Just voted on the props... The public land ones...

[mike rossi]

Wasn't really interested in who runs the local yocal nor the proposition about the casino biz. But there are two other propositions on todays ballot about PUBLIC LAND...

 

But voted NO to allow an industry to mine and then reclaim. Mine reclaimation, similar to wetland mitigation, is a good policy, but conservation is time - sensitive... No benefit to impacting something and then "fixing" it years later...

 

Voted Yes to settle land claims in return for other land adjacent to state land. Hard to vote on that without knowing the conservation value of all the scattered parcels, but a contiguous block sounded good, true or not...  Should have did more research on that one, not so sure about my yes vote...

Edited November 5, 2013 by mike rossi

[irish_redneck]

the mining one got an equal amount of land donated now, with the mined land coming back in repaired for later, a net gain....

[cdmckane]

I voted no on all. Seems King Andy was in favor of them all. That makes them not good in my book

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[mike rossi]

the mining one got an equal amount of land donated now, with the mined land coming back in repaired for later, a net gain....

I think you may have been fooled... This is no bargain at all, even if they mined on private land they OWN or lease, they are required by law to do all that. This is known as mine reclaimation.

 

 I am not a fan of economic arguments and besides the same case can be made for protecting land; here is a recent report (November 5, 2013), on the dollar value of conserving land: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/news/RefugesPowerfulEconomicEngines.html

 

Most importantly conservation is a time is of the essence nature, so reclaimation and mitigation are not the wisest use...

[irish_redneck]

They are required to reclaim it.... the donation of the additional land to sweeten the deal is not required.

[Doc]

I have a rule that I apply to these kinds of propositions. If I don't feel like I have all the info, or am a bit confused, I automatically vote it down. I wish our legislators would apply the same philosophy to bills that they don't have time to read, research and understand.

[irish_redneck]

how do you know that "no" is the "right" answer... if they worded it differently it could be yes. to blindly vote no is ludicrous.

 

Read the proposition, read it again if you don't comprehend it. Look up on line if you don't understand it. Form an opinion and vote it.

[Doc]

how do you know that "no" is the "right" answer... if they worded it differently it could be yes. to blindly vote no is ludicrous.

 

Read the proposition, read it again if you don't comprehend it. Look up on line if you don't understand it. Form an opinion and vote it.

I generally can tell whether yes or no indicates a change from current status. If I am going to make a mistake, I would rather it be turning something down that can be resurrected in the future rather than creating something that never seems to ever be undone. I liken it to the legislators who voted for the Safe Act, and admitted that they hadn't even had time to read it. Far better if they had simply voted it down for lack of understanding rather than turning it into law which is now nearly impossible to get rid of.

I agree that it would be nice if there was adequate advanced notice to get educated on them all. However, I had no idea that there were even 6 proposals, and the ballot was the first indication that I had of the entire listing or existence of all of them. The media always seems to pick one or two to report on and the rest get ignored. So if the ones that weren't prominent in the news weren't stated properly or completely on the ballot they got a no-vote from me. I can't in good conscience do it the other way.

[landtracdeerhunter]

Any word on the outcome?

[raymerlo]

so much for being informed voters,the mine has been there,they want to continue to expand,

 

keep people employed,the adirondack park is bigger than a couple of states,millions of acres that only the

 

able body'd can use, nix forever wild,wild forest is what we want

[burmjohn]

Everything passed except extending judge retirement age.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I so wish there was one on there for term limits

[irish_redneck]

I generally can tell whether yes or no indicates a change from current status. If I am going to make a mistake, I would rather it be turning something down that can be resurrected in the future rather than creating something that never seems to ever be undone. I liken it to the legislators who voted for the Safe Act, and admitted that they hadn't even had time to read it. Far better if they had simply voted it down for lack of understanding rather than turning it into law which is now nearly impossible to get rid of.

I agree that it would be nice if there was adequate advanced notice to get educated on them all. However, I had no idea that there were even 6 proposals, and the ballot was the first indication that I had of the entire listing or existence of all of them. The media always seems to pick one or two to report on and the rest get ignored. So if the ones that weren't prominent in the news weren't stated properly or completely on the ballot they got a no-vote from me. I can't in good conscience do it the other way.

I got an email from scope letting me know the proposals and their stance on them. Didn't vote the line exactly, but the advance notice was great.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Mike.

 

I thought the mining ref's gave better land to the stae for the ability to mine. THEN the mined land was being turned over tto the state once reclaimed? did I get that wrong?

[mike rossi]

I think in order to have informed voters it should be clear that it is a legal requirement to reclaim mine sites, not word a proposition on an election ballot like some company is sent by the heavens doing the public a favor, when the reality is it is conducting a lucrative business on public land and profiting off of a public resource which belongs to all of the public...  

 

Not to mention the ecological impacts, including, but not limited to the fact - mining is a dirty industry, I wont even attempt to go there...

 

[bluecoupe]

Thanks, the only one I could find out about this morning was the prop 1

A friend of mine sent me this pic. It'll never happen though.  de Blasio being elected shows the current sentiment.  "give me everything and make someone else pay for it" 



 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I think in order to have informed voters it should be clear that it is a legal requirement to reclaim mine sites, not word a proposition on an election ballot like some company is sent by the heavens doing the public a favor, when the reality is it is conducting a lucrative business on public land and profiting off of a public resource which belongs to all of the public...  

 

Not to mention the ecological impacts, including, but not limited to the fact - mining is a dirty industry, I wont even attempt to go there...

 

 

Personally I would like to see them let logging contracts in the  ADK park.

[mike rossi]

Mike.

 

I thought the mining ref's gave better land to the stae for the ability to mine. THEN the mined land was being turned over tto the state once reclaimed? did I get that wrong?

 

It is not uncommon for mineral companies to donate reclaimed private land to the state or local government. In this case, the land already belongs to the state. Thus, a donation of extra land may not sweeten the deal as much as advertised...

 

Another thing, mines are not always restored to the original state or into habitat. Sometimes they are made into golf courses or who knows what. It almost always depends on the landowner. If state or other government becomes the landowner, then social wants might come into play. If ABC Real Estate or Jim Smith  is the landowner, then its their call, with few exceptions...

 

In this case the state already owns the land as part of the Park; so reclaimation (should) be consistent with the management plan of the Park.

[mike rossi]

Note the bold type below. Mineral companies are not in the business of owning idle land and would accumulate a big tax liability if they retained ownership of all of their closed mines. That is why it is not uncommon for them to donate land. Donating reclaimed mines is common and everything else is merely complying with an existing law.  They probably would have donated the land anyway, if they didn't, it would just be a parcel of private land adjacent to the Park...   A big corporation got the bargain, not the public... Those minerals are just as much mine as theirs, don't tell me I can go work like a mule for them at minimum wage, divvy up the revenue, public resource, public profit, lol...

 

Proposition

In Relation to a Land Exchange in the State Forest Preserve with NYCO Minerals, Inc.

The proposed amendment to section 1 of article 14 of the Constitution would authorize the Legislature to convey forest preserve land located in the town of Lewis, Essex County, to NYCO Minerals, a private company that plans on expanding an existing mine that adjoins the forest preserve land. In exchange, NYCO Minerals would give the State at least the same amount of land of at least the same value, with a minimum assessed value of $1 million, to be added to the forest preserve. When NYCO Minerals finishes mining, it would restore the condition of the land and return it to the forest preserve. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

As with proposal number four, the State Constitution generally forbids the lease, sale, exchange, or taking of any forest preserve land. NYCO Minerals is a producer of wollastonite, a mineral that has industrial importance worldwide. In the United States, wollastonite is mined in Willsboro, New York and Gouverneur, New York. This proposed amendment would allow NYCO Minerals to expand and explore for the mineral, keep people employed and still protect the forest preserve.