Tom DeWeese
Written by Kathleen Marquardt, an associate of Tom DeWeese
First the story, and then I have added background so you might understand why, what, and whom all this came from. The story, straight from the victim’s mouth will be in italics.
Just because a group calls itself environmental does not mean that it is wise, or even knowledgeable about how to conserve land. This story is about how the environmentalists got it wrong, and, to make things worse, unjustly bankrupted and deliberately punished an honest and dedicated conservationist. It gives new meaning to the term eco-terrorism.
The environmental group Scenic Hudson professes to have a lofty goal – protecting the Hudson River Valley from development. However, the tactics they are using aren’t so lofty. In fact, their approach is that of a bully or predator.
An innocent and well-meaning retired widow in upstate New York may be the latest – but not the only – victim. Her case demonstrates just how litigious, unreasonable, and poorly informed Scenic Hudson bureaucrats are, and it raises questions about Scenic Hudson’s agenda and ultimate goal.
Anne Hohenstein’s family settled on the Hudson River south of Albany, NY, four generations (~100 years) ago. Anne’s grandmother and Anne’s infant daughter are buried in the small family graveyard on the property, near an old farmhouse and barn, where Hohenstein and her family kept horses and goats. A former environmental lawyer, Anne was taught by her grandmother to revere the land and the beautiful Hudson River.
Maintaining the land in its native state is important to Anne as is continuing to farm the fields near the forest. She enjoys country life and finds it peaceful and inspiring.
In 2012 Scenic Hudson purchased an easement – an easement, not the land – to her family property on the Hudson River in New Baltimore, New York, from Anne and her siblings for $258,850. The property is a collection of parcels – pieces of a historic fruit farm – composed of forests and agricultural fields mostly held by family trusts.
The easement protects undeveloped property from future development. It requires the landowner to protect the Hudson River Valley, with its native species, and bans mechanical vehicles except on existing farm roads. Trying to do just that is what got Anne in trouble with the environmentalists.
Scenic Hudson repeatedly urged landowners to work as partners with Scenic Hudson, the easement holder, to protect the open spaces along the Hudson River. Everyone started out as just that, partners, because the landowners wanted the same thing. Soon, however, the landowners became the vassals and Scenic Hudson the despot.
Anne fully embraced her ancestors’ desire to preserve the land. Her grandmother, a biologist who attended Russell Sage, knew decades ago that open space in the Hudson River Valley would soon be at a premium, especially on the west side of the river. She specifically asked her granddaughter to protect her legacy by protecting the land from development and by promoting agriculture and science. Anne made that promise, and the easement requires her to do just that – preserve Hudson Valley land in its natural state.
Anne said, “Scenic Hudson disagrees with our interpretation (of the easement). They are seeking to crush me, punitively, without acknowledging the science of the situation, which is that the forest is healthier now, except for damage by Scenic Hudson after the cut.”
In an effort to comply with this goal in the best way possible, Anne asked the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to develop a forest management plan. A DEC forester visited the property and advised her that the forest of mostly native hardwoods was long overdue for a protective cut.
He said there were dead and dying trees, some invasive species, some trees that were preventing the regrowth of younger, healthier trees, and trees that could pose a danger to people enjoying using the forest (hunters, birdwatchers, hikers, etc.). A protective cut culls dead, dying, and dangerous trees in order to permit regrowth of native trees.
When the landowner approached Scenic Hudson about the issue, an easement manager (not a professional forester) said the cut could not be done because the easement did not permit it. However, the easement document does not specifically prohibit a protective cut. What it does prohibit is new building, new roads, or any kind of development.
The landowner took the issue to the conservation manager’s bosses. One returned her call to say that Scenic Hudson would like to help but acknowledged that the group no longer had a professional forester on staff.
Who to believe – DEC or Scenic Hudson’s conservation manager? The landowner hired a professional forester recommended by the DEC to help her decide. He concurred with the DEC analysis. The landowner then hired a local reputable logger forester. The project took several months in order to do it carefully, without causing collateral damage.
Just as the logger’s work was finishing, a stop work order was posted, and Scenic Hudson sued the family trust and the landowner, both as the trustee and personally, for “damage” to the forest and violation of the easement.
Scenic Hudson is seeking restoration, planting of new trees, legal fees, payment for the value of the trees removed, and other damages. The lawsuit seeks more than half a million dollars in damages. This amount is significantly more than the value of the property.
The retired landowner hired an attorney and a professional forester, and together they provided ample technical evidence that the forest is now much healthier than it was before the cut. Scenic Hudson claims to have done its own post-cut “restoration” work, which was performed poorly and at excessive cost. The retired landowner said that she would undertake the restoration work. Scenic Hudson refused.
Scenic Hudson claims costs well over $650,000 and wants the landowner to pay for it but has provided no backup or evidence to support the purported work. The landowner has already incurred more than $100,000 of her own money in legal fees trying to resolve this dispute, and the bill is growing. On the advice of counsel, Anne was finally forced to file bankruptcy.
A trial on Scenic Hudson’s suit was set to begin July 17, 2023, but was postponed until April 2025. Scenic Hudson and the landowner have had some settlement conferences, but the “offer” was for Anne to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (which she does not have.) is not a genuine attempt to settle.
Basically, Scenic Hudson forced Anne into bankruptcy and now seeks to gain control of her land – all because Anne was trying to be a caretaker for the land and to follow expert guidance. She wasn’t developing the land; she was preserving it.
Scenic Hudson clearly is a bully, an eco-terrorist, and is trying to force this landowner and her family to give up all of their rights while masquerading behind a façade of do-gooder environmentalism. Anne is not the only landowner to suffer from the group’s aggressive and punitive actions. Her elderly next door neighbor, who, like Anne’s family, has been farming and protecting his family’s land for generations, has also been a target.
He is suffering from a brain tumor, but the same Scenic Hudson conservation easement manager, acting unprofessionally; harassed, disrespected, and ignored him. For minor alleged easement violations, he was pursued by Scenic Hudson. It turned out the landowner was right and Scenic Hudson was wrong, yet Scenic Hudson made him pay its legal fees.
This neighbor may be reluctant to talk to the press because he is afraid of Scenic Hudson and the arbitrary use of its power. These are not wealthy landowners. They are hard-working, ordinary people trying to preserve land from development, not profit from it.
Their land is still farmed, and they work hard to maintain their land.
Is the Scenic Hudson goal to protect the land or to force the landowners to give up their family land? Is this conservation or retaliation? This is conservation gone wrong. This looks like eco-terrorism.
It not only looks like eco-terrorism, it is.
Background (thanks to Robert Powell)
- 1892 – Departments in Univ. of Chicago, Columbia Univ., Univ. of Wisconsin with E.A. Ross who has career full of Socio-communist relations. Ross’s book “Social Control” (1901) is the textbook teaching how a few can gain control over Society. Albin W. Small, first Chair, taught Sociology as History, Economics, and Political Science. This Department and Albin W. Small were funded by Rockefeller Foundation.
- 1908 – Philanthropic Foundations entered, along with the Federal Reserve. Creating false economics and third-party funding of subversive activities, via social cover. Alger Hiss was President of Carnegie Foundation. Rockefeller Foundation funded Sociology Chair Albin W. Small at Univ. of Chicago. The idea is: There is crime in the Slums, therefore slums cause crime-eliminate Slums, eliminate crime. Guilt by Association.
- 1913 – Roscoe Pound, Saint-Simon. Socialized Law substitutes appointed Administrators for judicial Law. This to adjust social interests over the individual rights. Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter spoke about “throughgoing overturning” of society. It must be done from the outside and translated by those in office.
- 1913 – Or, as the old Red dictum goes, “Communism must be built with non-Communist hands.” To engage the non-Communist dupes in these endeavors, though, requires rhetorical camouflage and deception. A prime example of this rhetorical treachery can be found in the judicial revolution launched in 1913 with the Conference on Legal and Social Philosophy organized by Fabian Socialists Harold Laski, John Dewey, Morris Cohen, and Roscoe Pound. Cohen’s son, Felix, later boasted that it is from this conference that “much of the social and philosophical consciousness of modern American jurisprudence derives.” Felix Cohen openly proclaimed: It is impossible to attempt overthrow of Capitalism as an economic system without at the same time attacking the substance of capitalist law. As well, the Federal Reserve pushed it through Congress. In order to carry this out, Taft had to be defeated. Rockefeller & Morgan bought up 159 News Corporations, while J.P. Morgan financed the Roosevelt “Bull Moose” vote splitting campaign.
- 1916 – Dewey & Education 1916 – Socialist Leader John Dewey’s textbook still used today, Dewey said dependency is a power, individuality an illness. Thereupon the sane are insane, the dependent is sane, as he needs the community. The collective is the norm. In 1934 ( L.I.D. ) League for Industrial Democracy had student groups in 150 colleges.
Most information came from: The Great Deceit – AUTH: Dobbs
Some via research Clift Notes by LT Robert K. Powell
Some from: Creature From Jekyll Island: Griffin
Some from: Lost Illusions: Freda Utley
____________________
Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She is dedicated to exposing the fallacies of the radical environmental and animal rights movements. She has been featured in national publications including Fortune, People, the Washington Post, and Field and Stream, as well as television news programs such as Hard Copy, The McLaughlin Group, Geraldo, and many others. Today, she serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Phone: (540) 341-8911
contact@americanpolicy.org
© Tom DeWeeseThe views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
