Cloudy 47°5 Day Forecast
News Search

Advanced search
go
Home
Classifieds
Jobs
Auto
Real Estate
Shopping
Place An Ad
News
Regional NewsPolice/CourtsBusinessBlog CentralObituariesWeatherAP - The WireTop Read StoriesMost Talked About
Sports
Life
Opinion
Classifieds
Las Noticias
Photo Galleries
People & Events
About Us
Other Publications
Entertainment
Doorways
Subscriptions
Fun and Games
Consumer Guide
Personal Finance
Lifestyles
USA Weekend
Special Section
Entertainment
Movies
TV
Crosswords
Horoscope
Fun & Games
Site Tools
Yellow Pages
Photo Galleries
Services
Subscribe
Photo Reprints
About Us
Daily Freeman Jobs
Home : News : News : Top Stories
Top Stories
Opponents fear housing plan not really dead
By Robert M. Miraldi, Freeman staff
08/31/2007
email this storyEmail to a friendpost a commentPost a Commentprinter friendlyPrinter-friendly

STONE RIDGE - Members of Preserve Marbletown, a group of citizens concerned about the prospect of a housing development at the Stone Ridge Orchard, are skeptical of the orchard owner's assertion that the project is dead.

Orchard owner Dan Hauspurg said on Tuesday that he was abandoning his proposed Marbletown Green project because he had received too much negative feedback from the community.

Hauspurg's plan was to create an environmentally friendly, or "green," project, comprising 350 or more houses, that would incorporate the ideas and concerns of citizens. But the response from opponents was to place green signs throughout the town that condemned the proposal. Hauspurg said he didn't want to engage in a fight with the community.

"I think people would like to have a green community," said Preserve Marbletown member Ferris Cook. "But we don't want a huge community that's not in proportion to the rest of town."

Jeff Mishkin, also a member of Preserve Marbletown, said he believes the project is only on hold and has not been scrapped. He contends Hauspurg wanted to avoid an election-season controversy that could hurt town Supervisor Vincent Martello's chances of winning a third two-year term and will reintroduce the plan after the November vote.

"They announced at a meeting last Wednesday that they were only putting it on hold temporarily," Mishkin said. "It is now obvious to them that there is very deep opposition to the project. They did not want it to be an issue during elections, but it's clearly going to be a critical issue."

Hauspurg denied this.

"We are not bringing the project back to the table," he said, though he added: "If someone wants to bring it back, then we're willing to listen and consider that."

Martello, too, said the proposal has been dropped.

"As far as Marbletown is concerned, it's off the table," he said. "In fact, it was never on the table. It was never a formal proposal presented to the town of Marbletown."

Martello noted that at no time did he endorse the housing proposal and said town leaders would have had "a hundred times" more questions than community members if a formal application had been made.

Preserve Marbletown member Peggy Marble said she "would like to believe that the supervisor has more neutrality on a project of this size and nature, but I'm yet to be convinced completely."

Preserve Marbletown member Barry Berke said a community meeting on Aug. 25 at which the housing project was discussed drew nearly 300 people.

"The extraordinary community participation reflected, in many people's minds, the breadth and depth of community opposition to the proposed development," Berke said.

Among the concerns of Preserve Marbletown were the proposal's size and whether a development so large could be environmentally friendly.

"I really think the question of being eco-friendly and green when you're talking about 350 to 400 units is a secondary issue," Mishkin said. "The principal issue here is size and scale and how inconsistent it is with the rural character of Marbletown."

Said Marble: "Certain aspects that were initially tantalizing, such as community gardens and an intimate pedestrian strolling atmosphere, sounded really nice. The bottom line is the density of the project. In some other place, it might be a wonderful experiment, but not in Marbletown."


©Daily Freeman 2008

Reader Comments
 Submit your own comment!
Added: Friday August 31, 2007 at 10:36 AM EST
How sweet to save an orchard...
...but beware of the bitterness later on. Those whom appear as saviors, could be spirit thieves. Did you know it only takes five people to form the revolutionary cell needed to take over a whole country, a little town only needs two or three.
These greenies have lots of money for full page adds in issue after issue, throughout the local supportive left leaning papers. Their road signs were huge and tastelessly, no love in them, only fear mongering and the promise of populous control was projected.
A ruthless, elitist, progressive/communist agenda is raging throughout our Valley. Notice how the members of Preserve Marbletown, whom most of you haven’t met before this orchard ruse, instead of saying thank-you because a mob followed them, they talk about mistrust, and begin the association of guilt and insinuate crime against the town’s bureaucracy just in time for the next election. No matter what your mayor did, they are out to screw him, which probably means Preserve Marbletown weeks ago filed to get their name on the Ballot. They are gimmickers from a tight net group that purposely searches for a cause and using that cause as a cover to take over a town. These are not individuals, but monkeys of one political ideology who worship their party as a lost religion.
Mark my words, you’ll see everyone that was responsible for ‘saving’ the orchard, or their associates, on the next ballot vying to take over all board positions to be filled with ‘controllable’ political patronage, even if they live in other towns. The local environment is only a means to another end. It’s about power, control, and working their way past Albany, and if they weren’t so rude and crude they’d probably get away with it.
Take a look at what happened in Rochester next door. Fear comes first, “The demon developers are coming!” After two years of Moratoriums you’d think Rochester was using that time to update laws concerning developers, but the real issue is not about developers, that’s a foot in the door, the real issue is about total control over the local’s assets and most important, the local’s perception of reality. They have to pervert logic and common sense to do this, check out all the political hacks already in place on the school boards. What once was peaceful and rural living now got highly politically charged using a fear and intimidation mode, all local laws of ownership, become past laws, no more personal land stewardship, or self-responsibility, assets that got us here, these greenies irresponsibly usurps responsibility and yet accepts none. Read Rochester’s new code, if you can get a copy, they keep it close to the chest. A 150 pages of a progressive/communist’s pet dreams. Check it out.
Bill Dukas, Kerhonkson, NY

email this storyEmail to a friendpost a commentPost a Commentprinter friendlyPrinter-friendlyTop
Advertisement
Place Your Classified Online

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement. Please read our Privacy Policy
©2007 Daily Freeman - a Journal Register Property. All Rights reserved.

Interested in a career with Journal Register Company? Click here.
Journal Register
Local Newspapers - Mid-Hudson Central

The Independent

Gazette Advertiser

Hyde Park Townsman

Millbrook Round Table

The Register Herald
 

The Voice Ledger

Pawling News Chronicle

Putnam County Courier

Harlem Valley Times

MidHudsonCentral.com

MidHudsonCentral.com is your local connection to newspaper websites in the Mid-Hudson Region.