essays | Page 31 | Andy Arthur.org

Floodwood Loop in St Regis Canoe Area

Andy | July 19, 2011

On a nice weekend, expect many people to be joining you on the ever popular Floodwood Loop in the Saranac Lake Wild Forest. While technically not part of the Saint Regis Canoe Area, this area is considered part of series of ponds that makes up this area, and this loop is the most popular of all the canoe routes in this area.

Alternatively, take a look at this Google Map of the loop. Balloons are designed campsites, there are no charge to use these sites. Red lines are portages and other trails.

View Larger Map / Download KML

At around 10 AM I headed out. Bright sunny day, a lot of glare. None of the ponds are paticularly large.

The Fish Creek between the ponds is quite narrow, and don’t be surprised if you hit some traffic. In parts the current can be fairly swift, although one can still paddle up or down stream with relative ease, just avoid the other boats.

There is a 1/4 mile portage between Copreas Pond and Whey Pond. Despite being mostly sandy soil, with some roots, do NOT drag your kayak, if you want to avoid putting holes in it, as I learned the hard way.

There also is another short portage over a road, and through the Rollins Pond Campground, after you leave Whey Pond.

Overview of the Saint Regis Canoe Area, including other ponds and all of campsites.

And if you prefer roadside camping with a trailer or pickup truck cap, take a look at these sites.

… I hope you enjoyed these pictures and maps from the Floodwood Loop.

Do State Political Districts Group Together Rural, Suburban, Urban Communities?

Andy | July 18, 2011

I have always disliked political districts that leave constituencies with elected officials that do not represent their views. In many cases, political views can not be categorized as being partisan, but more representative of where a person lives, and the lifestyle choices of living in a certain area. A rural Democrat or suburban Democrat will have distinctively different views then a urban Democrat, especially if he or she wants to be reelected.

I remember writing to my State Senator years ago, and he expressed a viewpoint totally contrary to my own, and most of my neighbors,primarily because he represented an urban area, plus a fringe of other lands cut up in rural hinder lands. Ironically, the way his district was cut up, he had almost no suburban areas, so the only people with a voice or a vote, where the urban folk, with rural folks in his district having no vote.

The needs and wants of a rural resident are distinctively different then that of a suburban or rural resident. So I wondered how many other people in NY State are stuck either living in a city,but with a politician primarily representing rural areas, in a suburb with politician representing mostly city folk, or a city folk with a rural politician.

I the current 2010 Census town-wide population density data, and combined it with 2002 State Legislative districts…

Some districts are pretty consistent, and others are pretty wild,and gerrymandered to pick up Democratic or Republican seats, with no attempt to try to group similar constituencies, or keep rural,suburban, and urban areas together. Even worst are districts that merge slices Then again, when the game is maximize as many seats for your particular political party, it’s not surprising to see such games played, at the cost of representative government.

Why I Want to Move to Pennsylvania

Andy | July 16, 2011

I really like the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and it’s culture. Reminds me a lot of the New York of yesteryear. Yet, unlike New York State, where the urban culture of New York City, with its nanny-state laws and regulations, seems to have such a grip over the State, Pennsylvania seems to be a lot more wild and free. Public servants tend to be friendlier their, the public land seems to be more better maintained and open for more varied uses, and the state seems to be more open to the ideas and beliefs of rural folk like myself.

I like a lot of things about Pennsylvania. It has vast tracts of public land in the North-Western portion of the commonwealth, and a healthy base of agriculture in other regions. A lot of state is very rural, and the Capitol of the state is far less metropolitan then New York. While Philadelphia may be a metropolitan center of commonwealth, other areas like Pittsburgh and Scranton are far more working class and connected with the farm land around it.

…even the small things in Pennsylvania are nice.

There is minimal state gun control statues, no need to get a pistol permit and pay money to have every handgun in one’s house listed on a statewide registry. You want a gun in Pennsylvania, you pay money, and it’s yours.The right to farm is strongly upheld, and their isn’t a culture that wants to go after all hunting, fishing, ATVs, snowmobiles, wood boilers, burn barrels, coal furnaces, or natural gas drilling. Rural folk in Pennsylvania do what they need to do, without being looked down at and controlled by the urban folk.

I could see some day moving to Pennsylvania, owning some land out in the sticks. Doing a little hobby farming, raising some cattle and chickens and other animals, have being bonfires and burning whatever I want. Owning lots of guns, having a big pickup truck, a quad, and all of other toys of the good rural life. Taxes are lower in Pennsylvania. A culture that isn’t so controlling of everything.

The Freedom of Pennsylvania. A state I really like.

Burnt-Rossman Hills

Andy | July 15, 2011

The largest parcel of state lands in Schoharie County Burnt-Rossman State Forest. While containing some inholdings, consisting of hunting camps and other rural residents, this 10,588 acre parcel is massive, rural, and consists of nearly 20 miles of unimproved roads and truck trails.

Here is Burnt and Rossman Hills, the rolling flat hills in the distance on the right, as seen from Leonard Hill.

Consisting of a portion of Burnt Hill and most of Rossman Hill, it has many interesting forest tracts, with roads winding through them. The roads are dirt and rough in many places, but they take you to secretive little campsites like my favorite two sites on Betty Brook Road, the well hidden informal campsite, 100 feet CC Truck Trail, and the campsite on Duck Pond. There are also other places where people have camped in the past that are quite delightful, such as informal sites along lower Betty Brook Road.

For those who like to explore the woods, there are few lands as wild and underused as these lands. Some locals come to camp, hunt, and fish these lands, but there are many days when you can be up here are not ever run into another single person. You might see one old pickup truck or somebody riding horseback over a weekend, or you might be totally alone in complete solitude. It is a wonderful place.

Hilltowns Population Density Defined By Major Roadways

Andy | July 13, 2011

Where are people clustered around closely in the hilltowns? The obvious answer would be the hamlets of Dormansville Westerlo, South Westerlo, East Berne, Berne, West Berne, Rensselearville, Medusa. Those are historical hamlets that where the centers of these rural towns prior to the automobile and quick roads providing access to the City of Albany.

Today it seems like those hamlets continue to be the most dense region of county, in part because existing housing was grandfathered in prior to large lot zoning ordiences becoming the norm decades later. Yet, an even more important factor in connectivity proves to be quality highway access to to City of Albany, for the many families who leave their homestead or farm to work in the city.

I made this map from 2010 Census Block-level data, divided by area of land within each census block. This is as detailed of census data that is avalialbe for this rural area, despite many of census blocks being quite large out in this rural area.

Here is a full-size version of this image, for more detailed views.

Westerlo is the most densely populated town in the three south-western hilltowns. It is most dense due to access to NY State Route 32, which provides relatively quick access year round to the city, with commutes around 30-40 minutes each way. The further you get from NY 32, the quicker population density drops down.

NY 443 and NY 85, the two other state roads, also have significant increases in population density along them. Both of those roads have more hamlets to drive through to and twistier roads get to the City of Albany, therefore lower population densities. Get out to Rensselearville, and except for Renselearville, serviced by NY 85, population density proves to be quite low, except for the small historical hamlet of Medusa and Potters Hollow, whose densities are high, but only in a small region for one census block. Rennselearville is on the artery of NY 85.

People generally live closer together near major highways. Farms, forest land, and public lands tend to be further away from major roads. Farmers and other forest owners who work their own land typically don’t need quick access to the city. They instead need is cheap land, which tends to be away from highways. Other distant land, was long ago abandoned to the state as state forest, in part because of it’s remoteness.

My Concerns with a Nine County Solid Waste Authority

Andy | July 12, 2011

Dear Decision Maker:

I am writing you to express my concerns with the Regional Solid Waste Management Authority Study, recently completed by Albany County. I became concerned with solid waste issues back in 2003 when I was a college student studying part-time at SUNY Albany, and stumbled upon the Albany Pine Bush, and discovered how wasteful our urban societies really are.

I grew up on my parents land out in Westerlo in Hilltowns of Albany County. We never had trash pick up, in part because we never had a lot of trash. My parents where working class, they struggled to find good paying work after the early-1990s recession. We grew or raised a lot of our food, burned and composted what “waste” we could on our little farm. It was a sin to toss a recyclable can or bottle in with the burnable trash, and food scraps and other organics wasn’t just something to be wasted in burn barrel. Some see a carved up animal carcass, I see valuable organic materials. On my parents farm, trips to transfer station where rare. We often took more home from the Westerlo transfer station, then we sent to the Albany landfill.

This was totally different then what I saw going on in the city, where food waste was “just garbage”, recycling was at best window dressing or a political statement, and people didn’t really care much about the impact of their garbage output. I saw this urban garbage was being dumped in beautiful Albany Pine Bush — are rare ecological oasis in an urban waste land. This landfill will close soon due to this wastefulness. I couldn’t believe city folk would even dream of tossing a valuable aluminum can in the trash.

Today, I also am very aggressive in avoiding waste myself, bringing organic waste out to my parents farm, and hauling the carefully separated recyclables and a minimal amount of trash to the Rupert Road Transfer Station a couple of times of year. I don’t have weekly trash pickup here. Just following what I learned growing up, I know it’s wrong to be wasteful and generate a lot of trash.

I believe we must change how we deal with waste in our cities.

Since becoming a resident of Town of Bethlehem in 2007, I have voted in all elections including primaries and school board, and are involved in numerous local political campaigns, particularly when there are true progressive leaders fighting to change our community for the better. I am an active member of Save the Pine Bush, and are constantly advocating for more conservation of the Albany Pine Bush, and for better recycling and especially organic waste recovery policies in our cities.

Below are my comments on the “Regional Solid Waste Management Authority Study”, please review them carefully. Thank you for your consideration! If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to call my cell at 518-281-9873 or email andy@andyarthur.org.

Sincerely,

Andy Arthur

“The policy of the state shall be to conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural products.”
— Article XIV Section 4, NY State Constitution

Point 1: Study Should Analyze Best Way to Get to Zero Waste

Study spends too much time considering how to build and construct a disposal facility. There are more then adequate trash landfills and incinerators to dispose of waste within our state for the foreseeable future.
Study should define best practices for maximizing recycling and organics recovery, not disposal.
Many studies have shown that large disposal facilities — incinerators or landfills — are expensive to run and cannibalize recycling efforts.
If a solid waste agency builds a 1,000 ton per day incinerator or landfill, it will require that much trash. If it can’t find that amount of trash, it will reduce recycling efforts to have enough trash to fill the incinerator or landfill. This undermines efforts to get to zero waste or near zero waste by increasing recycling and composting of organic materials.
The study should include a 20-year plan similar to that of the recently submitted Albany Solid Waste Management Plan that proposes steady reductions in disposal of waste in favor of recycling.
The study should have a Zero Waste goal, where nearly all waste is recycled and organics are recovered. Many communities across the country have adopted a Zero Waste goal and are vastly more aggressive in recycling and organics recovery then what this study is proposing.

Point 2: Public Authorities Are Anti-democratic

The study fails to acknowledge the benefits of competition, and how having competing transfer stations or disposal facilities could lower disposal costs.
Authorities are anti-democratic. Citizens have the right to influence their leaders on what solid waste facilities are build and what solid waste laws are implemented. The study should not call for the authority to decide on disposal facilities — it’s up to elected officials to decide.
The lack of competition with an Authority will lead to large bureaucratic overhead, waste, fraud, and abuse.
Citizens and elected officials have a right to know ahead of time what kind of disposal facilities if any would be constructed prior to creation of an authority.
Local communities should have a voice in process and all decisions should be made by consensus of all communities. A large governmental body makes consensus impossible.
Communities named in an authority’s legislation are stuck in the authority until the legislature amends the law or allows it sunset, regardless of democratic choice. Any solid waste agency should be democratic in nature, and allow communities to freely join or leave it with sufficient notice (e.g. 90 days).

Point 3: Study Fails to Acknowledge Alternatives

The study does not analysis the effectiveness of a Solid Waste District similar to those in Vermont. A Solid Waste District would have no employees or bureaucracy, but is a consistent set of regulations and permitting guidelines administered by multiple towns.
The study fails to show what is wrong with the current ANSWERS structure. While the current ANSWERS disposal facility will close shortly, ANSWERS for many years has relied on communities contracting with private recycling brokers. Why can’t communities also contract with private disposal brokers, while maintaining a coordination of solid waste planning through the current ANSWERS board?
Citizens should be free to choose what hauler and disposal or recycling facility they use. Some may choose a landfill for disposal of their waste, while others seeking a more different option, may prefer extra to have waste hauled to an incinerator. The choice of disposal facility should be a key part of a any plan, to allow citizens weight costs and benefits of different facilities.
Consider creating a “Green Rating” system for trash haulers. Let consumers choose if what lower-value materials they wish to be recycled, and what kind of disposal facility they wish to pay for.

Point 4: Town of Colonie, 8 Other Counties Have Not Expressed Interest in this Proposed Authority

The study claims to be on behalf of a 9-county region. However, only ANSWERS Communities have given resolutions in support of this study, and most notably the Town of Colonie has not given a resolution of support of the study. No other town or county, has formally stated their support or opposition to creation of a regional authority. Why not?
Would Saratoga or Rensselaer Counties want to join the Authority, if they knew a massive 1,000 tons per day incinerator or landfill was going to built in their county, and all of the trash from Albany County through Otsego County was going to be hauled there?
If other counties and non-ANSWERS towns are interested in creating an authority, they should be at the table now, and their citizens and elected officials should be kept fully informed. All counties, all towns, and all regions MUST have regular meetings on this topic, and a full debate in each community must occur prior joining any solid waste agency.

Point 5: 9 County Regional Authority Would Ignore Need for Rural Area Flexibility, Differences in Urban vs Rural Waste Stream

Waste compositions varies by town and by county. Different regions have different disposal needs. For example, farmers and rural residents may burn or bury some of their wastes on site rather then needing a centralized facility. Wastes generated on a farm are significantly different then those generated by a commercial center or urban resident.
In rural communities, it may make sense to have town owned and operated source-separated organics composting facilities or even disposal facilities for non-toxic farm and household trash. Decentralized composting and disposal facilities (e.g. less then 20 tons per day) will have a far lower impact on surrounding communities then large facilities.
Recycling programs should be tailored towards large generators of waste in a community. An centralized authority could not adequately focus on need to recycle agricultural plastics and agricultural chemicals, while also focusing on recycling of urban organic wastes or electronic waste.

Point 6: Polluter Pays, No Taxpayer Subsidies

Any disposal program should operate without taxpayer subsidies. Polluter pays. There should be no volume discounts — a person who disposes 10 lbs of trash should pay the same proportional rate as a corporation who disposes of 200 tons of trash.
Those who do not use the services of ANSWERS should not pay for it. For example a farmer or rural resident who burns or buries non-toxic waste on their property, should not be charged for disposal of that waste. Those who compost on their property should not pay for commercial composting operations.
No taxpayer subsidies for waste disposal, all services administered by ANSWERS should come from those who seek to recycle or dispose of a material.

Point 7: Small is Beautiful

Study over states the benefits of scaling up facilities and bureaucracy.
Numerous political science studies show that larger bureaucracies are less efficient, more subject to waste, fraud, and abuse. If a bureaucracy employees hundreds of persons it is difficult to maximize productivity and keep employees from watching Youtube at work.
Avoiding the bureaucracy of an authority, by simply using existing structures reduces cost and waste.
Large landfills, trash incinerators, recycling plants are more polluting. While large facilities may have better pollution controls then small facilities, large facilities inherently release more pollution in aggregate, have more truck traffic, and more potential for serious harm.
A 1,000 tons per day incinerator puts out 1,000 tons per day of carbon dioxide. That’s 365,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide, that could be avoided — or possibly a multiple of the number, by increasing recycling or organics composting.
Ask yourself, would you prefer to live next door to a 20-tons per day unlined town landfill, only consisting of local household trash and farm waste, or a massive 1,000 tons per day incinerator burning unsorted and largely unregulated mixed waste next door? How about being downwind of a neighboring farm’s burn barrel vs living next to a 1,000 tons per day incinerator burning mixed waste from far away? Again, while some pollutants may be better controlled by a mega-facility, the reality is other pollutants will increase and be particularly burdensome to the host community.
No disposal or recycling facility should be larger then 100 tons per day, and all facilities should be decentralized and close to sources of waste generation. Where scale is necessary to overcome costs of pollution control, it must be as small as possible and use the least toxic processes possible.
A large incinerator or landfill would incur significant costs and would require a large amount of trash to be disposed on it. This would undermine attempts at expanding recycling efforts.
Least desirable facilities (incinerators, landfills, recycling plants, composting plants) should be spread over as many communities as possible to be fair and democratic. It should not just target poor rural or urban communities, but include facilities in wealthy suburban communities too.
No one community should have the burden of disposal of waste for a nine-county region. It is especially obscene to site a large disposal facility in a rural or farming region, where many farmers may have traditionally disposed of their own waste on-farm, and are not responsible for the entire region’s long-term solid waste problem.

Home Rule vs Dillon’s Rule

Andy | July 11, 2011

There are two categories of state governments as it relates to local governments:

Home Rule: States that give local governments wide latitude to decide which policies are appropriate for their communities
Dillon’s Rule: States that give limited powers to local government to make decide which policies are appropriate for their communities

No states fall clearly in on category or another as it’s more of a continuum then definite categories. Indeed, when states choose how much to empower local governments they must consider a variety of factors such as:

Impact of one town or city’s decisions on surrounding communities
Citizens that travel through one community or reside their temporarily for work, recreation, or other activities, but due to lack residency have no voice in that government
Involvement and awareness of a community’s citizens in governments
Fairness between wealthier and poorer communities
State-wide goals for various programs

Certainly some things really ought to be decided on a local level, under Home Rule, by an informed citizens and their representatives:

The rate of property taxation and structure of fees paid exclusively by local residents and businesses
The level of government services provided to local citizens and businesses
The design and management of local service roads and streets
The creation of local laws and policies, as long as much local laws and policies are made clear to visitors using signs or other documentation

On the other hand, there is a compelling case to reserve some powers to states under Dillion’s Rule to ensure fairness both to local residents and more importantly, largely voiceless visitors to a community.

A state bill of rights must exist to ensure that local governments both treat their citizens fairly, and most importantly visitors to the community fairly
Local laws need to consistent enough so that visitors know what to reasonably expect when visit a community and require
Inter-community highways need to be regulated by the state to promote the quick and convenient movement of goods and people.