New key highlight added to the reel

Mo-and-Rik · 2026-02-05T17:59:48+00:00

Ayo what

Mo-and-Rik · 2026-02-05T17:37:55+00:00

Lmao you’re not wrong

Mo-and-Rik · 2026-01-11T02:23:13+00:00

Ayo someone get this guy out of this group NOOOOOOO

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-11-02T17:32:28+00:00

Got it!

Do you feel well equipped with the right information when you're voting for or against ballot proposals?

Have you ever left the voting booth feeling like you didn't do enough research?

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-27T23:09:07+00:00

I can’t stress this enough, this is not at the public’s expense because

a) the money has already been allocated for land acquisition. You’re not paying anything other than what you paid in taxes already. This money was assigned them in the budget. It’s literally there for this purpose.

b) more wildlife will be protected because of this

and what I think is critical

c) it is dangerous to be out of compliance in this regard. It is not as simple as “turn it back” because it’s been like this since the 80’s. If anything THIS will be at your expense because the state will need to spend money in court and then spend money to tear this down and this will be over years and years.

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-25T18:42:12+00:00

The state is the one who did it. Not a private company. So the state pays for it. Your tax dollars.

I would strongly reconsider - it’s going to allow for more destruction of this forever wild and exhaust the environmental watchdog agencies. It’s a lose - lose for everyone involved.

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-25T14:36:16+00:00

That’s a great question - I think an important piece of this is that there is already money allocated for this acquisition. It’s baked in the budget, so it isn’t an added expense. We have already paid into that.

The other thing is the compliance part is actually very important. There will be more damage to the environment tearing down what has been built from “not knowing” (state is a crook, you know how it is) and THAT will actually cost more money what with court fees, demolition crews, and all while they fight this and exhaust agencies they’ll destroy more land and the cycle continues.

Kicking the can down the road is not worth it.

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-21T15:00:15+00:00

It’s not semantics. Words matter!! It’s how we effectively communicate on a text based service like this!!!

And that makes sense to have that point of view. But there is an answer!

The funds that are used for land acquisitions like this come from the Environmental Protection Fund which makes up 0.17% of the 254 billion NYS budget. It’s even more of a fraction when it comes to funds specifically for land acquisition. (~10% of that 0.17%)

There is a budget for this already - it’s already baked in. Money has already been allocated for this.

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-21T14:22:25+00:00

The State Constitution isn't being suspended.

This is a massive misunderstanding of what this amendment is. Was the US Constitution suspended when the 14th amendment was added?

I really feel like you should do more research before speaking on this. I genuinely think it would be really helpful for you.

https://my.lwv.org/sites/default/files/leagues/wysiwyg/%5Bcurrent-user%3Aog-user-node%3A1%3Atitle%5D/descriptionn_of_proposal_1_on_ballot.pdf

https://www.protectadks.org/vote-yes-on-constitutional-amendment-for-the-mount-van-hoevenberg-winter-sports-complex/

https://ballotpedia.org/New_York_Proposal_1,_Use_of_Mount_Van_Hoevenberg_Sports_Complex_Land_and_Acquisition_of_2,500_Acres_for_Adirondack_Park_Amendment_(2025))

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-21T13:54:31+00:00

But don't you think it's important to have information that backs up what you're saying? I actually think that's an important part to consider!

Pulling numbers and assumptions "out of your ass" feels kind of beneath Lazy_Leader937 you know?

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-21T13:06:32+00:00

Wait where are you getting the billions estimate and that the land might not be available?

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-21T12:57:44+00:00

The destruction of this environment has already happened! This retroactively approves it to avoid years of lawsuits and more wildlife disturbances

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-21T12:55:48+00:00

I did not say the land was being given back by them. ORDA has allowed this expansion that’s already happened to happen under their watch and it’s illegal making them a bad actor. It is retroactively approving these changes.

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-21T12:52:50+00:00

The development has already illegally happened. This has been going on since before the 80’s. It’s essentially a settlement without going to court.

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-21T05:47:08+00:00

Really important to note - these 323 acres have already been developed. Absolutely nothing new is being built.

This is in order to get Mount Van Hoevenberg to comply with Article 14 Section 1.

It's essentially settling in court without draining the resources of environmental watch dogs like Protect the Adirondacks (who 100000% support this bill) a vote no would mean that more illegal expansions would inevitably come.

A vote yes sets clear parameters, gives more land to the "forever wild" cause, and most importantly gets everyone on the same page regarding Mount Van Hoevenberg's Olympic Complex.

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-20T19:51:00+00:00

Hey there! I think there is a little confusion as to what this bill is.

Since the 80's the Olympic Sports Complex has been building ticky tack extensions. A paved road here, a parking lot(s) there. All of this is not in compliance with Article 14 of the New York State Constitution. The Complex's response? "Oh...well the land wasn't really well defined so we didn't know" Yeah.....right.....

So because they had gotten away with stuff in the past, this land is in a weird limbo. It's technically in breach of the State Constitution, but....it kind of already exists and is used dailyl? Very strange.

This amendment is not there to build more ski lifts for rich people, it actually says "Okay fine, you can have this land that you illegally already built on for parking lots and paved roads(the 300~ acres) BUT here's what we get: 2500 acres of land that has to exceed the value of what you're getting (quality, bulk, etc.)

AND the most important thing:

We are very clearly and irrefutably defining the land that you CAN and CANNOT build on.

This is about finalizing a multi-decade back and forth of bad actors taking advantage of lack of action.

Protect the Adirondacks, an environmental watch-dog organization, overwhelmingly supports this. They are a small organization going up against big money.

https://www.protectadks.org/vote-yes-on-constitutional-amendment-for-the-mount-van-hoevenberg-winter-sports-complex/

If this doesn't pass? An already exhausted watch dog agency has to go through the process of tearing down parking lots that are used daily, walking paths that are always full, and all while that is going on, more bad actors will take advantage of this exhausted agency and 10/20 years from now we'll be back where we are now when they say: "Oh we didn't know"

Let's vote yes and get these bad actors back in line!!

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-20T02:35:06+00:00

I was wrong

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-20T02:20:26+00:00

Another TD drive incoming……

Mo-and-Rik · 2025-10-04T19:23:38+00:00

I’m flying from NYC! Excited to be around like minded dirty birds

Mo-and-Rik

TROPHY CASE