DEC Commissioner Fired by Gov. Paterson

[Tom Rankin]

'Pete Grannis, the commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Conservation since 2007, was fired Thursday by Gov. David Paterson for what a state source ascribed to "poor performance and insubordination." '

Full story

 

[Little Rickie]

Poor, very poor. It embarrasses the "Empire State."

 

[NorthShore]

Aargh! Not much more that we are allowed to say here.

Hopefully the next governor will take some positive steps with regard to the DEC.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Acting replacement named:

"On October 28, Governor Paterson appointed Peter Iwanowicz Acting Commissioner of the DEC".

From http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2010/10/28/paterson-names-new-dec-head/

"Previously, Mr. Iwanowicz served as Assistant Secretary for the Environment and was the first Director of the New York State Office of Climate Change. While leading the Office of Climate Change, Mr. Iwanowicz’s oversaw the State’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Before joining State government in 2007, Mr. Iwanowicz served as Vice President for the American Lung Association of New York State, and also worked for Albany-based Environmental Advocates of New York."

 

[Mike P.]

Interesting, seems more a position in Albany than an hands on guy.

Latest thing I've read on Fracking is that the process may loosen trapped Uranium also.

keeping public lands public and protecting the water quality seems two of the biggest issues for the Catskills and the environment.

 

[DSettahr]

keeping public lands public and protecting the water quality seems two of the biggest issues for the Catskills and the environment.

Where are there issues with keeping public lands public?

 

[Mike P.]

Where are there issues with keeping public lands public?

Their shouldn't be but if I own land next to public land what can I do on my land? Would wells or windmills on my property impact your view? Do you have a say on what I do on my land? (hypothetical, I live in CT, but neighbors are against neighbors in Shale country & on things like wind & solar farms)

If I foul the water on my property (if It's extra land I don't live on or can sell to fund my retirement someplace warm) that runs into the public water supply, is that an unfortunate accident? Do I care? (I DO)

Who owns mineral rights under public land? When oil hits $150 a barrel again, a lot of the public will want solutions to energy concerns. Drillers only lease the land, leased public land would fills budget holes, right? In theory, you could walk near a windfarm, if deer can live along the Merritt Parkway & in our suburbs & Bears can live in NJ, they ought to adapt to a wind farm.

(I'm playing devil's advocate here, I agree, I'd love to keep other places besides BSP, which is mandated "Forever Wild", wild & as pristine as possible. While trying to get a parking spot at the Garden, Loj or Franconia Notch seems difficult & over crowded, we are a minority of the public.)

 

[TCD]

We should talk equally about the inverse: there are also issues with keeping private land private. This is taking place all over the Adirondacks.

If you don't like the way my house looks, should you, or your organization, or your agency, be allowed to reach into my land and tell me what I can and cannot build?

Should you be allowed to tell me that I cannot use water on my land, out of fear that it might be contaminated, even if that has never been demonstrated?

Should you be allowed to secretly photograph my house from a boat?

All this is happening now. So there are plenty of devils on both sides of the property line.

 

[DSettahr]

We should talk equally about the inverse: there are also issues with keeping private land private. This is taking place all over the Adirondacks.

If you don't like the way my house looks, should you, or your organization, or your agency, be allowed to reach into my land and tell me what I can and cannot build?

Should you be allowed to tell me that I cannot use water on my land, out of fear that it might be contaminated, even if that has never been demonstrated?

Should you be allowed to secretly photograph my house from a boat?

All this is happening now. So there are plenty of devils on both sides of the property line.

So where do you think the line should be drawn? Or are you saying that there should be no limitations whatsoever concerning what people are allowed to do with their own privately owned property?

 

[TCD]

Well, the line has already been drawn by surveyors, and existing laws. Remember, state land is sacrosanct. So much as pick a flower, or (God forbid) build a cairn, and you're a lawbreaker. So private land, as a starting point, should be equally sacrosanct, just in the interest of balance. That should be the starting point. Clearly, understanding that some activities, such as pouring a pollutant into a stream, will "flow" onto state land, provides a reasonable justification for action controlling those kinds of activities. The other end of the spectrum, for example the recent "I saw your big house and I did not like it" articles, or "I don't want to see your windmill" or "I will secretly photograph your home" is patently absurd.

The line is somewhere in between there, but has drifted well out of balance, remembering that the state land side of the line is "rock hard."

 

[DSettahr]

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.

 

[Little Rickie]

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.

If someone knows of land that has been devalued because of wind mills in the fingerlakes region of NY and the owner wants out PM me.

Now back to thread.

 

[Mike P.]

It's an emotionally charged topic. Both sides have rights and very good points.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Governor Cuomo nominates OSI President Joe Martens as head of NYS DEC

"NEW YORK, NY — January 4, 2011— The Open Space Institute applauds Governor Andrew Cuomo in nominating OSI President Joe Martens as the new Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Martens has been at OSI since 1995, first as Executive Vice President, then as President."

Full article:

http://www.osiny.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7815&autologin=true

 

[Peakbagr]

Joe Martens is a great nomination. In his role with OSI, he has been in the forefront of protecting land from development and moving land to NYS conservation easements or outright purchase by NYS or The Nature Conservancy.