Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Commentary: Vote Yes on the Township 40 Amendment

Township 40 (Totten and Crossfield, 1900)On Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2013 New York State voters will have an opportunity to vote on several state-wide propositions.  Proposition #4 (Prop 4), is one of two Constitutional Amendments affecting the Adirondacks.  It’s the result of long-standing title disputes between the State of New York and property owners on Raquette Lake in the old Township 40 of the Totten and Crossfield Purchase.

A positive vote will correct an injustice that has been perpetuated for over 100 years.

I write as an interested party, but I’m not directly involved in any aspect of the controversy that gives rise to Prop 4.  I don’t own property on or near Raquette Lake.  I’m not one of the contested property holders.  But, for nearly 35 years I have paddled the waters of this lake starting with a group of high school students, canoeing, camping, and learning about the outdoors.  I’ve paddled the lake with my wife, with friends, and with clients as an Adirondack guide.  In 2005, I paddled Raquette Lake  recreating the 1883 paddle of George Washington Sears (a.k.a. Nessmuk) and many times since as a trail steward for the Northern Forest Canoe Trail.

Raquette3Township 40 comprises most of Raquette Lake within the present Town of Long Lake in Hamilton County.  In the late 1700′s this area was part of the Totten and Crossfield Purchase.  Township 40 contains about 24,000 acres of which a little more than 1,000 acres are contested between private parties and the State Of New York.  (There is no relationship between the townships of the Totten and Crossfield Purchase and the present day county and town lines.)  On a map provided in the Sixth Annual Report of the Forest, Fish, and Game Commission (1900, at right), Township 40 is shaded very dark, just left of center.

The problem began in 1848 when Farrand N. Benedict purchased all 24,000 acres of Township 40 from the State of New York.  During the 1850′s Benedict subdivided and sold off parcels to his friends and acquaintances.  Most of the new owners paid their taxes, but some did not.  In those days property with delinquent taxes reverted back to the State.  The State then held an auction and resold the property.  During the 1870′s and 80′s the laws for disposing of property for delinquent taxes changed several times.  Finally, in 1885 the Forest Preserve was created and all lands with unpaid taxes became part of the new Preserve.

However by this time much of Township 40 was claimed by both private landowners and the State of New York.  Inadequate surveying, poor record keeping, clerical errors and lost documents combined with ignorance, fear, and distrust on all sides led to conflicting claims.  The State recognized the problem back in 1898 and in the Fourth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries, Game, and Forests issued the following statement: “ . . . very often, through clerical errors, lands were sold on which taxes had been paid, and from which the owners held and still hold, receipts for the payment of every tax that was ever levied.”  But such a statement did not solve the problem.  From 1901 through 1924 the State tried to eject the Raquette Lake property owners.  The lawsuits were very slow in going through the courts.  In 1924 the Court of Appeals reviewed the Ladew case (property owner) and found that at least three of the prior tax sales were faulty due to poor record keeping, and declared these three sales (1875, 1881, 1884) to be null and void.

But that was still not the end of the conflict.  The State did “back off” and little action was taken by either side until the 1940′s when the State won its case against St. Williams Church.  But then the State lost two cases in the 1990′s, and won a case in 2002.  In the 10 cases actually tried, the State won 2 cases and lost 8, for a gain of 14 acres and a loss of 400 acres.

Image(1)At present there are 216 parcels of property where there are conflicts between the State and private landholders (including businesses, the school, fire department, and the waste transfer station).  Passage of Proposition #4 would allow for clear title for all of these property holders.

The question is often raised as to why a constitutional amendment is needed. According to the provisions of the New York State Constitution (1885, Article 7, Section 7, renumbered in 1930 to Article 14) “The lands of the State, now owned or hereby acquired, constituting the Forest Preserve as now fixed by law, shall be kept forever as wild forest lands.  They shall not be leased, sold, or exchanged or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the lumber be sold, removed, or destroyed”.

Because resolution of the title conflicts will involve the transfer of some contested Forest Preserve lands to private ownership, only a constitutional amendment, voted upon by two successive legislatures and the people of New York in a general election, can effect transfer.  Having gone through all but the last step in the amendment process, Proposition #4 is the opportunity for the people to speak to the issue.

Proposition #4 will require each affected property holder to contribute from $2,000 to $7,900 to be used to assist the State in acquiring lands that will benefit the Forest Preserve.  In exchange the State will give up its claim to these contested holdings (the “transfer of state lands” in the context of the NYS Constitution).  The property owners will receive clear title to their lands and the State will acquire valuable new lands for the Forest Preserve.

Totten Crossfield Lot Map Version 2The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is expected to recommend to the State Legislature that this new land be the 285-acre Marion River parcel (a carry trail between Utowana Lake and the Marion River, which connects to Raquette Lake).  This carry trail has been used for centuries and passes through private property currently owned by the Open Space Institute. The purchase of the Marion River parcel would add to the publicly owned Forest Preserve and ensure permanent public access to this historic and important route through the Eckford Chain of Lakes in the central Adirondacks.

Passage of Proposition #4 will not result in extensive development on Raquette Lake.  Most of the land is already developed and new development is limited, by the mere fact that there are few roadways near most of the contested property.  Township 40 is virtually surrounded by existing state lands, making construction access almost impossible.  And, property owners are being encouraged to agree to conservation easements that do not allow for such development.  One large landowner has announced he plans to donate significant acreage to the State, thus preserving it as forever wild.  In addition development is limited by the guidelines of the Adirondack Park Agency.

The alternative is further litigation by each property holder or by the State.  Litigation would place a huge financial burden on the State as well as on each of the individuals involved and it would be hugely time-consuming.  Some of the present cases have already been in the courts for over 80 years, and are still not resolved.  All parties involved, including the State agree that litigation is not the way to solve this problem.

Proposition #4 is widely supported.  The New York State Legislature has in two separate and successive sessions passed the amendment.  In this last (2013) session passage was unanimous (a general election is necessary between legislative actions, part of the law established to amend the State Constitution).  In addition the New York State Attorney General’s office, DEC, Hamilton County, and the Town of Long Lake have all supported the amendment, as have the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages and many others.  And then there are the environmental groups that have voiced support as well: The Adirondack Council, Adirondack Mountain Club, Adirondack Wild, Protect the Adirondacks, and the Open Space Institute.  And, of course, the owners of the contested property are behind Prop 4 as well.

In Summary Proposition #4 represents a win-win for all concerned.

+ There is no cost to the taxpayers of New York State

+ It resolves the over 100-year Township 40 issue

+ It adds new lands to the Forest Preserve

I urge you to vote YES, on proposition #4 (Prop 4) on Election Day, Tuesday, November 5, 2013.

A brief YouTube video on the issue can be found at https://www.yutube.com/watch?v=udwzkmpNZ58 (Long Lake facebook page, vote yes on Proposition 4)

Aerial photo of Township 40 used with permission of Carolyn Gerdin.

Mike Prescott

Mike Prescott

Mike Prescott is a former history teacher and secondary school principal who found a new retirement avocation in paddling Adirondack waters and exploring their history.

Mike is a New York State Licensed Guide, and also volunteers with the Northern Forest Canoe Trail, the Raquette River Blueway Corridor, the New York State Trails Council and with the Adirondack Mountain Club.

Feel free to contact him at mjpaddler@gmail.com


More Posts

Print Friendly



13 Responses

  1. Dale Jeffers says:

    While it would be easy to argue either side of this issue, the underlying facts are an uncertain can of worms, absorbing far too much energy over the many years of the dispute. Time to pass the amendment and move on to important Adirondack issues.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  2. Marco says:

    Yes. Resolve this issue as is for all involved.

    I would fully support a canoe carry between Utawana and the Marrion River, too. This has been a traditional canoe route to Blue Mountain for many years.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  3. Paul says:

    If the carry land is owned by a group that is preserving it and allowing the public to use it why not buy something else or use the money for management of some of the land we already own?

    Also, won’t we be swapping a fair amount of Raquette Lake shorefront land for land that isn’t waterfront? The land on Raquette Lake once the titles are clean will then be much easier to develop. It surprises me that environmental groups support this swap?

    Who used to run the OSI that owns the land that the DEC is looking to purchase?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11

  4. Dave Gibson Dave Gibson says:

    Well written and argued, Mike. The only fact your good piece does not mention is that this resolution required years of discussion and negotiation among reps of the lake property owners, NYS DEC, NYS Assemblywoman Theresa Sayward, Senator Betty Little, the attorney general’s office, and environmental groups. The amendment and the implementing legislation reflect all of that prior effort.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  5. Paul says:

    Unless these folks bought the land back in the 1800s they bought it knowing that it had title issues. Some of these things make it sound like the property owners were somehow stuck with this problem. They bought their way into it. They could have walked away, no? Using it to increase the size of the Forest Preserve with a land swap with a private entity is a bad precedent but using it here to fix some title problems isn’t? I don’t follow?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13

    • Janet says:

      The taxes were paid as confirmed by the NYS Judge who declared the tax sales illegal, the DEC recognized there was a problem with the records but the state assimilated the land into the forest preserve anyways, that is the injustice, now because of the law a state contititutional amendment must be passed to clear the contested land titles. This is not a land swap, it is righting a wrong committed years ago.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      • Paul says:

        These landowners were not “wronged” they bought the land with questionable title.

        What I don’t understand is why does there need to be any of this? If what Janet says is true. And I think it is. Why can’t the state simply clear everyone’s title? That is what they are going to do once they get the other land when this passes. But why is it necessary? This is a swap, because the state will not clear the titles without it. They can settle this at anytime, they always could have.

        Like or Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  6. Marco says:

    This issue goes back to before the people there now were born in many cases. How can we let these people pay for the “sins” of their forbearers? This is NOT the American way. I would suggest we need to simply accept the amendment and be done with it. Deal with the development issues as they arise under the current laws. Easy?? No, but this was well thought out and planned. Nobody will win, least of all, the DEC, Government and the people. We should be careful that this does NOT allow a precedent for “squatters,” including development/timber concerns, elsewhere and is only meant to resolve THIS property dispute. No, I do not “own” property up there.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • Paul says:

      Marco, I agree that this should and will pass. But again like you say these folks came long after these parcels had these title problems. What did they do? They bought the land anyway? I looked at some of this land once and it was clear from the deeds that there was a problem and that you should not purchase this land unless you were okay with a crummy title.

      Like or Dislike this comment: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  7. […] #4, I am highlighting informational websites regarding this issue:  Adirondack Express article, Adirondack Almanac article and the Township 40 […]

    Like or Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply