Letters - May/June 2011

Protect the Adirondacks! still a force

We at Protect the Adirondacks! believe Fred LeBrun’s commentary, “Park loses green voices” (March/April 2011) contains misleading statements that misrepresent the status of Protect.  Despite LeBrun’s pessimism, Protect remains very active in protecting the Adirondack Park.

First, Protect is a major player in the Adirondack Park Agency hearings on whether to approve the proposed Adirondack Club and Resort development in Tupper Lake as evidenced by the press coverage of John Caffry, our legal counsel, and letters to editors by Protect board members published in local papers.  In the adjudicatory hearing, only Protect is presenting expert witnesses on the financial risks of the project, as well as other witnesses.
 
Second, two of the Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks’ premium programs are continuing under Protect’s umbrella—the sustainable-forestry and lake-monitoring programs. [RCPA merged with the Association to Protect the Adirondacks to form Protect]. LeBrun neglected to report that they are ongoing efforts, though this information is readily available on our website www.protectadks.org.

We also have an active Conservation Advocacy Committee that is laying the groundwork for new Park advocacy efforts.  Last year, Protect produced a white paper that found there is little evidence to support any blame-the-park interpretation for the state of the Adirondack economy (also available on our website).

 Protect is a partner with the Adirondack Mountain Club in the Lows Lake-classification lawsuit against APA and the state Department of Environmental Conservation. 

These are just a few of the things that Protect is working on to preserve the Park.

It’s true that we’ve had to work hard to merge two struggling organizations, knowing that neither would have survived as a separate entity. LeBrun states that “the match proved unsuccessful.” However, we are still here, not as originally envisioned, but moving forward, after having made difficult but financially sound business decisions. We are governed by a member-elected board that is dedicated to providing a voice for the Adirondacks that is driven by grass-roots principles.  We would have hoped that LeBrun would have interviewed current Protect board members to receive information on our status.
 
We fear that the repercussions for Protect from LeBrun’s slanted views will be far-reaching. We have an ongoing fund-raising campaign for our legal defense fund, to provide monetary resources for supporting, primarily, our Adirondack Club and Resort efforts. We continue to solicit participation in our other advocacy efforts and in our forestry and lake-assessment programs. We trust that our members and donors will continue their support of these efforts in protecting the Adirondacks.

Lorraine Duvall, Keene
Duvall is co-chair of Protect the Adirondacks

Trail would boost health and wealth

With the growing popularity of bicycling, and the lure of being the only long-distance, multi-use trail within the Adirondack Park, the proposed thirty-four-mile Lake Placid-to-Tupper Lake trail along the Adirondack rail line would be a major draw.

Bicycling is now the second-most common form of outdoor recreation in the United States, with sixty million Americans enjoying the activity. More Americans bicycle than golf, ski, and play tennis combined. Twenty-seven million Americans have taken a bicycling vacation in the past five years.

The economic benefits to the area would clearly be substantial. No less important are the ways a multi-use trail would enhance quality of life, improve mental and physical health, and address rising health-care costs. Our state will spend about $9.9 billion on adult obesity-related health problems in 2011 and $136.3 billion over the next ten years, according to a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund. This huge taxpayer expense is almost entirely preventable with increased physical activity.

A multi-use trail will provide an enhanced quality of life for visitors and residents alike. Let’s make it happen!

Robin Dropkin, Albany
Dropkin is executive director of the nonprofit
Parks & Trails New York.

The false promise of a rail-trail

Would it not be wise to poll bikers and skiers to see if they would use the proposed rail-trail from Lake Placid to Tupper Lake? I for one would not. I have ridden on a rail-trail and, being a mountain biker, found it terribly boring. These trails work in places where they run from town to town over short distances and with easy access. That’s not the case here.

Road bikes cannot ride on packed stone-dust trails; only mountain bikes and hybrid bikes can. Also, consider the best time to ride this trail would be black-fly and mosquito season. It would be like running a gantlet.

Cross-country skiing is also not appealing, even if there was room next to the snowmobiles flying by. If you have ever skied on snowmobile trails you know how bad the air quality is from the mixed-fuel engines. To remove an existing rail bed that could and should be used to transport consumer goods to the North Country reminds me of Ronald Reagan taking the solar panels off the White House.

Mark Swanberry, West Fulton

Solace in wild places

Seven hundred out of 2,800-plus lakes closed to floatplanes does not seem unreasonable, nor does adding Lows Lake to that list [“Floatplane ban challenged,” November/December 2010].
New York needs to resist the argument that motorized access to these precious wild places is necessary to serve those with handicaps.

My own Parkinson’s disease advances; my loss of balance, slowing of reactions, and pain and weakness have caused me to stop bicycling and driving. I still, fortunately, can walk a good distance. But as I increasingly join the physically challenged, don’t change wild-area protection and management for me. To the contrary, just ensure that I can travel to those quiet, wild lakes and areas through memories and the magic of my mind. I need to know they are there.

Gary Randorf, Puerto Rico

Tower decision good for all

Spot zoning is generally a pernicious practice used in cities that impacts an individual or a small group. Picture a proposal for a variance to allow a gas station next to a residence. The homeowner would object, but many people two or three blocks away wouldn’t care and might even welcome a convenient gas station. If left to a majority vote the variance, or spot zoning, would go through.

Establishing a small area around a fire tower to allow the tower to stay in spite of the general rules governing the area has been called spot zoning [“Out, out damn spot zoning” January/February 2011]. This is a mischaracterization. In allowing a fire tower to remain no one person is impacted more than another. The general public is impacted for good or evil depending on one’s point of view.

I come down on the side of those who want to retain the fire towers. One should remember that the towers’ original purpose was to preserve the forest, not to advance one group’s interest over another’s. We should retain this bit of history and thank those whose past efforts helped preserve the forest for all of us and for future generations.

Frank Guilfoil, Marcy