|
|
In-Depth Information
|
 “Adirondack
Stretch of North Country National Scenic Trail Planned”
- By Carol W. LaGrasse, PRFA, January 2008
Property Rights concerns for the 140 mile stretch of the Adirondack
segment of the 4,600-mile North Country National Scenic Trail
include acquisition techniques, exact location, liability, ultimate
ownership, and impacts on hunting and trapping. The plan for
the trail has been moved out of the High Peaks region to a less
scenic area to the south after over two decades of opposition
by the Adirondack Mountain Club.
- North
Country National Scenic Trail - Letter from Thomas L. Gilbert,
Superintendent, Ice Age & North Country National Scenic Trails,
Madison, Wisconsin, to Carol W. LaGrasse, President, Property
Rights Foundation of America, Inc., March 31, 2008
In response to Ms. LaGrasse’s February 18 and February
25 letters and her article in the New York Property Rights Clearinghouse,
Mr. Gilbert stated that the article recounted the North Country
National Scenic Trail history “quite well.”
He enclosed important documents and answered the questions Ms.
LaGrasse raised about trail width, ownership of the trail, and
hunting access, and discussed the trail liability issue.
- North Country National
Scenic Trail - Adirondack Segment - E-mailed response to Carol
W. LaGrasse, PRFA, from Thomas L. Gilbert, Superintendent, Ice
Age & North Country National Scenic Trail, Madison, Wisconsin,
February 19, 2008
This e-mail discusses whether the state or local government,
or the National Park Service would own the Adirondack segment
of the North Country trail, initially and ultimately; what the
width of the land that is owned or managed for the trial will
be; and what the width of the functional walking trail that is
cleared and maintained will be.
- North
Country National Scenic Trail - Letter from Thomas L. Gilbert,
Superintendent, Ice Age & North Country National Scenic Trails,
Madison, Wisconsin, to Peter Frank, Division Chief, NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation, January 4, 2008
Official Park Service comment on the Draft Adirondack Park
Trail Plan for the North Country National Scenic Trail. A particular
point that needed clarifying, was that the 47 miles of “New
Trail” that will need to be built is in addition
to the 27 miles of “Temporary Corridor.”
These two categories total 74 miles in addition to the 70 miles
of “Existing Trail” (including “herd
paths”). A future Memorandum of Understanding is
proposed, which would cover acquisitions, administrative policy,
marking the trail, shared-use trails (to ultimately be hiking-only),
and compatibility with range of existing landowners and landscapes.
 Viewing
this letter requires Adobe Acrobat Reader. It is free software
for viewing and printing Adobe PDF files. Adobe® Acrobat®
Reader™ is free, and freely distributable, software that
lets you view and print Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF)
files on all major computer platforms, as well as fill in and
submit PDF forms online. If you do not have Acrobat Reader installed
on your computer it can be downloaded free by clicking the Acrobat
Reader icon on the right.
|
- “LaGrasse
Testifies on Proposed 600-Mile Historic Trail” - By
Carol W. LaGrasse, Reprinted from the New York Property Rights
Clearinghouse, Vol. 11, No. 4 (PRFA, Fall 2007)
This article, which should be read in addition to LaGrasse’s
full official testimony, describes the proposed National Park
Service 600-mile, nine-state Washington-Rochambeau National Historic
Trail. Revolutionary history and selections from advocates’
testimony are used to show the potential negative impact in private
property rights in New York related to historic landscape preservation.
A brief summary of LaGrasse’s full testimony is included.
|
- “Testimony
By Carol W. LaGrasse, President, Property Rights Foundation of
America, Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and
Public Lands of the Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. House
of Representatives Regarding H. R. 1286, Washington-Rochambeau
Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act,
October 30, 2007”
The proposed 600-mile Washington-Rochambeau Historic Trail
through nine states from Rhode Island to Virginia poses a threat
to private property rights because of the National Park Service’s
pattern of secrecy, lack of true public participation, piecemeal
development, use of municipalities and non-profit agencies as
false fronts, and use of eminent domain (directly, indirectly
through local municipalities, and later to widen trails). Amendments
to H.R. 1286 are proposed to eliminate these deficiencies.
|
- “Property
Rights, Trails, & Open Space Preservation” - By
Carol W. LaGrasse, Speech to the Comprehensive Planning Advisory
Committee, Town of Ballston, June 22, 2005
Private property rights were fundamental to the founders and
protected other rights, but a brief chronology shows that U.S.
Supreme Court rulings dealing with zoning and open space have
both eroded and protected these rights. Trails threaten private
property owners with liability and other problems, but reversionary
title is protected.
|
- “Grants
Have Agendas” - By Carol W. LaGrasse, PRFA November
15, 2004
Government grants put never-ending streams of money toward
preservationist objectives that diminish private property rights.
Prime examples are National Heritage Areas, regional planning,
trails, and government land acquisition.
|
|
|
|
|
 “Brief Comments on Erie Canalway
National Heritage Corridor (Abbreviated Transcript)”
- By Peter J. LaGrasse, Chairman, Stony Creek Board of Assessors
(PRFA, December 9, 2003)
Corridor proponents are concealing the extreme limitation
in the protection from liability for owners where trails are
located. The Heritage Corridor is a plan for a total change in
cultural orientation. Local people will not be able to afford
the taxes. If this scheme succeeds, there indigenous population
will not be able to continue to live in the area.
|
 “The
Proposed Rondout Creek Canalway Trail-Defending Property Owners”
- By Joseph Havranek, Rondout Landowners Alliance, Seventh Annual
New York Conference on Private Property Rights (PRFA, October
18, 2003)
A classic of successful activism. FOIL Requests revealed that
the true intent of the local project in Rosendale and Marbletown
was a 108-mile trail linking the Hudson and Delaware Rivers.
The Rondout Landowners Alliance got the information to the people
and went on the offensive.
|
 “The
Canal Trailway - A Threat to Private Property Owners”
- By Carol W. LaGrasse, Speech hosted by the Rondout
Landowners Alliance, Rosendale, N. Y., September 18, 2003
In addition to danger of eminent domain and liability concerns,
canal trails such as the Delaware and Hudson demonstrate the
power of the National Park Service, other federal and state government
agencies, and wealthy non-profit organizations to institute greenways
and landscape preservation on a national scale. Rural communities
are threatened.
|
|
- “Proposed
Rondout Creek Trail Threatens Private Property” - By
Carol W. LaGrasse (PRFA, May 24, 2003)
The Rondout Creek Access Trail in Ulster County is tied to
a larger project related to developing the 108 mile abandoned
route of the Delaware and Hudson Canal for recreation. The Town
of Rosendale and Marbletown spent $17,500 on planning, but kept
property owners out of meetings, then gave the landowners a toothless
promise to avoid using eminent domain.
|
 “Saratoga County
Canalway Trail Shrouded in Secrecy—Trail Planned along Champlain
Canal Route through Saratoga and Washington Counties”
- By Carol W. LaGrasse (PRFA, October 22, 2002)
The New York State Canal Corporation, National
Park Service, and the New York Parks and Conservation are very
quietly garnering support for an elaborately planned proposal
with federal funding to build an uninterrupted 26-mile trail
along the active and abandoned Champlain Canal route from Waterford
through Saratoga County, to be followed by another 22 miles through
Washington County to Whitehall. The abandoned and active sections
of the canal pass through or adjacent to private houses and backyards,
businesses, farms, and other private property, but the property
owners are not being given information.
|
|
|
|
