Since Ross Whaley’s visit this past week, I have been
mulling over the idea of what it means to be “substantially invisible”. This rule,
thought to protect the scenic beauty of the landscape, targets cell towers and
other major infrastructure. However, as someone who lives on a lake with
extremely strict waterfront guidelines, I wonder why seemingly few such rules
exist to protect the same “scenic beauty” of lakes.
Looking
at the shoreline of Saranac Lake, it’s easy to determine where public land ends
and private begins. Uninterrupted tree growth abruptly turns into country club
style lawns littered with brightly colored watercraft and pathways leading to
boathouses that project into the water. It has never been more clear to me how
much of an imprint we have made and how much stress we put on the landscape of
the Adirondacks. Private property owners play such a large roll in this
destruction and consumption, however our instinct is to target major projects
like cell towers. Is this due to a lack of accountability on an individual
level? And doesn’t the “substantially invisible” tower on Lake George, and on
other lakes like it, only satisfy the rule because we are already distracted by
all of the houses in the foreground?
I
certainly appreciate the thought put in to the placement and visibility of cell
towers, but question the use of private land by individuals. Perhaps there will
be a trickle down of management of aesthetic qualities within the park,
starting with large structures and flowing down to the smallest man made
changes like cairns. In every instance, what one thinks is beautiful or useful,
the next will deem ugly or unnecessary.
Really interesting point and way to spark debate!! It does seem pretty odd that despite such a large portion of the Park being water, we have really only delved into applying the Leave No Trace/substantially invisible ideologies to mountains and trails... I never really thought about how much more attracted I am to a lake that has no watercraft property nearby than a lake with boats, docks, etc.. If I were to see a cell tower in the middle of my hike, I would be filled with rage at the government and the extreme modern human reliance on technology. If I see colorful boats at the edge of a lake, I do not really think twice about it because I am so used to seeing such. The presence of watercraft communicates, to me, that the water is not only to be shared by humans for recreational purposes, but also it belongs to someone. The fact that I am wary to engage in water activities within the vicinity around a private boat is actually pretty disturbing.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to come to terms with the inherent inconsistencies of park management. If the state can control the way structures like cell towers appear in order to maintain the aesthetic of the Park, can't they control other aspects of human luxury as well? They could indeed, but at what point does control go too far? It is nearly impossible to envision a way that private property on lakes such as boat docks could be regulated on a strict scale, since permanent water recreational equipment and residence near bodies of Adirondack water are such inherent aspects of the region. Yet, I definitely think that park management organizations should make a better effort to educate residents and visitors about ways to preserve the ecosystems, and, thus, the beauty, of bodies of water. I don't really know much about how things you mention such as lawns, watercraft, and pathways have negative effects on the environment, and I would like to know if you have any knowledge about this that inspired this post, or if your opinions/emotional response here was driven solely by the way such things interrupt the tranquil scenery of/around bodies of water... I found this document that gives some information about how private property near water (specifically Lake Macquarie, in New South Wales, Australia) can be regulated: http://lakemac.com.au/downloads/LIVING%20ON%20THE%20EDGE%20A3.pdf
Good question, Ice. There is a good explanation of why some things are highly regulated in the park, and others aren't. The simple fact is that the Adirondack Park Agency, which makes the regulations, did not come into existence until 1972, by which point nearly all of the lakeshore development had already occurred. The regulations that came into being about lakeshores at that point had to take into consideration existing development, and the new regulations were largely based on what already existed (otherwise, people would have had to tear a lot of things down, or make expensive alterations). New kinds of development, like cell towers, don't face this extra hurdle, so the APA can be strict about that.
ReplyDelete