Thanks for the needed rationality on the land use issues, Will. It seems a reasonable outcome given the history and prior use and will greatly benefit a locality that needs it.
The dialogue around conservation and development has gotten very unbalanced. In facts, it’s BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.)
I’m just wondering if a developer from Texas understands that a golf course in the Adirondacks will be unusable at least 6 months out of the year, if not more, considering mud season and blackfly season…Or is he counting on climate change to do away with winter? It has been trending that way. As long as the Park regulations are followed and some thought is given to planning the hotel and homes so as to do as little disturbance as possible, the money and jobs will be a boon to the area. It may not be untouched wilderness, but I notice in the little hamlet that I live in that the houses and roads do not seem to be completely deterring the local wildlife. We have bears, deer, foxes, raccoons, possums, rabbits, turkeys, songbirds…Some animals do better in habitat with edges and fields instead of unbroken climax forest.
My chief concern is not that they may build some homes or open a full-fledged hotel. It's the golf course. The amounts of water and fertilizers required to maintain this kind of golf course is huge. My association with that area ended 50 years ago, but I have many fond childhood memories spent at my grandparents Lake Champlain and Lake George properties. What I also remember were many conversations about the water supply being difficult to access, requring very deep wells, etc. I wonder what a golf course will do to that supply.
Hidden in your comment is the fact that fertilizer doesn't cling to blades of grass, that are on a golf course.
It seeps into the water supply we all depend on; it is part of the fauna (insects, small mammals, etc) that lives that and part of the food chain leads to the food we eat... A golf course is proof we learned nothing from Rachel Carson
Will: Your right that the 36,000 acres comprising the Whitney Estate is not pristine, but the many lakes rivers and streams there represent an enormous conservation and recreational opportunity that I hope isn't roped off from public access once the dust settles on whoever successfully acquires the property. I know, I know, many will say that we have plenty of that in the nearly 3 million acres that is already publicly owned in the Adirondacks. But the Park is a very special place, like none other east of the Mississippi, and the Whitney tract, with its system of existing roads and waterways could make this great estate easily accessible to an aging population and persons with disabilities. Some additional development consistent with the Park's private land use plan is also fine; 36,000 acres is a big palate. But blaming the Hochul Administration, btw, is ridiculous. The property just came on the market and the state simply cannot act that quickly, nor should it with all the other pressing needs it faces. I'm still optimistic that a good solution will be worked out that respects the exceptional beauty of this property and accommodates both public and private use.
remember that the network of roads they list are mostly logging roads. If logging stops the cost of maintaining those roads, nevermind improving them would be prohibitive. But certainly some number would be useful to access some pretty nice spots.
Yes, our efforts to preserve and conserve our natural resources in the Adirondack Park are flawed and subject to criticism. But they are no more flawed than the desire of private interests to abuse and misuse those very same natural resources.
Given the nature of public and private interests in our country, we’ll always have tension between those advocating the development of our natural resources for private gain and those advocating the preservation and conservation of those resources for public use. And we’ll always have a debate over the form and substance of private gain verses preservation.
The forces for private gain are strong. In order to preserve and conserve our natural resources in the Adirondack Park, we need a strong counter-balance. I’m grateful that the Adirondack Park Agency exists as a means to protect the natural resources of the Adirondack Park and as a counter-balance to the forces of private gain.
Other than being disappointed in John Hendrickson in many ways, may he rest in peace, I agree with your rational response to the sale of the land to a TX developer. It's expensive to run a golf course and a resort, especially without HB1 workers.
Thanks for the update on Beans and for the pulse on spring in Glens Falls, with music.
...one source says the word, Adirondacks, is from the Mohawk language, and translates as: "they (who) eat trees" [aka, "bark eaters"] / -also see the Adirondack mountain range nickname [probably among others] is "Dacks" (or, perhaps, the Dax). / The view expressed in the above article, of the [imminent?] sale of the Whitney acreage, seems philosophical; and practical (and, of course: controversial). / That [busy as a] bee- is a busy beaver: busy beever? [thank you for the video]. / Wonderful photograph of Beans and Ringo. Beans is cool. [Ringo is cool.] Long live Beans!!! [Long live Ringo!!!]...
The original asking price of $189 million was ludicrous. So is $125 million. We will see if that ends up being the actual sale price, but if it is it has serious consequences for land valuation within the Park and beyond. It will become even harder for ordinary people to afford to own property.
If the sale price is actually $125 million, or $100 million, or $75 million (all those prices too much) then that is $125 million that the state could better spend in protecting lands that do not have the protections afforded within the Park, lands that are under greater threat, and lands that are far more likely to be visited by the general public. Deerlands is very remote. I don’t know if anyone reading this has been there, it’s a long trip just getting there - which is one reason there has been little development there in the first place. I’ll address that separately.
The economics of this supposed resort make no sense to me if the sale price is $125 million. There are people willing to drop tens of millions of dollars on investments in art, antiquities, and in the case of the Brandon property bought by Jack Ma, $28 million (or something) on what he planned as a nature reserve.
But the cost of a planned unit development including some number of home sites, a hotel, and a hotel probably is another $25 million.
Simply delivering materials to build is a huge logistical problem. They would likely need to build a concrete batch plant to pour foundations. The road to the site would be broke up by the delivery vehicles needed to build a large resort. The power grid would likely need a huge upgrade.
And then you have to have workers. The Whitney’s had caretakers, housekeepers, and locals hired for maintenance, but those numbers are far lower than the workers needed for a hotel and golf course. The number of residents within an hour drive of Deerlands is maybe 15,000 people. How many of them want to drive an hour to change sheets and clean toilets? Or mow lawns?
So there needs to be housing for mostly foreign workers. I don’t know if anyone had heard about the situation with foreign workers these days…
Simply delivering groceries twice a week would be expensive.
So, how do you make a profit in this investment? You need a large number of very wealthy people to buy in and to want to keep coming back.
IMO the reason these sorts of development schemes in and around the Park fail is not the regulatory oversight, but the simple economics and the fact that very wealthy people have the choice of a whole world to explore.
Edit: correction on Jack Ma property, 28,100 acres for about $23 million.
People like to complain that the APA prevents development through complicated regulation. They point to failure of the Big Tupper development. But basically at the same time there was the Mont Luzerne development being planned in Lake Luzerne literally on the Blue Line border but outside the Park. After a long review process the development received approval. So there’s a giant development up there now because it’s close to populated areas, and services, and potential workers, yet feels as remote as anywhere?
Um, no. Because the economics of the project did not work. They never even started on the first building.
You simply can’t trust people to not infringe of the rights of others. There need to be rules. And most of the rules are crafted in ways that make projects better. The rules are refined over time.
I suspect that if people had stopped fighting the APA and tried to build communities that were dense and filled with services we would have stronger, more resilient communities within the Park today.
If people don’t like zoning they should move to Whitehall.
I have little tolerance for the idea that the lack of compromise was one-sided. Sure, there are individual examples, but the really big issue was in local control and in many or most of those fights residents an local governments cut off their noses to spite their faces. Towns like Tupper Lake and Lake Luzerne would go through their local government process to write a Master Plan that would exempt them from APA oversight for nearly any project but then the vote to accept the plan their own citizens put together would be voted down - leaving them to be governed by the APA.
Also, having worked in the development industry within the Park I found that most family home projects had no problem getting approval, but there were always people - most of them with lakefront property - who would openly discuss their plans to subvert regulations, usually after CO was granted.
But somehow many ordinary people who wouldn’t try to skirt regulations sided with wealthier people who did.
Excellent points. I don’t have the answer. Maybe they just really love the woods, which they don’t have much of in Texas, do they? I should call Sean Todd and ask him
Tell me about it.. the first two years, I went through the top square so I wouldn't be in TX long (make any purchases like gas, food and in fact this year on the way back I stopped for the night in Clayton, NM, so I wouldn't spend money in TX..
But to go to Big Bend (and there is no choice from New Orleans) you have to go through the fat part of Texas. Even heading up to Carlsbad Cavern NP was short, but in TX. Sadly I enjoyed Big Bend NP so much... will do it again next year.
Short of going maybe 2,000 miles out of my way and coming up through Mexico... the choices are small.
In approximately 300 words (I had my computer count) you showed that most issues can not be summarized into a jingo.
And you just listed a start of the problems with some (most?) of the projects.
There is a large hotel on Lake Flower (the current off-season price starts at $180)... which I guess is affordable for many... but as you start, what were and are the consequences.
The first owners failed, it was poorly run (in one year they had five changes in chefs). As predicted it would cause congestion where it is located... that has been true even when it has low occupancy, if they new owners succeed the bottle neck will stop traffic (not just for me going to the grocery story, but for emergency vehicles).
But there are so many dishonest prophecies in the projection. If you look at their video.. you would assume a stay will be you and a love one roasting a hotdog.. you will be the only boat on the lake (no way you are getting that solitude if the place is even half full)..
So you pave paradise and put up a Joni Mitchell museum.. what are you left with...
In part, no other way. There is the sentiment that it will create jobs, but (as you pointed out) it brings workers to the area (either to compete with who lives here or to do the jobs no one here will do) I am not against jobs, but few people think about what that means
Every project says: creates a million jobs (or some such promise), but those jobs often go to people who are moved into the area and out of the area once the job is done.
A couple things appear to happen when 'jobs are created' One is competition. I am sure the project here will provide some local contractors work.. but it will also bring in contractors those local people now have to compete with...
Those jobs are often a monolith... As in I don't think what ever is done with the Whitney Estate there will be more account jobs or more research scientist jobs.. or any of the jobs that are part of the brain drain (where a local person goes to college, but doesn't comeback because they learned a profession that isn't available in the Adirondacks...
I don't like the way that SL hotel looks, and my recollection is that the local process was less deliberative than good-ole-boy rubber-stamp. But, I can't blame people in Saranac Lake for being willing to sacrifice a nice view on the way in to the village and endure some traffic trouble for the chance at a little bit more prosperity. It always has seemed way too big for the location and the market to me.
This is one of those things, everyone has an opinion. I am not sure I dislike its look or not.. I had been in it and found it a bit distasteful ('Adirondack Furniture - with metal frames that looked like it was made in China; an 'antler' chandelier that was made of plastic.) You can't try to look rustic and Adirondack-y and also look like a NY City hotel..
I am guessing some like it.. but to my traffic concern to get approval (not sure about your rubber-stamp thought) they had to say there would be off-site parking... I don't think it has been full enough for that to happen, but it does touch about too big (to fail) to fit
For anyone pinning their hopes on Todd being a good steward of private land within the Adirondack Park, they should think twice. This on Todd’s actions in Texas:
"Todd Interests moves forward with construction on land of former Fairfield Lake State Park"
I don't see anything reprehensible there. They're building fancy homes on the site of a former park. But it's not as if they stole the land. The site was privately owned by a power company, and the power company sold it to Todd Interests. Some people who liked the park were understandably unhappy. But Todd Interests didn't do anything underhanded.
But for me and many others, that’s the point. Private interests are by definition for private gain and not good stewardship.
Perhaps the Whitney Park sale will take place and the proposed development will be somewhat sustainable and not as ecologically damaging as it could have been. Or perhaps there will be avoidable damage done, either now or years in the future.
Something can be legal and still be reprehensible.
Thank you Will, for pointing out aspects that I would not have reasoned on my own. This private land is part of a way of life that is completely alien to me and to many others, but it has existed for those who could afford it, long before I had any consciousness of economic classes. I agree that there are consequences that should be addressed if the actions become harmful to flora, fauna and the communities affected by these developments. Somehow, I'm sorry that my skepticism tells me that the very rich will find ways to circumvent the rules. Still, I appreciate everyone's input and research in this discussion.
For the most part development has not been by the old money wealthy. The Whitney’s were pretty good stewards of their land. Brandreth Park neighboring the Deerlands tract is another large estate that has remained “pristine” while being managed and in private hands.
The real rape of the Adirondacks happened 100 years and more ago when timber barons basically clear cut their holdings for the short term value of timber then left vast tracts of wasteland to fall back into state ownership when they didn’t continue to pay taxes.
It is another consideration for owners - taxes. Which is why it seems bizarre that the new owners would overpay by so much, because that value becomes the amount they will have to pay taxes on.
Owners like the Whitney’s, long term holders like Finch Pruyn or International Paper, managed their forests and sold timber to provide some income, but also pay the taxes and provide revenue for maintenance.
They might be better off building a Miniature Golf Course like we see locally with a few recycling -water-mini-ponds to diminish the need for depleting natural water sources! Suitable for kids and aging grandparents to make it a family-friendly attraction.
Thanks for giving us a portion of Bea’s performance. 🎼. Her voice -whether in song and in her writings - is a true treasure to us all!
Thanks Will, for the coverage and the compliments. It is always sweet to see you, Bella and Ringo about town as you do your utmost for your family (Beans too!) and for our community.
Your facts about Whitney Park are correct and it’s true that the overwhelming bulk of the land will remain untouched. Peter Bauer et all are purists and (though he, Peter specifically) tends to belong winded) their voices are important to the Adirondacks.
My only objection is to the building of a golf course all of which are environmentally horrible misuses of any land… tough crap you golfers. It’s the truth!
Are they always? I bet there are ways to do green golf courses. I used to live near an old but still occasionally open to customers course — Saranac Inn. I don’t recall ever seeing sprinklers going. I don’t know if they used pesticides or herbicides but I’m guessing there are alternatives to the toxic stuff. They mowed Saranac Inn a little bit but mostly just left it alone, as far as I could tell.
You can most definitely do golf courses without toxic chemicals and costly irrigation. There is one south of Salem that is quite beautiful, but it is not manicured like the country clubs you see on TV. When it gets dry and doesn’t rain for a while, the grass gets brown just like people’s lawns do, and a close look at the ground reveals that not all that is green IS grass. I think it’s even prettier, but I wonder if people who can afford what that hotel sounds like it’s going to have to charge will think so. I hadn’t thought much about the environmental costs of a manicured golf course, but now I would say if it’s not going to be au naturel, it should not be built in the Park.
I love Beans and all his cousins at our Pennsylvania home. This year we have three fawns prancing about or snugged by their moms against the house for safety from the foxes and their offspring. I sit out reading in the summer sun with the ubiquitous, chattering squirrels, facing down, on the lookout. No glasses or hearing aids for them.
Appreciate your take. The pendulum needs to swing back to a point of sustainability for all. Anyone who’s witnessed the changes since 1972 clearly see the need but few of us remain since we had to leave.
Thanks for the various perspectives today. Much appreciated. Deja Vu at The Spot is often a Saturday afternoon destination for Meg and me. Bea and her guys are "fantabulous."
Thanks Mike. I'm grateful for your information and insight and how this will have a ripple effect on land and home owners within the park. They are an education for this former down-stater.
Thanks for the needed rationality on the land use issues, Will. It seems a reasonable outcome given the history and prior use and will greatly benefit a locality that needs it.
The dialogue around conservation and development has gotten very unbalanced. In facts, it’s BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.)
I’m just wondering if a developer from Texas understands that a golf course in the Adirondacks will be unusable at least 6 months out of the year, if not more, considering mud season and blackfly season…Or is he counting on climate change to do away with winter? It has been trending that way. As long as the Park regulations are followed and some thought is given to planning the hotel and homes so as to do as little disturbance as possible, the money and jobs will be a boon to the area. It may not be untouched wilderness, but I notice in the little hamlet that I live in that the houses and roads do not seem to be completely deterring the local wildlife. We have bears, deer, foxes, raccoons, possums, rabbits, turkeys, songbirds…Some animals do better in habitat with edges and fields instead of unbroken climax forest.
Well, if they don't know about the weather, the black flies, etc., they'll have a rude awakening. My guess is they do.
The flies are bigger in Texas. :)
Fire ants
It would be fun to relive some of the sledding adventures folks used to have at the C.C.
My chief concern is not that they may build some homes or open a full-fledged hotel. It's the golf course. The amounts of water and fertilizers required to maintain this kind of golf course is huge. My association with that area ended 50 years ago, but I have many fond childhood memories spent at my grandparents Lake Champlain and Lake George properties. What I also remember were many conversations about the water supply being difficult to access, requring very deep wells, etc. I wonder what a golf course will do to that supply.
Hidden in your comment is the fact that fertilizer doesn't cling to blades of grass, that are on a golf course.
It seeps into the water supply we all depend on; it is part of the fauna (insects, small mammals, etc) that lives that and part of the food chain leads to the food we eat... A golf course is proof we learned nothing from Rachel Carson
And a lot more salt on the roads to get to the development, too.
and perhaps into the wounds created in the landscape
as in rubbing salt into the wounds
There is tons of water nearby
Also, there is a sustainable golf courses effort: https://sustainable.golf/courses/
Thank you as always Will, for the grounding words and this poem.
Will: Your right that the 36,000 acres comprising the Whitney Estate is not pristine, but the many lakes rivers and streams there represent an enormous conservation and recreational opportunity that I hope isn't roped off from public access once the dust settles on whoever successfully acquires the property. I know, I know, many will say that we have plenty of that in the nearly 3 million acres that is already publicly owned in the Adirondacks. But the Park is a very special place, like none other east of the Mississippi, and the Whitney tract, with its system of existing roads and waterways could make this great estate easily accessible to an aging population and persons with disabilities. Some additional development consistent with the Park's private land use plan is also fine; 36,000 acres is a big palate. But blaming the Hochul Administration, btw, is ridiculous. The property just came on the market and the state simply cannot act that quickly, nor should it with all the other pressing needs it faces. I'm still optimistic that a good solution will be worked out that respects the exceptional beauty of this property and accommodates both public and private use.
remember that the network of roads they list are mostly logging roads. If logging stops the cost of maintaining those roads, nevermind improving them would be prohibitive. But certainly some number would be useful to access some pretty nice spots.
Good point. But logging doesn't have to stop. Depending on the quality of the timber, there could continue to be forestry operations on the property.
It would be nice if the developers coul make some arrangement for public access
Yes, our efforts to preserve and conserve our natural resources in the Adirondack Park are flawed and subject to criticism. But they are no more flawed than the desire of private interests to abuse and misuse those very same natural resources.
Given the nature of public and private interests in our country, we’ll always have tension between those advocating the development of our natural resources for private gain and those advocating the preservation and conservation of those resources for public use. And we’ll always have a debate over the form and substance of private gain verses preservation.
The forces for private gain are strong. In order to preserve and conserve our natural resources in the Adirondack Park, we need a strong counter-balance. I’m grateful that the Adirondack Park Agency exists as a means to protect the natural resources of the Adirondack Park and as a counter-balance to the forces of private gain.
I agree
Other than being disappointed in John Hendrickson in many ways, may he rest in peace, I agree with your rational response to the sale of the land to a TX developer. It's expensive to run a golf course and a resort, especially without HB1 workers.
Thanks for the update on Beans and for the pulse on spring in Glens Falls, with music.
...one source says the word, Adirondacks, is from the Mohawk language, and translates as: "they (who) eat trees" [aka, "bark eaters"] / -also see the Adirondack mountain range nickname [probably among others] is "Dacks" (or, perhaps, the Dax). / The view expressed in the above article, of the [imminent?] sale of the Whitney acreage, seems philosophical; and practical (and, of course: controversial). / That [busy as a] bee- is a busy beaver: busy beever? [thank you for the video]. / Wonderful photograph of Beans and Ringo. Beans is cool. [Ringo is cool.] Long live Beans!!! [Long live Ringo!!!]...
The original asking price of $189 million was ludicrous. So is $125 million. We will see if that ends up being the actual sale price, but if it is it has serious consequences for land valuation within the Park and beyond. It will become even harder for ordinary people to afford to own property.
If the sale price is actually $125 million, or $100 million, or $75 million (all those prices too much) then that is $125 million that the state could better spend in protecting lands that do not have the protections afforded within the Park, lands that are under greater threat, and lands that are far more likely to be visited by the general public. Deerlands is very remote. I don’t know if anyone reading this has been there, it’s a long trip just getting there - which is one reason there has been little development there in the first place. I’ll address that separately.
The economics of this supposed resort make no sense to me if the sale price is $125 million. There are people willing to drop tens of millions of dollars on investments in art, antiquities, and in the case of the Brandon property bought by Jack Ma, $28 million (or something) on what he planned as a nature reserve.
But the cost of a planned unit development including some number of home sites, a hotel, and a hotel probably is another $25 million.
Simply delivering materials to build is a huge logistical problem. They would likely need to build a concrete batch plant to pour foundations. The road to the site would be broke up by the delivery vehicles needed to build a large resort. The power grid would likely need a huge upgrade.
And then you have to have workers. The Whitney’s had caretakers, housekeepers, and locals hired for maintenance, but those numbers are far lower than the workers needed for a hotel and golf course. The number of residents within an hour drive of Deerlands is maybe 15,000 people. How many of them want to drive an hour to change sheets and clean toilets? Or mow lawns?
So there needs to be housing for mostly foreign workers. I don’t know if anyone had heard about the situation with foreign workers these days…
Simply delivering groceries twice a week would be expensive.
So, how do you make a profit in this investment? You need a large number of very wealthy people to buy in and to want to keep coming back.
IMO the reason these sorts of development schemes in and around the Park fail is not the regulatory oversight, but the simple economics and the fact that very wealthy people have the choice of a whole world to explore.
Edit: correction on Jack Ma property, 28,100 acres for about $23 million.
One more, and I promise to stop.
People like to complain that the APA prevents development through complicated regulation. They point to failure of the Big Tupper development. But basically at the same time there was the Mont Luzerne development being planned in Lake Luzerne literally on the Blue Line border but outside the Park. After a long review process the development received approval. So there’s a giant development up there now because it’s close to populated areas, and services, and potential workers, yet feels as remote as anywhere?
Um, no. Because the economics of the project did not work. They never even started on the first building.
I think there’s a case to be made that the "complicated regulation" is a feature, not a bug.
Regulation didn’t invent itself.
You simply can’t trust people to not infringe of the rights of others. There need to be rules. And most of the rules are crafted in ways that make projects better. The rules are refined over time.
I suspect that if people had stopped fighting the APA and tried to build communities that were dense and filled with services we would have stronger, more resilient communities within the Park today.
If people don’t like zoning they should move to Whitehall.
Ha ha. But the fighting and refusal to listen or compromise went both ways
I have little tolerance for the idea that the lack of compromise was one-sided. Sure, there are individual examples, but the really big issue was in local control and in many or most of those fights residents an local governments cut off their noses to spite their faces. Towns like Tupper Lake and Lake Luzerne would go through their local government process to write a Master Plan that would exempt them from APA oversight for nearly any project but then the vote to accept the plan their own citizens put together would be voted down - leaving them to be governed by the APA.
Also, having worked in the development industry within the Park I found that most family home projects had no problem getting approval, but there were always people - most of them with lakefront property - who would openly discuss their plans to subvert regulations, usually after CO was granted.
But somehow many ordinary people who wouldn’t try to skirt regulations sided with wealthier people who did.
Wow!
Excellent points. I don’t have the answer. Maybe they just really love the woods, which they don’t have much of in Texas, do they? I should call Sean Todd and ask him
Actually, Texas has a lot of woods and forests. It’s Texas, after all. But it is possible,mas I noted about Jack Ma, that they want to protect the woods. https://www.nationalforests.org/our-forests/find-a-forest/angelina-davy-crockett-sabine-sam-houston-caddo-lbj-national-forests
Oh, and best to Beans.
In may I camped in several places (forest) that kind of surprised me to this fact
including Big Bend National Park https://www.nps.gov/bibe/index.htm
I avoid Texas, but I have wanted to visit Big Bend. I bet it was stunning.
Tell me about it.. the first two years, I went through the top square so I wouldn't be in TX long (make any purchases like gas, food and in fact this year on the way back I stopped for the night in Clayton, NM, so I wouldn't spend money in TX..
But to go to Big Bend (and there is no choice from New Orleans) you have to go through the fat part of Texas. Even heading up to Carlsbad Cavern NP was short, but in TX. Sadly I enjoyed Big Bend NP so much... will do it again next year.
Short of going maybe 2,000 miles out of my way and coming up through Mexico... the choices are small.
BUT maybe Big Bend is worth it
the option
In approximately 300 words (I had my computer count) you showed that most issues can not be summarized into a jingo.
And you just listed a start of the problems with some (most?) of the projects.
There is a large hotel on Lake Flower (the current off-season price starts at $180)... which I guess is affordable for many... but as you start, what were and are the consequences.
The first owners failed, it was poorly run (in one year they had five changes in chefs). As predicted it would cause congestion where it is located... that has been true even when it has low occupancy, if they new owners succeed the bottle neck will stop traffic (not just for me going to the grocery story, but for emergency vehicles).
But there are so many dishonest prophecies in the projection. If you look at their video.. you would assume a stay will be you and a love one roasting a hotdog.. you will be the only boat on the lake (no way you are getting that solitude if the place is even half full)..
So you pave paradise and put up a Joni Mitchell museum.. what are you left with...
In part, no other way. There is the sentiment that it will create jobs, but (as you pointed out) it brings workers to the area (either to compete with who lives here or to do the jobs no one here will do) I am not against jobs, but few people think about what that means
Every project says: creates a million jobs (or some such promise), but those jobs often go to people who are moved into the area and out of the area once the job is done.
A couple things appear to happen when 'jobs are created' One is competition. I am sure the project here will provide some local contractors work.. but it will also bring in contractors those local people now have to compete with...
Those jobs are often a monolith... As in I don't think what ever is done with the Whitney Estate there will be more account jobs or more research scientist jobs.. or any of the jobs that are part of the brain drain (where a local person goes to college, but doesn't comeback because they learned a profession that isn't available in the Adirondacks...
sorry to ramble for 700+ words
I don't like the way that SL hotel looks, and my recollection is that the local process was less deliberative than good-ole-boy rubber-stamp. But, I can't blame people in Saranac Lake for being willing to sacrifice a nice view on the way in to the village and endure some traffic trouble for the chance at a little bit more prosperity. It always has seemed way too big for the location and the market to me.
This is one of those things, everyone has an opinion. I am not sure I dislike its look or not.. I had been in it and found it a bit distasteful ('Adirondack Furniture - with metal frames that looked like it was made in China; an 'antler' chandelier that was made of plastic.) You can't try to look rustic and Adirondack-y and also look like a NY City hotel..
I am guessing some like it.. but to my traffic concern to get approval (not sure about your rubber-stamp thought) they had to say there would be off-site parking... I don't think it has been full enough for that to happen, but it does touch about too big (to fail) to fit
For anyone pinning their hopes on Todd being a good steward of private land within the Adirondack Park, they should think twice. This on Todd’s actions in Texas:
"Todd Interests moves forward with construction on land of former Fairfield Lake State Park"
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2023/07/26/todd-interests-moves-forward-with-construction-on-land-of-former-fairfield-lake-state-park/
I don't see anything reprehensible there. They're building fancy homes on the site of a former park. But it's not as if they stole the land. The site was privately owned by a power company, and the power company sold it to Todd Interests. Some people who liked the park were understandably unhappy. But Todd Interests didn't do anything underhanded.
You’re quite correct — all legal.
But for me and many others, that’s the point. Private interests are by definition for private gain and not good stewardship.
Perhaps the Whitney Park sale will take place and the proposed development will be somewhat sustainable and not as ecologically damaging as it could have been. Or perhaps there will be avoidable damage done, either now or years in the future.
Something can be legal and still be reprehensible.
Thank you Will, for pointing out aspects that I would not have reasoned on my own. This private land is part of a way of life that is completely alien to me and to many others, but it has existed for those who could afford it, long before I had any consciousness of economic classes. I agree that there are consequences that should be addressed if the actions become harmful to flora, fauna and the communities affected by these developments. Somehow, I'm sorry that my skepticism tells me that the very rich will find ways to circumvent the rules. Still, I appreciate everyone's input and research in this discussion.
For the most part development has not been by the old money wealthy. The Whitney’s were pretty good stewards of their land. Brandreth Park neighboring the Deerlands tract is another large estate that has remained “pristine” while being managed and in private hands.
The real rape of the Adirondacks happened 100 years and more ago when timber barons basically clear cut their holdings for the short term value of timber then left vast tracts of wasteland to fall back into state ownership when they didn’t continue to pay taxes.
It is another consideration for owners - taxes. Which is why it seems bizarre that the new owners would overpay by so much, because that value becomes the amount they will have to pay taxes on.
Owners like the Whitney’s, long term holders like Finch Pruyn or International Paper, managed their forests and sold timber to provide some income, but also pay the taxes and provide revenue for maintenance.
They might be better off building a Miniature Golf Course like we see locally with a few recycling -water-mini-ponds to diminish the need for depleting natural water sources! Suitable for kids and aging grandparents to make it a family-friendly attraction.
Thanks for giving us a portion of Bea’s performance. 🎼. Her voice -whether in song and in her writings - is a true treasure to us all!
She and the rest of the band are excellent
Thanks Will, for the coverage and the compliments. It is always sweet to see you, Bella and Ringo about town as you do your utmost for your family (Beans too!) and for our community.
Thank you Susan. The feeling and the respect is mutual!
Your facts about Whitney Park are correct and it’s true that the overwhelming bulk of the land will remain untouched. Peter Bauer et all are purists and (though he, Peter specifically) tends to belong winded) their voices are important to the Adirondacks.
My only objection is to the building of a golf course all of which are environmentally horrible misuses of any land… tough crap you golfers. It’s the truth!
Are they always? I bet there are ways to do green golf courses. I used to live near an old but still occasionally open to customers course — Saranac Inn. I don’t recall ever seeing sprinklers going. I don’t know if they used pesticides or herbicides but I’m guessing there are alternatives to the toxic stuff. They mowed Saranac Inn a little bit but mostly just left it alone, as far as I could tell.
You can most definitely do golf courses without toxic chemicals and costly irrigation. There is one south of Salem that is quite beautiful, but it is not manicured like the country clubs you see on TV. When it gets dry and doesn’t rain for a while, the grass gets brown just like people’s lawns do, and a close look at the ground reveals that not all that is green IS grass. I think it’s even prettier, but I wonder if people who can afford what that hotel sounds like it’s going to have to charge will think so. I hadn’t thought much about the environmental costs of a manicured golf course, but now I would say if it’s not going to be au naturel, it should not be built in the Park.
I love Beans and all his cousins at our Pennsylvania home. This year we have three fawns prancing about or snugged by their moms against the house for safety from the foxes and their offspring. I sit out reading in the summer sun with the ubiquitous, chattering squirrels, facing down, on the lookout. No glasses or hearing aids for them.
Sounds nice
Appreciate your take. The pendulum needs to swing back to a point of sustainability for all. Anyone who’s witnessed the changes since 1972 clearly see the need but few of us remain since we had to leave.
Thanks for the various perspectives today. Much appreciated. Deja Vu at The Spot is often a Saturday afternoon destination for Meg and me. Bea and her guys are "fantabulous."
Thanks Don! I'm glad I get to see you and Meg often. It is an honor to have your friendship.
Thanks Mike. I'm grateful for your information and insight and how this will have a ripple effect on land and home owners within the park. They are an education for this former down-stater.
I forgot to tell my favorite Environmentalist joke.. I heard it about the Adirondacks and directed at the APA.
Do you know what an environmentalist is?
The person who has built his/her second home already.