So it sounds like you are saying that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their privately owned land, provided that it does not negatively affect land held by others or the public?
This seems like a good rule, but the problem is that with land, especially land in the Adirondacks, part of the value placed upon that land is intrinsic- views, solitude, scenery, etc. While what is being valued is not a tangible thing, it still does have monetary value. When land is developed, it may be done carefully and in a manner that is ecologically sound, so as to have absolutely no negative physical affects on surrounding land, yet such developments can still affect property values for adjacent parcels.
The question at stake is, "can lowering or raising of adjacent property values count as negatively affecting that property?" Adjusting these values can certainly have what would be considered negative affects by the property owners. Lower values would be bad for someone who bought the land at a higher value, and is now trying to sell it. Higher values would result in greater property taxes, which would be an increased burden for the land owner intent on holding on to his land.
Wind mills and large houses can, and do, have this affect on adjacent properties, and certainly the affects are not considered "absurd" by many of those who own the land. While the building of a large house or wind mills may be justified, the affects that they can have still need to be taken into account. Just like new developers often don't appreciate the affects their development can have on the intrinsic values of adjacent land, the land owners affected by the new development are also often guilty themselves of failing to appropriately value that new development (increased tax revenue in the case of new houses, decreased carbon output in the case of wind mills). People on both sides of the fence need to understand viewpoints other than their own, and have empathy for those views.
As for enforcement of regulations on the state land side, I've never seen anything other than common sense used in enforcing regulations. Yes, there are crazy rules in place concerning use of state lands, but it seems to me that education is the preferred method used for correcting rule violations, with ticketing and enforcement only used as a final method when all others fail, or for cases of willful destruction of resources. Can you provide some examples to the contrary? Any cases where someone was ticketed for picking a single flower or building a single cairn?
It's kind of like traffic laws. If you drive so much as a one mile per hour over the speed limit, you're also a law breaker, yet no one realistically expects such a silly violation of the law to be enforced. It's only enforced when the excess speed adds up, 5 mph, 10 mph, or more above the speed limit. Many of the state land regulations are the same way; I think it's reasonable to expect that you would only face fines and enforcement action if you were caught picking all of the flowers in the forest, or building many cairns so as to mark your own trail.
Perhaps a system of socialism, where there is no distinction between public and private land, and all land is valued equally, would be best.
