Part of Northville-Placid trail closed

[Holdstrong]

Yes, your suggestion makes good sense as a way to secure the landowners permission and I will consider it as a last resort if I do not establish contact through more reasonable means.

However, our views of the application of the rules of common courtesy to this case (and cases like it) are clearly opposing. My sympathies do not lie with the landowner on this issue - as nice as he seems to be and as wrong as some of the hikers probably were. He KNOWINGLY purchased property that included access to a very important regional trail. If he underestimated what that meant, that is an unfortunate miscalculation on his part, but I certainly do not feel bad about the time he might have to spend returning a fax or a voice mail because of it. If someone is going to limit access to a trail like this after they knowingly buy the property, then they should reasonably expect to incur some very minor management hassles.

The rules of courtesy I subscribe to would have the land owner delaying his actions to close the trail until an alternate route was etsablished. And if he decides to close the trail and limit access anyway, then he should expect some overhead and minor hassles in managing that access. Barring that, common courtesy here would have been to not buy the land in the first place if the hassles of dealing with the trail were too much.

Thank you for the suggestion, but not for the sermon

 

[Grumpy]

. . . My sympathies do not lie with the landowner on this issue - as nice as he seems to be and as wrong as some of the hikers probably were. He KNOWINGLY purchased property that included access to a very important regional trail. If he underestimated what that meant, that is an unfortunate miscalculation on his part, but I certainly do not feel bad about the time he might have to spend returning a fax or a voice mail because of it.

Pray, sir, that the landowner in this case has more forebearance to tolerate attitudes and approaches like yours than I would have in his position. In his position I certainly would not make any effort to return your telephone calls or fax messages at my expense. This is exactly the way I deal with messages from telemarketers -- I don't return their calls.

What seems to be overlooked is the fact that this is not public land. It belongs to a private party, who acquired it in return for "good and valuable consideration" that he rendered, and who pays the taxes on it, and who is entitled to do with it as he wishes insofar as allowing public entry is concerned. We -- the public -- are doing him no favor by traipsing over his ground. On the other hand, he is set to do us a great favor in allowing us to cross his property, even though he has laid out certain conditions regarding our access and required permissions.

The very unfortunate miscalculation here is insistence that the property owner "owes" anyone else the privilege of crossing his land and should bear the expense of making arrangements to provide requestors the permission they seek. Miscalculations like that create backlash attitudes on the part of private property owners, which ultimately are expressed with closures and No Trespassing signs and notices.

Nobody here has suggested that anyone should "feel bad" or sorry for this particular property owner. All that has been suggested is that his position and evident willingness to cooperate on the access question be appropriately respected.

That is not a sermon. It's the truth, bluntly stated.

G.

 

[Holdstrong]

Nobody is overlooking the fact that this is private land Grumpy. Sure, yes, you are correct.... by the letter of the law this is private land and he can do whatever the flip he wants with it, including shutting it down to access all together. No one has disputed this.

But you sir, were the one who invoked "common courtesy" - not I. And since it was you who brought it up, I am a bit confused that you seem unable to apply it to the other side of the issue.

The land owner bought a piece of land with a PRE-EXISTING historical trail going across it that he was completely aware of.

This isn't some guy who bought a dream house and as he was moving in he discovered a bunch of hikers blazing a new path through his front yard. He knew about this trail, it came with the house. So yes, he does have a responsibility (not a legal responsibility) toward it as far as I am concerned in a good will, common courtesy, for the community sort of way, or whatever you want to call it.

Again, yes, he can legally shut it down, restrict and manage access to it all he wants in the way that he wants.... he legally doesnt "owe" anyone anything.

But common courtesy in this case would seem to dictate that the land owner take into consideration the fact that the land he is buying has a trail of importance running through it. And the right thing to do would be either making efforts and prepartions to accomodate that trail, and what comes with it, or coordinating with the appropriate bodies to have it moved altogether before closing it down. THOSE would be the courteous things to do.

In this case the landowner decided to "limit" access to the trail, and then went on to invite people to call him, leave him messages, and send him faxes requesting access. The courteous thing to do would be to follow up on them. No????????

Of course he doesnt have to do any of this, but when you knowingly buy a chunk of land that has some significance to the community at large - you take on a certain responsibility. No, not a legal one, but one none the less - and I am personally not going to be made to feel as though this person is doing us some great favor by continuing to allow access.... when in fact he is simply doing what I consider to be the courteous and right thing to do. That was really all I was saying.

Now explain to me how my attitude here is analogous to telemarketing?

 

[Grumpy]

Well, Holdstrong, you now have ranted and raved at length and repeatedly about what Mr. Macaluso owes the hiking public.

The truth is that Mr. Macaluso owes the hiking public nothing. But he has graciuously extended a great courtesy to the hiking public by continuing to permit passage along the Northville-Placid Trail across his property. He has conditioned this continued access with the reasonable requirement that specific permission to enter his property be secured by hikers who wish to pass through on the trail.

Your immediate frustration with Mr. Macaluso evidently stems from the fact that he has not returned your telephone calls or responded to your fax messages. You have characterized my suggestion to contact Mr. Macaluso using snail mail and a S.A.S.E. as being somehow unreasonable. That is preposterous.

If your real objective here is gaining permission to enter and cross the property I would think that you would graciously embrace any sensible suggestion for getting what you want rather than make mock of it and use the suggestion as a springboard for launching tirades critical of the property owner.

I have likened your phone calls and faxes to Mr. Macaluso to telemarketing messages. In effect, that is exactly what they are. He does not know you from Adam and to my knowledge has not specifically invited your phone call, although his telephone (and presumably his fax) number has been published and publicized by other parties. You have called Mr. Macaluso to solicit something from him. He has absolutely no good reason or obligation to return your messages at his own expense.

You may not like the fact that Mr. Macaluso holds all the best cards in this little game, but that’s the way it is. Berating and criticizing Mr. Macaluso in forums like this one does nothing to advance the cause of hiker access to Mr. Macaluso’s property or to private property in general. In fact, it probably sets back the cause.

G.

 

[Holdstrong]

You seem to have an inability to separate your black and white assessment of the legal obligations in this situation from the reality and the special circumstances of the matter. Mr Macalusco knowingly purchased land with some historic and public relevance - in my opinion, when you do that, you do in fact owe the community at large something. You have a responsibility to that community. No, not a legal one.... but one none-the-less.

Imagine if I were to purchase the land that Plymouth Rock was on.... could I shut down all access to it? Yes. Legally I could. Legally speaking I own the land and owe the community nothing. But don't you think in some way (call it common courtesy, call it good will, call it being a good member of the community, call it what you want) I have a responsibility to the community to make sure that this chunk of relevant land is available to the community at large? Because it has some community significance?

I do. That is how I feel about this issue. You apparently disagree. Which is perfectly ok, but i must admit to being a bit taken aback by your borderline hostility and patronizing "sermons". I have never questioned your assertion that Mr Macalusco owes us nothing from a legal stand point.

And this has to be the 3rd time I've written that now, and it seems to be gliding right over the top of your head. You ignore this point in your replies and instead you launch back with a general post about Mr Macalusco's rights while belittling my perspective and ignoring the unique circumstances here. Even going so far as to call my attempts to contact Mr Macalsuco, in a way that he has specifically requested, telemarketing. As hilarious a leap as that is, and as good of a chuckle as I have gotten out of it, it makes me scratch my head a bit. I'm a bit confused by your inability to see the other side here and I am beginning to question if you are even reading my posts, or if you have read this thread, or understand the issue at all.

You have repeatedly misrepresented my position while ignoring the points of view and the facts that run counter to your position. I have never, not once, stated that I am frustrated with Mr Macalusco (I am actually looking forward to talking to him). At no point in time have I berated the land owner here. I have criticized your position that a land owner who purchases a piece of land with significant community relevance, owes that community nothing. Thats the only thing I have criticized. Your position, not him. Thankfully it looks like the landowner does not hold your views. And I was not calling your suggestion unreasonable.... I thanked you for it and said I would try MORE reasonable methods first. And those more reasonable methods just so happen to include the exact methods that Mr Macalusco himself has requested. Which gets me to this:

...and to my knowledge has not specifically invited your phone call, although his telephone (and presumably his fax) number has been published and publicized by other parties. You have called Mr. Macaluso to solicit something from him. He has absolutely no good reason or obligation to return your messages at his own expense.

Mr Macalusco has in fact asked that people seeking permission to access his property call him, leave him a message, or fax him. I am not sure what you are talking about above, but it seems like you have not been following the issue very closely.

 

[Warren]

You seem to have an inability to separate your black and white assessment of the legal obligations in this situation from the reality and the special circumstances of the matter. Mr Macalusco knowingly purchased land with some historic and public relevance - in my opinion, when you do that, you do in fact owe the community at large something. You have a responsibility to that community. No, not a legal one.... but one none-the-less.

Your frustration is evident and perhaps, understandable. But I think that some things may be overlooked here: What special circumstances is the landowner going through at this moment? Family matters? A summer rush of hiking requests, maybe some that are less than polite? We don't know. Just as we can say that there may be a courtesy and responsibility due to the hiking community from land owners over historical right of ways, we, as a hiking community have a responsibility to our own make damn sure interactions with land owners are as pleasant and positive as possible. I've seen posted signs that state no hunting, fishing or camping but trespassing permitted at your own risk. That's really cool and I for one would like to see that attitude spread by overextending courtesy to any landowner and local we may run into.

It should be noted that in many cases the landowners and locals are not members of our community and their responsibilities may be aligned (rightfully so, in fact) with communities other than ours.

A letter, especially hand written, has a good amount of impact and certainly has a much longer historical precedent that the right of way we are talking about here. With the logistics involved in the hike you're planning (uh, you are thru hiking right?) it's not that much additional work. Heck, if it was me I'd be wondering what sort of little extra to send with it. Cookies or something?

Anyway, enjoy the hike.

 

[Holdstrong]

My frustration is not with this land owner. It may appear that way because Grumpy and I have used this landowner and this particular circumstance to voice our opinions on land owner responsibilities.... Making assumptions and extending hypotheticals to stress points of view.

But the truth is we have very little info here, and nothing that would even remotely allow us to determine this landowners true feelings or intentions. My frustrations are not with him, I have not even talked to him yet. I have no idea what is going on with him other than what I have read in newspaper articles and in threads like this. However, from what little I have gathered from the people who have indeed talked to him, he seems like a very nice person who recognizes that his land holds some importance to the community at large when it comes to this trail....

And when I say that, I am not talking about the community of "hikers". I am talking about the overall community at large. He lives in the Adirondacks, he owns land in the Adirondacks. He belongs to the Adirondack community, like it or not. That trail is a part of the history of the Adirondacks.

If you re-read this thread, from the start, you will see that my frustration is not with the landowner (because I simply do not have the info to make that determination), but with this ridiculous notion that, in circumstances like this, landowners owe their communities nothing.

 

[Holdstrong]

Oh yeah and dont get me wrong Warren. Thank you for the suggestion.

I mean if it comes down it I'll send the land owner all sorts of goodies and bribes and nicely hand written letters - whatever it takes - as unnecessary as that should be.

But for the time being I'm sticking with the methods that have been specifically mentioned in several newspaper articles in which he gave interviews and that have been confirmed to work for others. If he had told the reporters that in order to obtain access all thru-hikers should send nice letters with self addressed stamp envelopes and boxes of his favorite after diner snack, thats what I'd be doing right now.

 

[Grumpy]

The question here is this: In exactly what way has Mr. Macaluso not been considerate of the hiking public's interest in that short segment of the Northville-Placid Trail that crosses his property?

He has, after all, provided for continued access.

I believe expecting Mr. Macaluso to spend his own money to return fax and telephone messages requesting permission to cross his property is unrealistic. I further believe that criticizing him on this or other access "issues" is very ingracious, given the courtesy he evidently is willing to extend to hikers.

G.

 

[tonycc]

If you re-read this thread, from the start, you will see that my frustration is not with the landowner (because I simply do not have the info to make that determination), but with this ridiculous notion that, in circumstances like this, landowners owe their communities nothing. [/B]

I'll step in here, as both a landowner and a hiker. I don't see any circumstance where the landowner owes a community anything other than paying taxes and abiding by the law.

There are many long trails which pass through private property. This access exists solely through the generosity of the landowner. If it becomes commonly accepted that once access is given to the community then it must always be given, I can gaurantee private property will close up faster than you can believe. How long this access has been in place is irrelevant.

As far as the arguement that someone buys the land with the knowledge this access is in existence has some kind of debt, I disagree. Any of the previous landowners could have established a permanent easement before selling. Of course, this could reduce the value of the land or the ability to sell.

I understand the frustration of being kicked off of historical trails. I've walked too many roads because a landowner revoked access. Shame on the hiking community for not being proactive in either preventing the loss of access, or rerouting the trails to public land. Aren't we the ones who owe a debt to the landowners and future hikers?

Bend over backwards for these generous people who allow us on their property. Please stop the public complaining about this particular trail and landowner. Claims that this discussion is not directed at him may be true, but they are weak considering the thread title and the specifics contained therein. If I was this landowner I would be upset enough to consider completely closing the access. If you want to continue this potentially valuable discussion I suggest starting a new thread with a generic title.

Tony

 

[Holdstrong]

I don't see any circumstance where the landowner owes a community anything other than paying taxes and abiding by the law.

This is the point of dissagreement at the heart of an issue like this. Which is perfectly fine.... agreeing to disagree here works. As unfathomable to me as it is that you can not think of a situation or a circumstance where a land owner should feel responsible to take the community into consideration when making decisions about property, I respect your point of view.

But (Grumpy, in particular) again, I have not been criticizing Mr Macalusco, who from what I have heard so far has been very understanding about this..... I've been criticizing the general idea (which you brought up and applied to this situation) that landowners should feel no obligation to the communities in which they live and belong. That it is okie dokie for them to sit back on their legal rights and tell these communities to (oh horrible pun) go take a hike about issues that are important to them. That we need to exert various degrees of bending over backwards when, in my opinion, all we need is for the "right thing" to be done by both sides. We simply disagree about this general point - that doesnt mean I am beating up on this particular land owner, in fact Mr Macalsuco, from what I know so far, is an example of a landowner handling things in a very reasonable way. The silly argument over call backs should have been a non-issue. My point was simply that if someone is going to limit access to a piece of land that has significance to the community and then make it known publically that people should call and leave messages to request access.... that call backs are probably going to be expected, and rightfully so given the information they recieved. Anyway, it was just a silly point for us to pick a fight about given the larger issue that it turned into - and I apologize for that.

I am not sure how I feel about the notion that this issue should not be directly discussed and debated on an open public forum like this. I tend to feel that open discussion is good for any situation and if the landowner were to read this, I would hope he could distinguish between the conversations directly dealing with him and his actions as we know them to be (which have all been positive) and the conversations debating the issue in a broader sense. But I can see how there is room for misunderstanding, and since we do not have all of the facts, it is not fair to use this situation as a jumping point (a jumping point which I did not initiate) into a larger conversation on the issues of Private Property responsibility - I am comfortable suspending debate on this particular thread.

 

[tonycc]

Not to nit-pick sematics, but there is a world of difference between consideration and obligation. It does not matter what we agree or disagree on, the property owner has the final say.

Back to your original question:

I plan on trying a few more times to reach him, but if I do not, given that I have read several dozen times that he is a nice guy who does not oppose thru-hikers, and given that I have given the approximate dates of my arrival in Voicemails and faxes..... should I/would you assume it is ok to hike past his house?

I suspect you know the answer to this question, and don't like it. This considerate landowner has requested that we obtain permission before crossing his property. Out of consideration for him and other hikers, then you must obtain permission or walk around.

To your last point, I never suggested this discussion should not take place in a public forum. I only suggested it take place in another thread which does not directly point at one specific property owner. This is a very important topic, with numerous places where private land owners can and have closed access to "historical" trails.

Tony

 

[Holdstrong]

I did get the chance to talk to Mr Macalusco recently and as previously reported he is a very nice gentleman who is an outdoorsman himself and extremely understanding of the importance of the trail to thru-hikers.

He gave me the low down on the problems he was having and we chatted a bit about the UMP for that area and the proposed new section of trail.

I told him that I wasn't exactly sure how best to contact him, and that there may be some confusion about it from the various newspaper and internet articles on the issue, and that I have a website that serves as a resource for the trail and could spread the word about his preference - as it turns out I did NOT have to do anything special to request access here. In fact, I didn’t even have to call.

Mr Macalusco made it quite clear to me that although he doesn’t mind people calling or contacting him to request access.... if they are thru-hikers, this is unnecessary. (In fact, he seemed concerned about the people who do not get a hold of him and assume they can not hike the trail because of it)

He asked me to make it very clear on my site that thru-hikers can assume access as long as they are in fact THRU-HIKING. It is NOT ok to start the hike at this property - that would include day hikers and sectional hikers - and it is absolutely NOT ok to park cars anywhere near this property. Authorities (I assume State Troopers) are aware of this and do look for illegally parked cars.

I am very grateful to Mr Macalusco (thanks again) and I am glad this has been cleared up. Now to see what we can do to prioritize and expedite the new trail……

 

[rtrimarc]

Good news

I will be thru hiking in October begining Columbus Day weekend. It is good to know we will not have to make plans to get around this area and issue, thanks for doing the leg work for other thru hikers.

I will probably still contact him, but it is nice to know the area may still be used.

RVT