The possibility of a state constitutional convention is worrisome to John F. Sheehan, spokesman for the Adirondack Council.
In November, New York state voters will be asked whether to call a convention to amend the state constitution. The constitution requires that voters be asked the question at least every 20 years. At the last vote in 1997, 62 percent of state voters rejected the idea. The last convention was held in 1967 and there has been a total of nine in the state’s history.
One of the most productive conventions was in 1894, and one of its key features was the Adirondack forest preserve’s “Forever Wild” clause. The state governor at the time was Theresa native Roswell P. Flower.
The likeness of the north country’s political hero stands on Public Square, flanked by noble and granite eagles. His right hand is raised, as if sharing a friendly wave or perhaps bidding adieu after a life lived well and fully.
This month, the law that created the Adirondack Park marks its 125th anniversary. It was signed by Gov. Flower on May 20, 1892. Why the governor isn’t seen as the father of the Adirondack conservation movement may stump some people.
The answer lies somewhere among the ambitions of the 19th century timber industry, Tammany Hall and the 1894 New York State constitutional convention. Within that answer is how the world of politics works, causing concern for those like Mr. Sheehan who believes a new Constitutional Convention could harm their causes.
“It’s so easy to slide backwards,” Mr. Sheehan said. “People forget why rules and regulations were approved in the first place. It makes sense to go back and to remember why we did what we did.”
The Adirondack Park is the largest park in the contiguous United States. Its 6 million acres cover one-fifth of the state. Forty-five percent of the park is publicly owned forest preserve, protected as “Forever Wild” by the New York state constitution since 1894. More than half of the park is private land. It’s home to about 130,000 permanent residents and hosts 10 million visitors each year.
“The constitution in the state has helped to protect the Adirondacks, while forests fell at very rapid paces around us, and disappeared in many cases,” Mr. Sheehan said in a telephone interview.
The Adirondacks, Mr. Sheehan said, are also the source of the state’s major rivers.
“If we can keep the environment clean and healthy here, we’ve done a great deal of protecting the state’s drinking water,” he said.
Mr. Sheehan said that despite the more than 100 attempts to weaken or repeal New York State Constitution’s Forever Wild clause, it remains the strongest forest conservation measure in the world.
‘a mischievous situation'On the 125th anniversary of the creation of the Adirondack Park, Mr. Sheehan sees a lot of parallels to today’s political climate.
“Corporations had a huge amount of power in terms of influence over politics,” he said. “At the time, not only were there few laws about monopolies, but there also were no rules and regulations about campaign contributions.”
In the mid-1800s, timber companies wielded a great deal of power. But as trees in the Adirondacks fell, the public’s concern grew. Speeding that were the photographs of Seneca Ray Stoddard (1844-1917). Shots of devastated Adirondack landscapes that were clear cut by timber companies shocked the public.
“There were exhibits in Albany showing what damage was being done,” Mr. Sheehan said. “While very few people ever made it to the Adirondacks, the photographs were a pretty stark explanation of what was happening to them.”
The clear-cutting also concerned the shipping industry of New York City, which relied heavily on the water levels of the Erie Canal and the Hudson River. Mr. Sheehan said that with fewer trees, there was more evaporation, which lowered the water levels.
“The Board of Trade in New York City thought it best to keep those trees up,” Mr. Sheehan said. “It was the first real recognition anywhere in the world that conserving a forest meant conserving water at the same time.”
All of these concerns eventually led to the establishment of a “forest preserve” law in 1885, followed in 1892 by the Adirondack Park Enabling Act which essentially created the park’s “Blue Line” preserve boundary and the Adirondack Park.
But in 1893, Gov. Flower signed, despite protests, the bill “An act in relation to the forest preserve and the Adirondack park.” According to “The History of the Adirondacks” by Alfred L. Donaldson (The Century Co., 1921), it gave discretionary power to the Forest Commission to sell matured, standing timber of a certain size.” It also annulled constraints that the 1885 law imposed.
It was, Mr. Donaldson wrote, “a mischievous situation.”
Gov. Flower, Mr. Sheehan said, had at least some part in the mischief. In an email, he called it “a bait-and-switch flimflam.”
“I don’t want to put a negative connotation on a guy I never met or impugn the motives of a man who’s considered a hero in Watertown for a lot of reasons,” he said in the telephone interview. “But I think this is one time when he didn’t do the rest of the state a big favor.”
Meanwhile, Gov. Flower’s lieutenant governor, William F. Sheehan, was aligned with Tammany Hall, the powerful and corrupt political machine of the executive committee of the Democratic Party.
“I don’t know if governor Flower was partially tied to Tammany Hall,” Mr. Sheehan said, who believes he is no descendant of the late lieutenant governor. “But there was a contingent in the north country that was very interested in wanting to see the timbering industry continue in the Adirondacks. The timber industry was quietly trying to do away with the idea of a permanently protected forest preserve before it could really take hold.”
Rande S. Richardson, Watertown, chairman of the Gov. Flower Monument Committee, noted that the Adirondack Park was mentioned briefly when the governor’s monument was dedicated in 1902. A century later, Mr. Richardson led the effort to revitalize it.
“I think it’s a challenge to fully understand what the political dynamics meant 125 years ago, especially when making comparisons to today,” Mr. Richardson said.
Indeed, on the day the Adirondack Park was established, Gov. Flower said, “The proposed state forest preserve is a subject which interests every citizen of the state, and for that reason is worthy of general encouragement and support.”
Mr. Richardson said the governor, who was known for seriously weighing his decisions, continued his support of the Adirondack Park up until his final year in office in 1894, when he vetoed a bill that he believed would do harm to the preserve.
“I believe he was the type of man who took very seriously both sides of an issue, and in the end, tried to find the middle ground, both philosophically and fiscally, including as it related to the Adirondack Park and forest preservation,” Mr. Richardson said.
saved by convention
The Constitutional Convention of 1894 and the resulting “Forever Wild” clause lessened the grip of the timber industry. The original topics at the convention didn’t include tackling the Adirondack preserve. Putting it on the agenda was inspired by Frank S. Gardner, secretary of the New York City Board of Trade and Transportation, who, Mr. Donaldson wrote, said at the convention, “I am convinced that the forests will never be made safe until they are put into a State Constitution.”
“It was kind of slipped into the list of possibilities, but it became very popular once it was there,” Mr. Sheehan said.
The Adirondack Council spokesman said the original absence for the idea of the Forever Wild clause at the convention may have been a lucky break.
“If it had been among the original reasons that were cited for holding a constitutional convention, there may have been a whole raft of delegates elected who were automatically opposed to the idea,” he said. “But instead, because they were there for other reasons, the delegates took a look at it on its merits and judged it to be a great idea and approved it unanimously.”
It was also approved by voters in 1896. Other changes to the state constitution that year OK’d by voters included shortening the term of governor and lieutenant governor to two years from three (it is now four), and increasing the number of state senators from 32 to 50 (now 63) and the number of assemblymen from 128 to 150. The usage of voting machines was also approved.
“The 1894 convention manifested, in a degree greater than any other in New York’s history, the tension between urban and rural New York,” according to a history of the state’s constitution by Oxford Constitutional Law.
protections not guaranteed
Mr. Sheehan sees a different type of tension if, in November, voters approve a constitutional convention that would lead to voters rejecting or approving amendments in 2019.
“We are concerned that the public would have a lot of distractions during a constitutional convention,” he said. “Given the potential for commercial exploitation of the park, and the unlimited campaign contributions that are now possible under the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, the environmental community would be vulnerable to getting outspent rather rapidly if there was a campaign designed to overcome the Forever Wild clause.”
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who entered office in 2011, has shown his support for the Adirondacks by his visits to the area and action. Last spring, he announced the completion of the state’s largest Adirondack land acquisition in more than 100 years, with the purchase of the 20,758-acre Boreas Ponds Tract. A news release from his office says that since 2010, through the governor’s efforts to promote recreation in the Adirondacks, tourism-related employment is up nearly 8 percent, tourism spending is up 10 percent and visitation is up 15 percent in the Adirondack Park.
But that support doesn’t guarantee protections of the Adirondack Park, Mr. Sheehan said.
“The governor isn’t the only player in this particular drama,” he said. “The delegates to a constitutional convention would be elected by senate district.”
The way possible amendments are presented to voters also matters, Mr. Sheehan said.
“There’s a variety of things that could change in a constitutional convention that the public may want, and if they are only given a ‘yes or no’ on the whole package, generally it’s resulted in a ‘no’ in the past. But it’s a very different political climate now than even 10 years ago.”