing the area where the BOHA preliminary test
was completed as requested by the board.
Additionally during one of Gardiner's past public hearings for the Shawangunk Ridge Protection's zoning regulations and
prior to its adoption, there were discussions about the few land owners who had properties such as ours. They were to be grandfathered
in and given special consideration. However, it was not added (perhaps omitted) to the final current zoning code.
In summary, Ms. Anne Pyburn's November 1 article is more accurate than the information Mr. Zimmerman wants you to believe.
Werner Wustraus
Stormville
Friends Expand to the Lakes (New Paltz Times, 11/29/07)
After reading the letter by H. Neil Zimmerman of the Friends of the Shawangunks in your November 22 issue, I felt I had
to say my peace. I will have to say that his response is very cold and bureaucratic. Here we have a family that has owned
property for over 100 years that have a need to improve their access to it. They are not building a waste dump; they are not
adding a casino. They just want to build a driveway to access their property.
Mr. Zimmerman goes into detail on how this project violates the Shawangunk Ridge Protection regulations. He is correct;
it does violate the stringent regulations. This is why the Wautraus's filed with the ZBA of Gardiner. We have ZBAs because
many regulations can be too strict. The ZBA does the right thing by protecting the little guy and along comes the big land
trust to put a stop to that. God forbid we amend the SRP.
So let's say that the Friends win and the driveway is not built what is the Wautraus's next step? They are going to have
to sell it. And who's going to buy this nice 40 acres? It won't be an individual or a developer. The Friends saw to that.
The only buyer can be the Mohonk Preserve or other land trust who will buy it at well below the market value. And to me that
seems to be the real goal.
This brings me to an issue that is closer to my home.
The Friends are now acting as a fiscal agent for a satellite group, Save the Lakes. Here in Rosendale, Anita Peck is selling
her more than 700-acre resort to a Canopy Development who plans to turn the property into an upscale resort. They also have
plans to acquire other property and possibly add upscale homes. The contracts are signed and the closing is near. Save the
Lakes is doing everything they can to stop this.
My problem with here is two-fold. One, we have an organization telling a landowner who is an acceptable buyer. Two, they
already have stated that there are other buyers, buyers that are acceptable to Save the Lakes. They do not name the buyer,
but their site (www.savethelakes.us) states that it should be protected open space. This would allude to a land trust.
After seeing the tactics that both the Friends and Mohonk Preserve use to preserve open space, I would think twice about
supporting "Save the Lakes." It would be a big mistake for Rosendale residents and especially the neighbors. The
next thing we will see here is a
SRP act of our own. That's bad news.
I think that land preservation is a good goal. Keeping the rural character is a good thing. However, if in that preserving
the land, we have to step on local property owners, then I have a problem.
Thomas C. Shanley
Tillson
Mohonk note didn't impress
In response to Glenn Hoagland's letter last week ("Response from the Mohonk Preserve"), I must set the record
straight. Unfortunately, Mr. Hoagland's statement about the preserve's position on zoning "In sum, we did not take a
position pro or con," is less than truthful. The preserve's support of zoning has been the subject of the preserve's
previous letters to this paper, is also a matter of public record, and is on the preserve's own Web site. It's also disingenuous
for Mr. Hoagland to say the Ridge zoning in Gardiner, which the preserve successfully promoted, and which greatly devalues
land they want to acquire, is somehow not coercive.
Mr. Hoagland claims the preserve does not take any action disrespectful of their neighbors. Disrespect is, in a way, like
infidelity, and the adage "if you don't know if what you are doing is unfaithful, ask your spouse" applies. If the
preserve doesn't know if what they are doing is disrespectful, they should ask their neighbors, and not just the ones in their
pocket.
For a peaceful cohesive community on the ridge, the preserve should do the right thing and promote innovations in conservation
finance, not in addition to, but instead of, zoning. As mentioned in another letter, Jim Levitt is doing just this at the
Harvard Forest. The Harvard Forest, to their great credit, has made no effort to promote confiscatory zoning for their neighbors.
Jim's e-mail is james_levitt@harvard.edu.
Executive Director Glenn Hoagland has consistently pursued actions harmful to preserve neighbors and now Mr. Hoagland
untruthfully claims to have done nothing of the sort. As such, the Mohonk Preserve Board of Directors should ask for his resignation.
The Mohonk Preserve needs an executive director that will genuinely respect its neighbors.
Kent Pierce
Mohonk Preserve Life Endowment Member
Gardiner
Mohonk misses the point
I'm writing regarding Glenn Hoagland of Mohonk Preserve's letter in the November 8 New Paltz Times. Over the years, the
Mohonk Preserve has represented themselves in Town Hall to give their views about Gardiner's zoning and land use, master plan,
building moratoriums and any other issue that might affect their status as a private, members-only parkland. They have the
same right to do so as Kent Pierce or I, or any other landowner on the ridge. However, while Mohonk Preserve claims to be
just "one of the many landowners along the Ridge," there is one vast difference between them and us, which is that
we pay taxes to the Town of Gardiner and they don't. Granted, they give a paltry "donation" to the town every year
of a couple of thousand dollars, but it falls way short of what their fair share of the burden should be.
Moreover, while Mohonk Preserve states that Kent Pierces claims are "patently false," there is one fact that
is indisputable. The Mohonk Preserve's "partner" in the Shawangunk Biodiversity group, the Friends of the Shawangunks,
is suing the town of Gardiner and one of its fellow neighbors on the Ridge, the Wustraus. Not the most friendly and neighborly
thing to do just because the Wustraus want to be able to access their land. Furthermore, all of the pretty speeches about
land and water preservation will not make their actions any less distasteful to many of us in Gardiner.
Pamela J. O'Dell
GRIP (Gardiner Residents for
Individual Property Rights)
ON SPECIAL INTEREST ZONING
Once again here in Gardiner our property rights are under attack. Savetheridge, founded to keep Awosting Reserve from
development, is advocating "strong enforcement of the Ridge zoning law," which is their code for no variances for
individual landowners in SP-3, not even for pre-existing lots.
Savetheridge advocates that Gardiner continue to cooperate with "conservation organizations." The multi-million
dollar Mohonk Preserve and multi-billion dollar Nature Conservancy have used out-of-state money to pay the same consultant
the Gardiner Town Board used to write its master plan, a master plan that promotes zoning and tourism.
The Mohonk Preserve helped write and then lobbied to pass the divisive ridge zoning law, which furthers their interests
at the direct expense of their neighbors. The town might as well have a Mohonk Preserve sticker up on the Town Hall door.
We need a Town Board that recognizes that Gardiner's interests should not be synonymous with or subordinate to the interests
of the very wealthy Mohonk Preserve and Nature Conservancy.
The Ridge zoning law has been a disaster for individual ridge landowners, most of whom are elderly, of very modest means
and politically disenfranchised. Some have had to fend off the law, before passage, by investing, collectively, hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Others have just had to take the hit. Because of the confiscatory ridge zoning law their land might
now be worth half, or less, of what is was before passage of the law.
The Ridge zoning law has also been a disaster for any sense of community in Gardiner. In the words of Joel Russell, the
attorney who wrote the zoning law, "there will be winners and losers."
In the words of Town Board member Matt Bialecki, "live and let live isn't good enough anymore" for landowners
on the ridge.
Elderly, politically disenfranchised ridge landowners are the ones losing and being left to die. This is shameful. The
Gardiner Ridge zoning law has been driven like a wooden stake through the heart of Ridge landowners and so too through the
heart of the community itself, pitting neighbor against neighbor, dividing the community.
It doesn't have to be this way. The Mohonk Preserve, the Nature Conservancy, Savetheridge and the Gardiner Town Board
Democrats have all promoted confiscatory punitive zoning to limit development on the flanks of the ridge.
In contrast, recognizing that "people don't want the government in their backyards," the Harvard Forest has
promoted the use of conservation financing, instead of zoning, to limit encroaching development on their borders. Zoning hurts
individual landowners and divides communities. Conservation finance unites individual landowners and conservation organizations
and strengthens community.
In Gardiner we have a clear choice in this election between the Democrats and the Republicans. The democrats support more
taxation, an eco-socialist agenda and laws that deeply divide the community. Republicans Mike Bonner, Bruce Chapman and Ron
Bonagura support fiscal restraint, fairness in the conduct of town affairs, and a united community.
Kent Pierce
Gardiner
GUESS WHO WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT?
Are you tired of paying higher taxes? If you are, listen to this. Gardiner wants to buy land that is for sale for its open
space program. They want to take out a $1.2 million bond. Guess who will have to pay for it? If your house is worth $260,000,
you will have to pay an additional $51 in taxes every year for the rest of your life because taxes never go down. You can
be sure it will only continue to go up. If your house is worth more, you will have to pay more. The cost of living is so high
and going higher. There are people who cannot afford this - senior citizens, people living on fixed incomes and people who
are living from paycheck to paycheck where both parents have to work to support their families.
In addition, Gardiner needs $75,000 to buy the rail trail, but they do not tell you what it is going to cost to maintain
the rail trail and the open space land.
Also, Gardiner is $25,000 short in its funds for the highway program. In 2000, five people paid $10,000 each to have their
road paved by the Town of Gardiner. To date, the road has not been paved and they do not know where the money went. I am sure
there are more surprises in store for us.
Be sure to vote "no" on the bond issue in November. If not, be prepared to continue to pay higher taxes. They
are driving out the people who can least afford it. This will not affect the businessman or the wealthy. They can use it as
a tax write-off, which most taxpayers cannot do. The town board already spent $51,000 on the open space plan, and it hasn't
even been voted on by the voters. If it is not approved, it is gone with the wind.
A public hearing on the open space program is scheduled to be held at the next town board meeting at Gardiner town hall.
You can be sure they will try to paint a pretty picture, but what will not be pretty is what the picture will cost you and
me. Something to gain in the long run, so let your voices be heard. Tell your friends and neighbors to be sure to vote "no"
on the bond issue in November. If it is passed, this will give them a free hand to raise our taxes whenever they want to.
They are up to no good. Let's stop them.
David Dawson
Gardiner
SAY "NO" TO THE BOND REFERENDUM
Voters in Gardiner, New Paltz Marbletown and other area towns are being asked to make a choice on November 7th when they go
to the polls. Some anonymous signs along the road wrongly suggest that a "yes" vote will be for "open space",
but in reality it would be a yes vote for a tax levy by each town on all property owners. This would mean giving town governments
the authority to go into debt to buy land or development rights in the name of taxpayers.
Saying "yes" has more to do with controlling landowner usage than preserving open space. There is not enough
private support and funding for land trusts such as the Open Space Institute or Wallkill Valley Land Trust to purchase the
development rights. They need to "partner with" and tap into government funds supported by tax dollars in order
to impose their goals and ambitions on others.
I attended a public hearing for the bond referendum where two large landowners/farmers in Gardiner each spoke out against
such a proposal. They ask that the town governments not raise taxes to help "save" their land, as this ends up being
the most costly for them, the largest landowners. They asked that we go to their farmstands and buy their goods, just as we
would with any business we want to keep and help. Basically, they would like the governments to mind their own businesses,
not the landowners.
Remember, voting yes means voting for higher taxes, bigger government and impositions on property rights too numerous
to go into in this letter. In order to prevent local governments from overreaching their powers and to stop using your tax
money to purchase real estate, say "no" to the bond referendum on Election Day. For well thought out, unexaggerated,
straightforward information regarding the bond referendums and how they will affect your constitutional rights and your wallet,
go to www.gripnow.net for answers.
Pam O'Dell, Gardiner
NO EXTRA MONEY TO BUY LAND
As a Gardiner resident, I must ask to be excused from fiscal responsibility of the open land bond, should it pass. I have
no extra money to buy land, even if it is a good idea. You see, I am retiring soon and, already, it will take two of my twelve
Social Security checks to pay the existing school and town taxes. That leaves me with ten checks to live on for the year,
and I want to live in Gardiner for the rest of my life.
Some suggest that I should delight in the increase of my property's value thanks to the many new "luxury homes"
in my backyard. However, this increase has only resulted in a raise in my taxes, further jeopardizing my ability to pay my
way in Gardiner. My home (and land) is first and foremost my home and only later an investment.
Hopefully, our community is made up of homeowners and not real estate investors. I believe we have the means of protecting
and preserving our community and the beauty that surrounds us - private trusts, zoning regulations, a considerate community
- to name a few.
Regarding the open space bond, I will vote "no" for myself and the many other residents who consider Gardiner
their homes, first and foremost.
Patricia Capers
Gardiner
BANANA Republic!
The Gardiner Open Space bond referendum which will appear on the ballot this November, and the Open Space Plan which it will
fund, are anti-development to the extreme. They are perfect examples of the BANANA attitude - Build Almost Nothing Anywhere
Near Anything.
According to the Gardiner Open Space Committee, the bond will be used as seed money to fund purchases of land to keep
it undeveloped. And as "seed money," it will spark grants for further purchases and start the snowball effect of
keeping more and more land undeveloped. No cap has been set on how much of Gardiner will be "undeveloped." Estimates
have between 18 and 25 percent of Gardiner already permanently protected from development.
Up to now the owner of a sizeable piece of land could look forward either to continuing to pay taxes on it for the privilege
of having all that space around him, or he could plan to develop and allow homes to be built where people could live. Now,
the pressure is on him either to go into some kind of preservation/conservation scheme, or risk losing out on his development
potential when the new zoning laws are passed. These new laws are presently being written, and promise to be restrictive and
exclusionary. And just to insure that no "bad-guy" developer can sneak in before these new laws are enacted, the
moratorium now in effect, is about to be extended.
In addition to the $1.5 million bond, Gardiner's open space plan calls for setting up a town fund dedicated to purchasing
ever more land for the purpose of keeping it undeveloped. Tax money could be funneled into the fund without a by your leave
from taxpayers.
This is the nifty way the town of Gardiner plans to keep new folks from realizing the American dream within our borders.
Marion Kells
Former Gardiner town supervisor
The Numbers Don't Add Up! by Bill Barrett
The proponents of the open space bond issue in Gardiner have been playing fast and loose with numbers of late, and this needs
to be rebutted.
Before we delve into that, a quick aside; the proposed '07 town budget is calling for a 50% increase in the amount to
be raised by taxes.
The town board admits that they have no idea what the interest rate available to the town on a bond will be. The deliberately
understated tax increase to pay for the bond would require that the bond interest rate be 4.5%. With the NYS Controller's
office forensic accounting auditors having been back and looking at the books again over the past 5 months, the likely available
interest rate will be at least twice that. (and this is probably a diplomatically positive assessment).
Lew Eisenberg, chairman of the open space committee, has stated that the town has an initial "5 Year Plan" with
a goal of restricting the usage of 300 acres per year for 5 years. This is 1,500 acres at a cost of about $10,000 per acre.
The total cost is $15 million, or more. Paying this debt will necessitate a 1000% increase in taxes for the next 20 years.
Vote "no" on the bond!
Conservation or Exploitation by Lois Hegeman
Is Gardiner's "Open Space Plan" conservation or exploitation? Many pages in the OSP refer to plans for encouraging
tourism on our highways, minor roads, and in our little Hamlet. The scenery, farms and wine trails, historical sights, and
the Green way and Blue Way will be used to draw on the 10's of thousands of tourists that come to the mountain each year.
49 miles of signed scenic roads swallowed up by motor vehicles heading to the Hamlet of Gardiner.
There's a plan in motion to enhance the Hamlets appeal. New sidewalks are coming soon. Planning has begun for the Green
Way Trail that will connect the rail trail to the Town Hall, Library, Majestic Park, the boat ramp at the river and later
to other major Hubs. Miles of paths along our rivers sprinkled with boat launches, and swimming and picnic areas will create
the Blue Way Trail. It will take long term dedication, effort, resources, staff and funding. We also need brochures and promotional
materials to accomplish these goals. We will have to spend considerable amounts of money on land easements, land purchases,
picnic areas, signs, and boat ramps. To build our new resources, and to maintain them, we will need management. We will need
lots of Tax and Bond money, along with any grants we may receive. Will these expenditures be disbursed at the discretion of
the volunteer CAC? It's quite a plan, and it is so easy to get carried away when it’s someone else's money you're
spending.
The State limits the number of visitors allowed on the Gunk's, due to the strain on the ecosystem. Trails along the rivers
can become a major problem if we use ecologically significant wildlife habitat trails. Who will do our environmental testing?
Who patrols our rivers and walkways?
There is no mention of payment for these recreational privileges. I guess it's at our expense. What is the cost of upkeep?
Will we need more parking lots and rest rooms? What if the money is spent and only a few come? What if many do? Will it be
too busy for the local population to enjoy? What about the congestion from vehicles and pedestrians? Will Gardiner be a quiet
little Hamlet? I would like to see the return on my investment if I'm going to pay the price.
Gardiner is going to continue to grow, including industry, with or without the "Open Space Plan" and tourists. Taxes
will continue to go up, faster with the plan. We do not need the town to borrow for what will not be a benefit to the taxpayers.
Just Vote No
Voters in Gardiner, New Paltz, Marbletown and other area towns are being asked to make a choice on November 7th when they
go to the polls. Some anonymous signs along the road wrongly suggest that a "yes" vote will be for "open space"
but in reality it would be a yes vote for a tax levy by each town on all property owners . This would mean giving town governments
the authority to go into debt to buy land or development rights in the name of taxpayers.
Saying "yes" has more to do with controlling landowner usage than preserving open space. There is not enough
private support and funding for land trusts such as the Open Space Institute or Wallkill Valley Land Trust to purchase the
development rights. They need to "partner with" and tap into government funds supported by tax dollars in order
to impose their goals and ambitions on others.
I attended a public hearing for the bond referendum where two large landowners/farmers in Gardiner each spoke out against
such a proposal. They ask that the town governments not raise taxes to help "save" their land, as this ends up
being the most costly for them, the largest landowners. They asked that we go to their farm stands and buy their goods, just
as we would with any business we want to keep and help. Basically, they would like the governments to mind their own businesses,
not the landowners.
Remember, voting yes means voting for higher taxes, bigger government, and impositions on property rights too numerous
to go into in this letter. In order to prevent local governments from overreaching their powers and to stop using your tax
money to purchase real estate, say "NO" to the bond referendum on Election day. For well thought out, unexaggerated,
straightforward information regarding the bond referendums and how they will affect your constitutional rights and your wallet,
go to www.gripnow.net.
MONEY MATTERS
A 9/28 article in the New Paltz Times discussed the county auditor's inability to get direct answers about money from the
Ulster County Environmental Management Council (EMC). Questions revolve around how some $2.6 million dollars of county tax
money was spent, and in particular a $50,000 invoice and subsequent payment to the Lower Esopus River Watch, a land trust
with questionable viability. Concerns about spending of taxpayer dollars by unqualified volunteer and appointed committees
were voiced by county legislators, including Gardiner's Tracy Bartels who stated the need for oversight "instead of relying
on a commission heavily reliant on volunteers and partnerships to perform the necessary functions".
I fear that with the creation of a Conservation Advisory Council as called upon by the Open Space Committee and chairman
Lew Eisenberg, will create a similar problem in our own town of Gardiner. Although the Open Space Plan calls for an unbiased
volunteer group, no indication of qualifications, selection process, length of term or other details are given. Based on
a letter to the editor of the New Paltz Times by Lewis Eisenberg, it seems that "interest" is the only qualification
required to apply for a council spot. However, this Council could potentially be responsible for the spending of millions
of taxpayer dollars, both in terms of where and how they will be doled out. What will the accountability of the CAC be to
taxpayers? What oversight will be provided for the spending of your money? More importantly, this group of appointed citizens
will have decision power in the planning and the use of private property....your property, possibly even over and above that
of the Planning Board.
The bond referendum for $1.5 million set to be on the November 7th ballot is more than the current year general fund budget
for the town. If passed, the Open Space Plan sets out provisions to have non-elected, non-accountable, and potentially inexperienced
volunteers in charge of these funds. Somehow, this seems to be putting Gardiner on the same course for financial problems
as we are now having at the county level.
Before Gardiner puts significant tax dollars and powerful land use decisions in the hands of non elected officials, we
should be aware of the current problems in the county, and consider the implications. Yes, volunteers make wonderful contributions
in Gardiner, and we need them. But do we want to pass the future of our town over to them, with no direct oversight and accountability
by the people? I think it's sending us down a very slippery slope.
NOT TO WORRY
Over and over again David Straus and Hal Chorney try to make it look like the property rights movement is against any zoning
or restrictions of any kind on landowners.
This is ridiculous on the face of it. Every owner of a large or small parcels of land in Gardiner is fully aware of restrictions
on use of their land. It is foolish of David and Hal or any others who make similar comments, to keep beating this dead horse.
Zoning has been in effect in Gardiner for decades. Neither the “adult” shop nor the slaughterhouse can move next
door to a residence. In fact, they would not be possible anywhere in Gardiner. The zoning in effect for years in this town
was sufficient to protect us from predatory developers. The new zoning is controlling and exclusionary.
Get a grip, David and Hal.
Some insight about the Open Space Plan - all of the preservation tools that are outlined
in the plan are available to willing landowners right now and there is no need to have such a plan in place.
As was pointed out at the town board public hearing, landowers such as board member Joe Katz have put parts of their
properties into conservation easements in conjunction with the Wallkill Land Trust. GRIP does not advocate this type
of property restriction, but landowners should have the right to enter into whatever legal deals they want to. YOU DO
NOT NEED AN OPEN SPACE PLAN TO CONSERVE OR PROTECT YOUR LAND! The main reason to have such a plan is FUNDING....as it
gives the town the legal footing to RAISE TAX MONEY FROM TAXPAYERS TO FUND THE PROGRAMS. The Open Space Plan's main
function is to give the town authorization to make government bigger, and raise funds through tax dollars. Everything
else can be done without benefit of having a formal plan in place.
If there were enough private funds to support these programs, the land trusts would not need
the governments help to raise money. We think that all of the supporters of the Open Space Plan and the bond referendum
should pool their money privately, and not depend on the town government and taxpayers to foot the bill.
_____________________________________________________________________
LET'S LOOK BEFORE WE LEAP
Recent
letters to this paper concern open space, taxes and the bond for an open space study. Some letters say that opposing the bond
is short-sighted, and the insignificant increase in taxes is a small price to pay, and we need to look to the future to preserve
our open space.
My family and I have
lived here for over 30 years. We have a little over three acres. I would like to see open space preserved, but I would also
like to be able to afford to stay here.
Since we need to look to the future, let's review some basic information, specifically regarding taxes:
- the town of Gardiner needs X dollars each year to operate, and it always
increases.
- the town funds the increases
by raising taxes
- farms currently
pay less taxes based on agricultural exemptions
- if additional land (other than current farmland) are given tax breaks, the tax rate on the rest of properties needs
to increase to make up the difference.
-
if an additional layer of local government is added, taxes will increase more
Most people would agree (my opinion) that they would rather have farms than housing developments.
Many of the letters to this newspaper say the best way to accomplish this is to go forward with the open space plan and accept
the small tax increase that it entails.
But is that the only way, and is it, in the long term, just a small tax increase?
Chapter 5 of the Gardiner Open Space Plan is the "Strategic Action Plan." Section 1 calls
for "long-term professional staff/consultant support, local funding (to serve as a match for state, federal and private funds)",
"options such as purchase of development rights (PDR), transfer of development rights (TDR), and comprehensive land asset
management planning (CAMP)." My belief is that the $1,500,000 bond is just a drop in the bucket toward funding this program.
In an article two weeks ago, a woman who has 29 acres is looking
forward to reducing her taxes with the open space incentives. This past week has a man who owns 130 acres looking to reduce
his taxes this way also. How many more people are looking to do the same? What about those who say open space will increase
the value of your home and the taxes you pay (a la Larchmont in Westchester
County)? And the math is very simple. When these folks' tax bills decrease,
my tax bill increases. So the short term, small tax increase could be a significant long term, large tax increase. And I guess
the question I'm asking is how much more do you want me to pay so you can pay less?
Is there an alternative? If the proposed bond were to help buy development rights from
the current farmers, I would be for it, since they already have the agricultural exemptions (but this assumes that the farmers
would want to sell their rights; they need to decide that themselves). What I'm not willing to do is to pay more taxes so
someone can maintain their 130-acre spread at a reduced rate.
For those who would like to contribute to the open space in Gardiner, there is something you can do today. Go to your
lawyer and have a covenant/deed restriction added to the deed for your land. You can structure it any way you like so that
the space remains open for future generations. I don't know if it will give you a tax break, but you will have the satisfaction
of preserving open space. And if enough like-minded people do that, you may have your open space without more government.
I'm not against open space, but I would also like to see tax
increases minimized. The folks who put together the open space plan have done a lot of work so far, but I do not believe it
is in the best interest of the Town of Gardiner to adopt it
as written, nor for the citizens to rush to approve the bond.
The Strategic Action Plan states "an aggressive program is recommended for the town" and "should be pursued immediately".
I suggest proceeding at a slower pace, to understand the real costs involved, and to get a better handle on how this new level
of bureaucracy would interact with the Town Board, the Planning Board, and the Zoning Board.
This is not just about open space, it's about a adding a significant layer of local government,
with a price tag that has yet to be determined.
Rich Koenig
Gardiner
|
