Tuesday, August 25, 2020

It’s debatable: The last big piece of land

John Hendrickson, owner of the 36,000 Whitney Park estate outside of Long Lake, announced his intentions last month to sell the property, setting off speculations of who the next buyer could be — or should be.

Hendrickson, the widower of philanthropist, thoroughbred owner and Saratoga Springs socialite Marylou Whitney, told the Wall Street Journal at the end of July he was listing the property for $180 million — $5,000 an acre.

The news had environmentalists calling for the parcel, which includes 22 lakes and one of the great Adirondack camps called Deerlands, to be part of the Adirondack Park’s forest preserve.

Organizations like Protect the Adirondacks, Adirondack Wild and the Adirondack Council were among those that released statements in support of the state acquiring the Whitney Park property.

The state lists the Long Lake property in its 2016 Open Space Conservation Plan, a document outlining potential land acquisitions. At a press conference in August, Basil Seggos, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Conservation, called the property a “gem.”

Explorer reporter Gwen Craig talked to him recently and he was adamant about not selling to the state, and at the same time Hendrickson assuaged fears that any potential buyer could possibly develop the site.

We want to hear from you: What would you like to see happen to the Whitney land? Should the the state purchase it? Should it stay in private hands?

Photo courtesy of John Hendrickson

Related Stories

Melissa is a journalist with experience as a reporter and editor with the Burlington Free Press, Ithaca Journal and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. She worked as a communications specialist for the Adirondack North Country Association and is currently digital editor for Adirondack Explorer, overseeing both the Explorer's website and its community forum the Adirondack Almanack. She enjoys hiking, camping and other outdoors activities, and spending time with her husband, their twin daughters, and rescue animals -- two dogs and two cats.

103 Responses

  1. JCurt says:

    Didn’t Jack Ma, owner of Alibaba buy a huge chunk of Adirondack land in 2015? What is he doing with it? From a google search “Alibaba founder Jack Ma has paid $23 million for 28,100 acres in New York’s Adirondacks that were once owned by William A. Rockefeller, Jr. The estate, called Brandon Park, is roughly 30 miles northwest of Lake Placid.Jun 25, 2015.”

    • Steve B. says:

      This is correct. He purchased at about $820 an acre, which is less than the State paid for the 17,000 acres to get Little Tupper. A steal for Jack, though I believe the state had easements existing on the property.

  2. Mark Bergman says:

    No room for debate here. If John doesn’t want to sell to NYS or a developer, that is his right. Adirondackers have a long history of defending private property rights. Much ado about nothing.

    • Dave Wesr says:

      I second Mr. Bergmann’s thoughts. “Much ado about nothing.”

    • Katherine McDaniel says:

      I’d like the State or a land conservation group/s to buy it. If sold to a private person, what’s to stop them from later on dividing up the property and selling to developer/s. Perhaps a mixed use plan could be developed by the State or groups purchasing, to satisfy the surrounding communities and Henderson. Although, getting everyone to agree would be difficult if the past is any indication

  3. Steve B. says:

    I’m not sure I’d trust John Hendrickson with comments about “not selling to the state”, “doesn’t want to develop it”, etc…. He played the development threat with the Little Tupper sale and got Pataki to chalk up $17 million. If a state offer is good enough, he’ll take it, everything else he claims is just noise.

    The state should buy it, no question. The Whitney’s have seemingly been good caretakers for well over a century, but the last of that family who really cares is gone. In private hands it becomes a waiting game before somebody with less scrupulous principles moves to develop. Only being in state hands is that to be stopped.

    There are many concerns as to how the state might classify. The Essex Chain and Boreas properties are the current pattern of trying to please a wide range of user groups and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Huntington mentions ““Who is going to have access to it with no vehicles?” Hendrickson said. “It would only be for the super fit.”, well gee John, NOBODY has access right now, and would not if sold to a private owner !. John also commented he doesn’t really know how many people are employed currently managing the property, well that’s kind of sad that he doesn’t know that, even though he claims to be dedicated to Long Lake. I’d be curious to know how much actual lumbering take place and whether that actually provides any real economic benefit to the local community, or is it just maintained as a tax write-off (my suspicion).

    Thing is, you look at a map and it’s easy to see how well this piece of land fits into the existing wilderness and wild forests that surround it. The state should absolutely make an effort to acquire.

    • Sean A. Nolan says:

      Totally agree. At this point what he said MAY be noise. Ultimately as much as I have serious problems with the way eminent domain has been used, this is literally why
      and how it was first laid out. Compromising with motorized access should at least he attempted. If abused, then restrict it.

    • CK1 says:

      Agree. Ultimately the state is the best steward. There are compromises under any scenario. The bass introduction is a terrible thing and I respect his fear of similar calamity but putting this land in the collective public trust provides the best long-term ecological security.

    • Joseph Dash says:

      Sounds right!
      Sounds right on the money!

  4. Sean A. Nolan says:

    I’d like to know WHY so adamant not selling to the state and WHAT safeguards against development he plans on using

    • Chris says:

      He mentioned introducing bass that overran the native brookies at Little Tupper.

    • Kristan Geissel says:

      Well, the introduced bass was a mistake but who knew anything, really, in 1970? Enviromental issues were barely being addressed. We know differently now.
      Mr. Hendrickson should take 50 years of changing mindsets into consideration before he says no sale to the state.

      • Wayno34 says:

        The state bought Little Tupper in 1998. The only game fish was a wild heritage strain of trout. They tried to maintain it as catch and release but someone(s) introduced bass.

  5. Janet Wakefield says:

    The Whitney lands need protection from development as a whole ! Perhaps it can be done thru various organizations like Adirondack Nature Conservancy and Adirondack Land Trust.
    Could use a combination of easements and outright purchases.
    Perhaps the state could buy certain portions and the conservancies other portions so that Hendrickson’s concerns would be addressed. Regardless of how acquired, access could
    be limited by foot access/carries/gates.
    Looks like state and nonprofits and Hendrickson will need to work together on a comprehensive plan and a fundraising drive.
    Asking price does seem way too high!

  6. Chuck Parker says:

    John Hendrickson (the current owner) and his proposed sale of the Whitney Park Estate brings to mind some interesting points. There are those of us, who think it may be terribly overpriced. He has stated that he will not sell to the State of NY. This is not a bad thought. Apparently, there also appears to be no intent on his part to sell to developers either.
    The issue of not selling this property to the State has my support. Past practice shows that, often, the State’s restrictions placed on newly acquired lands go well beyond the allowable use (access) permitted in the Adirondack State Land Master Plan.
    I don’t blame this on the State, but on some special interest groups that seem to have undue influence. Also, I believe that with the extensive inventory of land the State already owns, it does not have the economic resources to adequately manage the Whitney Park Estate lands, as well.
    The fact that Mr. Hendrickson is reluctant to sell to a developer is admirable, and he should be commended for taking this position.
    I have a suggestion which would be a great experiment and would compare the concept of restrictive use (basic non-use), with science-based wise use philosophy of how the land can be used without negatively impacting the environment.
    My solution would be to give the land to the New York State Conservation Council with the caveat that the Council manages for a balanced forest, based on scientifically sound management practices. As an experiment, in 50 years we can see which is the healthier forest, the Whitney Point Park property or the overall State owed forest preserve.
    Now it may appear that I am messing with you a little. Let me tell you it is not as far out there as you may think. A part of me believes there is a great deal of merit in what I am saying. If this experiment was ever to be accepted by Mr. Hendrickson, of course, I would not be around 50 years from now to see the results. But it sure would be nice to see how this experiment would progress over the time I have left to observe it.
    John, let’s talk.
    Chuck Parker, President
    New York State Conservation Council

    • Joseph Dash says:

      Sounds right!

    • Sean A. Nolan says:

      Great idea BUT your asking limited life span humans to manage something over a half a century with science management. Lots of little devil’s in that detail. Not to mention the other devil’s in the spawn of that detail.

  7. Heather says:

    It should be preserved and bought by the state so taxpayers can enjoy the land. HOWEVER, unless NYS has that kind of money set aside for such acquisition, it will not happen since the state is broke thanks to King, I mean Gov. Cuomo. If the employees of NYS can’t even get their earned 2% raise because of the Democratic mismanagement of state funds, then I do not see this property becoming part of the AFK Park. Besides, the state needs the money from the property taxes.

    • Sean A. Nolan says:

      So if we’re going to go politics, let’s use facts and reality and not bullshit rhetoric. The state is broke because of Cuomo????. Did you just wake up from a coma yesterday? The state is broke because of a pandemic, the GOP and the president.

      • L Hayes says:

        Regardless of why the state is broke, it is broke. It will take years to recover from the pandemic. This is the reality. As a taxpayer, I’m tired of purchasing property and taking it off from the tax rolls so that I can pay more taxes to make up for the short fall. This year it appears to me that more non residents are benefiting from state owned lands than residents We have larger economic problems to deal with at this time. My opinion only.

      • Andrew says:

        Well spoken… By the left

    • Tim-Brunswick says:

      “It should be preserved and bought by the state so taxpayers can enjoy the land”…Sounds good, however as we see time after time when the State ends up with a parcel of Forest preserve…then the real games begin and when the dust settles the only “taxpayers” that can actually see, enjoy, etc. the new property are the young, physically fit, etc,, etc, because it has been classified as “Wilderness”. Just look at the battles that ensued when the State acquired Boreas Ponds, not to mention Essex Chain Lakes Parcel….Both heavily used for nearly a hundred years by heavy-duty logging equipment, with roads all over, yet the “Wilderness only” folks won entirely too many concessions and large chunks of these properties are once again locked up in a “wilderness” classification! Notwithstanding my feelings and those of many others on this forum….It’s Mr. Hendrickson’s right to do as he see’s fit and the rest of us should sit back and let the chips fall where they may!

      • L Hayes says:


      • Joseph Dash says:

        Tim, thanks for your comments but let’s not forget that the majority of lakes in the Adirondack Park are accessible to motorized traffic. Only a small portion is designated wilderness.This is a drag because paddlers take their lives in their hands paddling on motorized lakes – the wash will either swamp or overturn you. Also, it’s camping with motor traffic is like being on a Northway median strip – all day long one hears the drone of engines. Conservationists created the park. All we ask is that some portion be set aside for nature to take its course and that includes “quiet” or silence. But wilderness has economic benefits as well. No one comes to the park just to stay in a hotel. The number of paddle craft I see on cars parked at the Adirondack Hotel in Long Lake far outnumbers the motorboats. Had Little Tupper been motorized I doubt any of those people would be stopping in town for a meal. Long Lake has had a launching dock for decades but I never motorcraft in town. We all benefit by preservation.

    • AG says:

      Personally I think there is not enough wilderness in the Adirondacks. NYS should make it more like Denali or Yellowstone or even Glacier. All of the large animals that existed before should be brought back as possible – wolves – cougars – elk (maybe even Buffalo). LOTS of people would pay money to see those animals in the wild. Nearby Algonquin in Ontario Canada is even closer example.

  8. Vanessa says:

    At risk of being repetitive: it’s too expensive. No one should buy it at the price he’s offering.

    I personally believe the state has the best chance of keeping it non-developed long term. The right private owner could do a good job too, but you wouldn’t have “forever wild” protection. Private entities come, go, die and in this guys case attempt to cash out when they are tired of the responsibility.

    Gwen Craig’s profile on him was telling, and imo not in a good way. In these weird economic times, it seems like the only buyer that wouldn’t be some eccentric billionaire with who-knows-what intentions would be a land trust or the state. It’s all well and good what we’d like, but I’m not seeing many options (especially at that price!)

    (I also happen to believe, per Gwens article, that he’s, ahem, talking up the number of offers he’s had, but who knows. I am not an eccentric rich person.)

  9. Todd says:

    No question, it should be preserved and become part ‘forever wild’ state land. Not from New York, but I would be willing to donate to a fund to make this happen.

  10. Mike Mattessich says:

    He should sell it to the state but with strict stipulations requiring most of the buildings to be preserved and possibly set aside for historic registry on some level. Maintain the roads, allow primitive camping, prohibit motorized trails. If the state sees it as such a gem, they can surely take the time to bring an offer that satisfies his concerns with the state’s constraints on law and ability to maintain the property.

  11. Kathleen Crandall says:

    Yes the state should acquire the land. The camps/ lodges can be rented out to the public. Too bad the property cannot be donatet to the state.

  12. Katherine Catoggio says:

    Please…let the state have it. The Adks don’t need more developments.

  13. Phil Terrie says:

    The bass in Little Tupper Lake were not introduced by the state.

    • Cristine Meixner says:

      True. But the state failed to prevent it.

      • Phil Terrie says:

        And exactly how could the state prevent vandals from driving, in the middle of the night, to a lake that can be reached by a public road and dumping fish into it?

        • Mark says:

          Funny. The Whitneys were able to protect the trout for over 100 years. Just saying.

          • Phil Brown says:

            Did they ever catch someone trying to introduce bass into Little Tupper Lake?

          • Dana says:

            Duh… It is much easier to protect wild lands and waters by keeping it off-limits to the public. The Preserve wasn’t a target of political and environmental sabotage.

        • Joseph Dash says:

          Dear Mr. Terrie, thank you for our excellent work on behalf of the Park. I’m extremely fond of your writings. Your question is one I’ve asked myself many times. While Little Tupper was privately owned anyone could have drove by and dumped bass in it yet they didn’t. Why? I’m not really sure. Somehow I feel there’s got to be a way to prevent these abuses. I’m not sure what they are. Perhaps education? For example, I thought everyone knew you can’t primitive camp without a stove. Yet one day on Lows Lake I saw a well -to-do family camping on an island tearing up the trees in search of firewood! Had they bought a guidebook before leaving home they would have been know you can’t find firewood in back country camping sites. Maybe every hiker, paddler, camper should have to apply for a permit and take a class before using the backcountry just as hunters have to do. Everyone should know how to use a compass or GPS. I would go further and say everyone should know basic survival shelter building – a debris hut doesn’t damage the woods. I’d welcome hearing more of your thoughts on this subject. Until then, I look forward to your next book! Best Wishes

          • Phil Brown says:

            The scuttlebutt is some yahoo dumped bass into the lake because he (I bet it was a he) was upset with state’s prohibition on motorboats.

            • Phil Terrie says:

              That’s also what I heard.

              • Joseph Dash says:

                Judging by the number of paddle craft parked in front of the Adirondack Hotel during the summer the wilderness designation of Little Tupper Lake has brought more business to the town than any motorized use would have.

                • Phil Terrie says:

                  Mr. Dash, Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated. The question of whether or not Whitney Park (or Follensby Pond, for that matter) would be better protected in private hands than in the Forest Preserve is a fair one to raise. It’s true that the trout stayed safe under Whitney management, and I believe it’s true (though I can’t prove) that vandals, resenting the Wilderness classification, decided to sabotage the heritage trout population–a despicable act of nihilism if there ever was one! State ownership means pubic access for all people, with all the positives and negatives that follow. Private ownership might mean better protection (and it might not!) but means the asset stays closed to the public, a playground for millionaires. I can see the arguments for both sides, but in the end I believe that more positives than negatives come with state acquisition. I hope that Whitney Park will be added to the Forest Preserve.

            • Paul says:

              Let’s post more wild speculation here. Good idea.

  14. Chris Savarie says:

    I think the National Forest service would be a good fit for this property. They would do a much better job managing this property for all interests. They would also create some much needed employment in the process. Ny state can’t afford these types of purchases at this time.

    • Steve B. says:

      The National Forest Service is under the Dept. of Agriculture, as such the mindset is NOT preservation, but money making. They consider timber a crop. They are generally poor custodians of the existing forests. In any event, they would be in violation of the state constitution if they tried to manage any portion of the Adirondacks as they do what forests they currently do manage.

      • Greg says:

        The “forever wild” clause of the state constitution only applies to the state-owned lands in the Adirondacks. Just like timber companies and private individuals are free to log their lands in the Adirondacks, so would the USFS.

        (Not that I think the USFS should buy it)

      • Paul says:

        The USDA funds lots of great fundamental research saying they are all about money making is nonsense and false.

        What happened to this site?

  15. Sean A. Nolan says:

    So if we’re going to go politics, let’s use facts and reality and not bullshit rhetoric. The state is broke because of Cuomo????. Did you just wake up from a coma yesterday? The state is broke because of a pandemic, the GOP and the president.

    • Peter says:

      Fact: NYS was 8 Billion in debit when the pandemic started. Cuomo has a history of bad money management starting with the job Clinton gave him as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

      • Sean A. Nolan says:

        FACT: Wrong. The state was facing a nearly 6 billion deficit as of 2020. At least a third of that because of the president and GPOer tax cut, that screwed the state over. As state deficits go that is not that terrible. Currently we are projected to run an extra 10-20 billion more because of the pandemic and lack of action by the GOP led Senste

  16. Penn Hoyt says:

    Keep the socialists out of this and keep it private. Thank God this country still believes in private ownership.

    • Sean A. Nolan says:

      Enjoy your social security, your roads, schools, etc etc etc. Welcome to socialism

      • Dean says:

        And yet the right-wingers overlook this convenient fact. People don’t live in individualistic bubbles. Perhaps they confuse “socialism” with “communism.” And I am willing to wager that some of the craftier ultra-conservatives purposely want the vast unwashed to believe that there is no difference between the two, so that these folks will live in fear of a false bogeman.

  17. edna thackeray says:

    This Long Lake area needs to be preserved for the future

  18. Charlie S says:

    Thank God this country still believes in private ownership.

    What is God?

  19. Joan Grabe says:

    Jack Ma at Brandon Park, Mary Lou Whitney at this property were are absentee owners of great personal wealth. Let the market determine what the price should be. I don’t think any eventual buyer would be a “ socialist “ of any stripe. Even the private lands here are encumbered by the over arching mission of keeping the Wilderness aspects of the park intact for future generations. Who actually thinks this Property would become DisneyWorld of the North ? Although that is an interesting idea ……….

    • Dean says:

      Joan Grabe:

      “DisneyWorld of the North ? Although that is an interesting idea ……….”

      Are you serious?!!!! This isn’t the Jersey Shore you know. Good grief.

  20. John Marona says:

    The state needs to hire another 50 or so Forest Rangers , Conservation officers and wildlife biologists , and then they can talk about adding more land to the Forest Preserve. The state seems unwilling to preserve, protect and enhance the park as it is today.

    • Sean A. Nolan says:

      YES YES YES!!! Between social media and the state sponsored ads for/and about the ADK they are overwhelmed. Then you add in the accidental injuries plus the increasing amount of idiots not equipped properly their numbers need to be increased.

    • Joseph Dash says:

      Perhaps that is the problem in a nutshell? the Commission on the Adirondacks in the 21st Century recommended establishing an Adirondack Forest Service. I’d love to work for that organization. The trouble is paying for it. Some suggested confiscating all the unclaimed nickles from soda bottles. I like that idea but I think it ran afoul of constitutional constraints. Some suggest tolls on the Northway. Robert Moses made a fortune on all the nickels and dimes people dropped into his Triboro Bridge and Tunnel baskets. Wilderness permits? A wealth tax? Admission fees? Any suggestions?

    • AG says:

      Bring back the large animals and the wild areas can make more money – to be able to hire more rangers

  21. Boreas says:

    A wealthy landowner with a beautiful piece of land rather loudly puts the land up for sale at 5 times the going rate for wild lands. The owner also rather loudly states he will not sell to the two most likely potential buyers – developers and NYS. This poses many questions, one of which is who does that leave that can afford the taxes? I don’t see a group like TNC being interested in long-term ownership if the land isn’t especially unique in some way. Unless I am missing something, the only other potential buyers are timber/mining concerns or another wealthy private individual or corporation with money to burn. Mr. H. has our attention – it will be interesting to follow the progress of this endeavor.

  22. Sean A. Nolan says:

    FACT: Wrong. The state was facing a nearly 6 billion deficit as of 2020. At least a third of that because of the president and GPOer tax cut, that screwed the state over. As state deficits go that is not that terrible. Currently we are projected to run an extra 10-20 billion more because of the pandemic and lack of action by the GOP led Senste

    • Joseph Dash says:

      Guys, I don’t want to wade into a political fight but deficits per se are not bad things. Under Roosevelt the federal government went billions into the red financing the war effort but when it was over we emerged as the richest Country in the world. What matters is what’s done with the money. If it’s locked in private hands it does no good. If it’s used for the public, everyone benefits. Borrowing money to buy Little Tupper was a good thing.

  23. Big Burly says:

    stay in private hands.

  24. Daniel Dutelle says:

    The state would be the best steward for the land in my opinion. Why does everything turn into a political argument now?

  25. Katherine McDaniel says:

    I’d like the State or a land conservation group/s to buy it. If sold to a private person, what’s to stop them from later on dividing up the property and selling to developer/s. Perhaps a mixed use plan could be developed by the State or groups purchasing, to satisfy the surrounding communities and Henderson. Although, getting everyone to agree would be difficult if the past is any indication

  26. ADKscott says:

    I think a wealthy private owner would be the best outcome for conservation/preservation of the property. It was public access that ruined Little Tupper trout. So, I say, skip it this time. Keep it a large private preserve. Maybe in some long future it’ll become NYS land, but that isn’t the right answer at this moment.

  27. Shawn says:

    I’m just trying to figure out why it’s any of our business what he does with his land. Do I need to get someone’s permission to sell my stuff now.

    • Steve B. says:

      In the Adirondacks, Yes. The APA has significant input as to how and what you can do with your property. Many landowners HATE this, but there’s no question that the reason for it is to preserve the Adirondacks and they have arguably succeeded at protecting the region from over use and inappropriate development.

    • Joseph Dash says:

      Most property is subject to restrictions. A permit is needed before an extra floor can be added to a house (don’t dare build a three story home in Levittown!). Zoning laws restrict certain uses to certain areas (you can’t build a factory next to Disneyland, CA). All of our Constitutional rights are subject to the “police powers” of the state, i.e. the right of the state to regulate for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Our issue is whether NYS should exercise its police powers to buy a tract of land that will create the single largest unbroken wilderness anywhere in the continental US?

  28. Stephen G Rose says:

    A private buyer just kicks the development can down the road. Something needs to be done with the state becoming the ultimate owner for most of the property. I’m sure a contingency can be drafted not to stock bass in the future. A hospitality company with aid of a historic preservation group can receive and preserve the buildings and jobs and add cabins. Hut-to-hut hospitality makes sense and could be part of a park-wide tourism plan. Bicycle and canoe tourism can be managed, and rentals can generate income. Generosity as well as compromise is needed on all sides.

  29. Jamie says:

    How is this any of our business? Leave the guy alone.

    • CK1 says:

      Leave me he guy alone? He brought this upon himself by making this sale so public and his opening remarks and follow up. I’m sure he’s enjoying himself. As an important natural resource in a world continually losing wild spaces and it’s not our business, but responsibility to care about this.

  30. Joseph Dash says:

    As an avid hiker, paddler, primitive camper I would love to see Whitney Park become part of the Forest Preserve. However, Mr. Hendrickson’s concerns over conservation of the land and is unique fauna and flora are legitimate. The loss of the heritage strain of brook trout in Little Tupper Lake was heartbreaking and a damning stain on NYS residents. I wonder if limited conservation easements allowing use of the historic waterways, such as Slim Pond, without allowing fishing, motorcraft, or camping are something Mr. Hendrickson would consider? Perhaps day-use permits for certain sections of the property? It’s noble of Mr. Henrickson to search for a conservation minded purchaser but it’s doubtful he’ll find one. In the event the land ends up on the chopping block or there’s threat of development then eminent domain should be considered. A long public comment period on the UMP would have to follow with active plans to prevent a Little Tupper-like disaster. Let’s hope by then our State recovers from the pandemic enough to purchase the property should it come to that.

  31. Leonard Dommin says:

    Unfortunate that MaryLou did not make plans before her passing to keep this property forever wild. That said, I hope whatever decision made would benefit wildlife conservation and add to the great heritage of the Adirondack Park.

  32. Tom Leustek says:

    Save the Whitney estate for the people. Most of us are not filthy rich, yet we are able to enjoy the Adirondack Park because of the foresight and enlightened thinking of our leadership.

    Please Governor Cuomo, buy the property and keep it forever wild.

    NY has a long history of enlightened land preservation. And there is no place more sacred that the Adirondack Park.

  33. Add it to the park, preserve it forever wild. Keep growing the park.

  34. Susan says:

    Nature conservancy is a great steward! So few places this large are preserved intact. Some places just need to be preserved for future generations. Others need to evolve and be developed in ways that allow more people to connect with the outdoors. In my opinion, the whitney property will have more value to NYS and the world preserved

    • Paul says:

      TNC sells their land to the state (usually at a profit, at least to cover holding costs) I doubt he would sell to them.

    • AG says:

      Agreed. Part of that is wild life watching of animals people can’t just see anywhere. Bringing back species long gone would be a start.

  35. Paul says:

    The land can be protected with conservation easements and kept in private ownership and maybe even be open for some public use with proper management. This discussion is mute the owners are not selling to NYS.

  36. Dean says:

    Joan Grabe:

    “DisneyWorld of the North ? Although that is an interesting idea ……….”

    Are you serious?!!!! This isn’t the Jersey Shore you know. Good grief.

  37. Steven Wood says:

    Please NYS, purchase this for the Adirondack Park to preserve and keep forever wild.

  38. David Hurwitch says:

    Lived in the Adirondacks for many years. Let the State buy it!!!

  39. Fred says:

    I, for one, find it noble that Mr. Hendrickson wants to sell it to a conservation-minded entity. The Whitneys were grand stewards of the land for over 120 years. I’m sure Mr. Hendrickson will make sure that legacy continues with the new owners.

    • CK1 says:

      It seems like deeding, donating, or selling it cheaply to a conservation organization would be noble. Selling it above market rate and being very vocal about the process feels more like a publicity stunt.

      This land is simply overpriced. Any modern day oligarch can find a much better large tract in a place like Montana for that price. It’s a niche buyer who has some sentimental connection to the Adirondacks and a lot of money laying around.

  40. Joy Keithline says:

    It absolutely should become part of the Adirondack park and become protected for wildlife and people who love nature untrammeled.

    Nothing against the rich, but should anyone outright own such beautiful land? It needs to be cherished, protected and and experienced in all its natural beauty.

  41. Joshua says:

    I don’t want anyone’s opinions when I sell my property in the Adirondacks. A lot of you sound like spoiled millennials.

  42. Darlene says:

    Can’t afford it; don’t buy it! That’s the way capitalism works.

  43. Wayno says:

    IMO, the best solution for keeping the Whitney land in its current condition would be to have the state buy it and classify it as wilderness. A wilderness classification means no motorized access, therefore it can only be enjoyed by persons willing to work a little to get there. It doesn’t mean you have to be an athlete or super fit, but you probably can’t be obese, roll up in your SUV, ride an ATV or Snowmobile and consume the whole property in a day either. State ownership with a wilderness classification would give the property the best chance of being in a wild and natural state for future generations to enjoy. The current mood of many citizens does not seem to show much concern for future generations though, so therein lies part of the dilemma. Do we still see value in land conservation for our posterity?

  44. Peter says:

    Current condition? The first thing NYS will be to loot the camps and burn them down. That is what wilderness means. There are plenty of examples from the past.

  45. David Hazelden says:

    Too much wilderness is gone. We must keep the little we have left in the east
    for wildlife diversity, and for our future generations. The state should own it!

Wait! Before you go:

Catch up on all your Adirondack
news, delivered weekly to your inbox