Relates to the Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex in Essex County.
S05227 is a proposed amendment to Article 14 of the New York Constitution, which governs the state forest preserve. The bill would add a specific exception for the Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex in Essex County, authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of Nordic skiing and biathlon trails and related appurtenances on up to 1,039 acres of forest preserve land at the site. In exchange, the state would be required to acquire at least 2,500 acres of forest land for incorporation into the forest preserve in the Adirondack Park, with the legislature determining that the replacement lands are equal or greater in value.
The proposal is part of a broader constitutional framework that already contains numerous site-specific exceptions and land exchanges involving forest preserve lands, highways, ski trails, utilities, water wells, cemeteries, airport expansion, and mineral sampling. This amendment would further modify the constitutional protections for forest preserve lands by carving out a new, narrowly tailored authorization for an Olympic sports facility while preserving the overall “forever wild” rule through a required land-acquisition offset.
If adopted by the Legislature and approved by voters at the 2025 general election, the amendment would directly affect state constitutional law rather than ordinary statute. It would permit the state to maintain and expand international-standard winter sports infrastructure at Mount Van Hoevenberg, while also requiring the state to add substantially more land to the forest preserve than is used for the project. The measure would therefore affect the Department of Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park land management, and the operation of the Olympic Sports Complex.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive: the bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 18-0, the Senate Finance Committee 22-0, and the full Senate 53-0. No committee transcript was provided, but the unanimous votes suggest broad agreement on the proposal’s merits and its limited, compensatory approach to forest preserve use.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the tension between preserving “forever wild” forest preserve lands and allowing a major recreational and competitive sports facility to expand on protected acreage. Supporters appear to view the amendment as a controlled exception justified by Olympic-level athletic use and offset by a large land acquisition. Potential critics would likely focus on the precedent of creating another site-specific constitutional carveout and the use of protected forest preserve land for development, even with replacement acreage required.
The bill would amend Article 14 of the New York Constitution to create a new exception for the Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex, allowing specified Nordic skiing and biathlon trail construction, operation, and maintenance on forest preserve land in Essex County. It would also require the state to acquire at least 2,500 acres of replacement forest land for incorporation into the forest preserve, subject to legislative approval that the new lands are equal or greater in value. Because this is a constitutional amendment, it would change state law only if approved by both houses of the Legislature and then ratified by voters at the 2025 general election.
The bill appears to have very strong support in the Senate. It received unanimous votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Finance Committee, and on final passage in the Senate, indicating little formal opposition at that stage. The available record suggests the proposal was viewed as a narrowly tailored land-use exception with a compensating forest-preserve offset rather than a broad weakening of environmental protections.
The central controversy is whether allowing expanded sports infrastructure at Mount Van Hoevenberg is compatible with the constitutional mandate that forest preserve lands be kept “forever wild.” Supporters likely emphasize the limited scope of the exception, the Olympic and economic value of the facility, and the requirement to add more forest land than is used. Opponents, if any, would likely object to the precedent of site-specific constitutional amendments and to any conversion of protected acreage for development, even when offset by replacement land.