Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 05:39 PM Nov 2013

Proposal 5 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?

All of the state-owned land within the Adirondacks must be kept “forever wild” under the State Constitution. It is thus necessary to amend the state Constitution in order to transfer any of this land to another owner.

This proposal would permit the state to transfer title to approximately 200 acres of Adirondack Park in Essex County to NYCO Minerals, a private mining company that operates a mine adjacent to the forest preserve. In exchange, NYCO Minerals would transfer to the state at least the same quantity of land, with a minimum assessed value of $1 million, to be added to the forest preserve. When NYCO Minerals finishes mining, the company would restore the condition of the land it received in the exchange and return it to the forest preserve.

The proposed amendment also would allow NYCO Minerals to test to determine the quantity and quality of the mineral to be mined on the land to be exchanged before the exchange occurs. It would require NYCO Minerals to give the State its test results so that the State can use them to determine the value of the land to be conveyed to NYCO Minerals. The proposed amendment also would require that if, after testing, NYCO Minerals does not want the forest preserve land, NYCO Minerals still must give the State at least the same amount of land of at least the same value of the land that was disturbed by the testing. This land would be incorporated into the forest preserve.

http://www.nyccfb.info/public/voter-guide/general_2013/ballot_proposals.aspx#Proposal5

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Proposal 5 In Relation to a Land Exchange in the State Forest Preserve with NYCO Minerals, Inc. (Original Post) hrmjustin Nov 2013 OP
Reasons to Vote YES hrmjustin Nov 2013 #1
Reasons to Vote NO hrmjustin Nov 2013 #2
Voting no. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #3
Look who is supporting Prop 5. Not your friends, I think. DLnyc Nov 2013 #4
I voted no. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #5
 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
1. Reasons to Vote YES
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 05:40 PM
Nov 2013

Reasons to Vote YES
»
Allowing NYCO Minerals to use the land could extend the life of its mine by at least a decade, saving more than 100 jobs in the area. The company's current mine has only three more years of expected life.
»
The Forest Preserve contains the only viable mining location in the region. Other potential mining sites would be much more difficult and costly to mine.
»
The proposal would not diminish the amount of land available for the public to enjoy in the short term, and would ultimately increase the size of the preserve once NYCO Minerals returns the land it received to the State.

http://www.nyccfb.info/public/voter-guide/general_2013/ballot_proposals.aspx#Proposal5
 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
2. Reasons to Vote NO
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 05:41 PM
Nov 2013

Reasons to Vote NO
»
This sets a bad precedent because it would be the first swap of Adirondack Park land undertaken for private commercial gain.
»
NYCO should not mine on Adirondack Park land when it could mine at an alternate site two miles away called Oak Hill.
»
Mined lands that will be returned to the Park will have suffered ecological destruction.
»
There are a number of scenarios under which NYCO Minerals might never return the exchanged land to the public trust, or might return it in a damaged state, such as if the company were to go out of business. This could make the land unsuitable for public use or require public dollars to rehabilitate.

http://www.nyccfb.info/public/voter-guide/general_2013/ballot_proposals.aspx#Proposal5

DLnyc

(2,479 posts)
4. Look who is supporting Prop 5. Not your friends, I think.
Tue Nov 5, 2013, 04:00 PM
Nov 2013

Statements Supporting Proposal 5
Conservative Party of New York State
Teresa R. Sayward, Former New York State Assemblywoman ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Sayward )

I am voting NO. I don't like playing "Let's Make a Deal" (as someone else said) with a forest preserve.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»New York»Proposal 5 In Relation to...