Friday, October 7, 2016

Doc's Island Was Home to Errant Boat

    A check with the real property office confirmed the world renowned director of the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Delos (Toby) Cosgrove, is the owner of Cherry Island near Chaumont, where that sailboat crashed ashore and was left to sit for nearly two months.
Dr. Delos Cosgrove
     The island is assessed for  a half million dollars and has no buildings. A neighbor says its a wildlife refuge, and it's curious local officials left the boat there for so long.
      Dr. Cosgrove is a Watertown native who went on to great accomplishment in his field.


Anonymous said...

On the river they have 10,000 islands he could inherit or buy and use to raise snakes. But instead he decides to own the biggest and practically the only island in Chaumont bay. Why doesn't he donate it or sell it to one of the towns and let them use it for recreation? The entire county is full of wildlife, we don't need more of that.

Anonymous said...

That island, except for a few private gardens, has been uninhabited since I was a kid. Kinda neat. There's really nothing there that a local government could make use of. Not sure where you are coming from, 3:44.

Anonymous said...

12:00, how do you know whats on the island? There are posted signs all over it, so you're not supposed to be there. Do any of those "private gardens" on the island belong to you? Let me guess, you have glaucoma?
It would make a splendid recreation spot for one of the surrounding towns to develop. That's what parks are. Places that were uninhabited.

It is bad enough that Rochester voters control everything and stop all development in the Cape. But at least they come to Cape and stay for the summer. But this Obamacare supporting sugar-police Doc lives in Cleveland and the infrequent times he visits the north country, Chaumont bay and snake island ain't on the itinerary. So where I am coning from is the guy should donate it for recreation instead of leaving it to grow Swallow Wart and snakes. Jefferson county is 99% wild, it doesn't need another island sanctuary. If he wants to create a sanctuary he should do it in Cleveland. Maybe he could do it in the old designated smoking areas, now that he kicked all cigarettes to the curb at his hospital.

Anonymous said...

2:28, I'm gonna say this right out plain and clear-you're an idiot.
First of all, have you ever heard of satellite images, or google earth? There are a number of ways one could see what development there is on cherry Island without trespassing, as you imply.

Secondly ,have you ever heard of the privilege of ownership? Who are you to question what the Good Doctor does with his privately owned Island, as long as it's legal? I a surrounding town wanted to develop it into a park, they , should have bought it. Or maybe you should buy it and donate it to a surrounding town.Then you could dictate how it's used.

Sounds like you have a serious issue with other people owning property. Many folks own second homes in Cape Vincent, Chaumont, Clayton, hell any place where there's waterfront in the world. They have every right to voice opinions and influence development wherever they own property.That's what ownership provides,along with voting laws all over America that afford the right to vote where you live, even if it's only part time.

Your begrudging attitude is shallow and depicts a very parochial mindset. Relax, you get what you earn, although it's not clear whether this ex-military vet is deserving of this charitable attention.

Anonymous said...

No 5:55, I am not an idiot.
Yes I have heard of the privilege of ownership. Have you ever heard of free speech? I never said or implied the property should be taken from the owner or condemned, nor his privilege of ownership infringed. Its not like the property is needed to build a blvd mainly for the purpose of benefiting one city developer.

What is parochial and shallow is the attitude of the owner. And unfortunately it is an attitude that is all too common among the boat museum wine and cheese crowd. Instead of coming back here and helping out our hospital, he chooses to save us from ourselves by owning a choice piece of property and letting it go wild. We don't need that in this county. The county is already 99 percent abandoned as it is. About the only resource we have around here is our beautiful waterfront. He is free to do with it what he wants and I am free to let you know he is a jerk for doing it. It adds nothing to the quality of life around here to have it sitting there empty and posted. Instead it harms the area.

Anonymous said...

10:34, Your answer indicates you do have a problem with the basic concept of ownership. You make an inferred value judgement against the Doctor because he doesn't do with his property what you think would be more suitable. Show me the section of the Chaumont Zoning Law that says it's wrong to leave an Island as forever wild or undeveloped if a private owner so chooses. If you can't find that section, it's because it isn't there , and it's none of your business.

Get a group of local investors together and purchase the Island. In the meantime, stop slandering the Doctor's judgement or personal decisions about his private property.

Anonymous said...

9:41, you are a study in contradiction. You imply I don't agree with property rights, while criticizing me for exercising my free speech rights. And expressing my opinion is now slander in your eyes.

Ironically you ask me to cite zoning law as a legitimate means to deny someone of their property right. Well which is it? Do the people have the right to enact zoning laws for the good of the public, even though by their very nature such laws generally curtail the owner's property rights in some fashion, or don't they?

On a side note, though this line of thought is likely too complicated for you to follow, I will lay it out for your consumption anyway. "Regarding forever wild": By attaching conditions such as that to a property, they are in essence refusing to give up ownership of that aspect of the property. Which is fine in concept, but since the owner does not live forever, a new owner of that aspect should be designated. And whoever this owner is, should be assessed property tax on that aspect of the ownership they are enjoying. The same should hold true for adverse possession and squatters rights. Why just tax the person getting the tax bill? If others have rights and benefits from property then they should pay their fair share.

Anonymous said...

8:17 you tried to turn that around ,but to no avail. I didn't deny you your free speech, I just said the opinions you expressed are stupid. And I never said I didn't support the concept of zoning, I totally do.

Admit it , you're initial rant was intended to slander the Doctor, by implying he didn't support local issues, such as "our hospital". You implied he was not using the property in a way you thought would be suitable.

Clever tactic, but you can't prove yourself innocent by punching at the air.