New York faces a major environmental decision as it considers what role — if any — it wishes to play in the future of Whitney Park, a 36,202-acre tract of land in the central Adirondacks. We think the potential opportunity to acquire such a large piece of wild land is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that demands prudence.

We believe the state needs to play a role in advocating for its protection.

Last month, eight conservation groups sent a joint letter to Gov. Kathy Hochul calling for the state to “act swiftly” to purchase and preserve Whitney Park. The letter was signed by leaders of the Adirondack Council, Protect the Adirondacks!, Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve, the Adirondack Mountain Club, New York League of Conservation Voters, and Adirondack Wilderness Advocates.

The groups believe the estate managing the land will try to sell it after its owner John Hendrickson passed away in August. Much remains unknown. That is important to state at the onset.

Representatives of the estate have not publicly signaled what their intentions around the park are and the state is not known to discuss potential land negotiations; both of which — much to our chagrin in the media — are to be expected when it comes to dealmaking, especially when the stakes are this large. We will do our best to keep our readers informed of the latest developments as they break.

What is known is that prior to his death, Hendrickson had tried to sell Whitney Park. He wanted $180 million for the 36,000 acres, but said he was picky about who he would consider selling to. He said wanted to see it conserved. He claimed he was approached by multiple interested parties willing to pay full price but refused to sell it to them because they would develop the land.

While we were not privy to these talks and cannot confirm what offers Hendrickson may have considered, we do know that he, and the Whitneys who owned the land before him were good stewards of the land. Hendrickson floated the idea of subdividing the land to make it easier to sell — in smaller pieces for lower price tags — but chose not to.

Green groups pushed hard against the idea of subdivision as soon as it was reported. In the end, however, it was Hendrickson’s sole decision to not approach the Adirondack Park Agency with a subdivision permit request.

We encourage Hendrickson’s beneficiaries to consider his and the Whitney family’s long legacy of protecting this land and looking out for the Long Lake community.

Town officials there have lamented in media interviews over the years that putting the land in a forest preserve would eliminate local jobs for people who maintain access roads and structures on the sprawling property.

Green groups counter by stating that the town of Long Lake would receive an enormous windfall if the land were to become state-owned. Currently, the lands are in a tax abatement program, which is given in exchange for the owner’s aforementioned sustainable land management practices.

The program freezes land value at its 1920s assessments for tax purposes, meaning the owners only pay a fraction of property tax that owners of comparable lands pay today. That abatement would go away if the state acquired the land. The town and school district would receive full-value property taxation from New York. Extra money — likely several hundreds of thousands of dollars per year — without needing to provide additional services.

While the conservation groups cite this financial benefit to the town, we would be remiss if we did point out that the state’s budget deficit is out of control. What is good for Long Lake taxpayers — at the local level — is money out of the state budget that we all pay.

Furthermore, the fact that the Tupper Lake community — just to the north of Whitney Park — has been without clean drinking water for decades is an abject disgrace and speaks to the state’s failure to align its priorities.

In a perfect world — or even a somewhat reasonable one — a project like fixing Tupper’s water supply would be a top priority for the state that would have been solved long ago. We can’t understand why it isn’t.

As we write this, it is hard to look past such a pressing issue.

We must, however, be clear-eyed about how the state spends money. The Environmental Protection Fund, where money for the state to acquire some or all of Whitney Park, was allocated $400 million in the fiscal year 2025 budget. That represents 0.17% of the total $237 billion budget.

We believe that, while not as pressing as ensuring a neighboring community has drinking water not laden with iron, conserving Whitney Park is a worthy investment for the state. When it comes to reforming the state budget, we do not see Whitney Park as an area to cut back on. We feel the conservation groups are right to point to it as one of the highest priorities in the state for preservation. Here’s why.

Whitney Park is an ecological gem in the most spectacular sense. It constitutes some of the most pristine lands in the state — lands that have miraculously been spared of extensive development or fractured by subdivision over a century of private ownership. Its aquatic habitat is hard to overstate, with 22 lakes and ponds and over 100 miles of undeveloped shoreline.

Its location is a key part of this argument. Whitney Park is not an island of pristine land surrounded by a sea of development. The property is flanked by already state-protected wilderness that adjoin its northern and northwestern borders.

Expanding the wilderness area by incorporating lands that directly border it — rather than creating a fragmented patchwork of protected lands — we feel will greatly strengthen and sustain habitats for species that the state has pledged to protect.

While the property is largely undeveloped, we also see preservation value in the structures _ like Camp Deerlands — that exist on the land.

“We had always expected that there would be an accommodation of state and private conservation tools used in this case,” said John Sheehan, the director of communications for Adirondack Council. “Some of the property which has homes and other buildings on it may not go into the forest preserve, while other larger and more open spaces that are essentially undeveloped and pristine would be perfect additions to the preserve.”

We support this arrangement. We think it would be unfortunate to see such magnificent structures as Camp Deerlands — which have existing and maintained access paths — be torn down if it were to be incorporated into a forest preserve.

This is where the law becomes complicated. The state would almost certainly have to remove the structures if they were to acquire the land because of the “Forever Wild” clause in New York’s constitution. If a private organization were to acquire it, however, they would have more latitude to preserve the buildings.

The state has made similar arrangements before. Look no further than Great Camp Sagamore, only about 10 miles south of Camp Deerlands as the crow flies. The state arranged for the nonprofit Preservation League of New York A similar partnership could take place for Whitney Park, with a private organization fronting the purchase and the state agreeing to reimburse in exchange for the group operating the land under a set of mutually-agreed upon conditions.

Preserving existing structures would also allow for local jobs dedicated to the property’s upkeep to endure.

There is no easy solution or one that we think everybody would agree on. At the end of the day, we feel that the state and like-minded conservation groups should work with the estate and its beneficiaries for an enduring preservation of Whitney Park.