"rhys" wrote

Amazingly, that's about right.

What you mean, "Amazingly"? I'm a marine professional, author, noted
authority, and I know how to type

Some Maine wharf shouldn't be twice the price.

No such thing as "some Maine wharf". That Maine disappeared when most
boat were built out of wood. The law was just changed to fix the
problem but it hasn't yet been implemented. Every Maine wharf and
shoreline is currently taxed as if it had condos or a waterfront
mansion on it. That cost gets passed on to the fishermen and every
other waterfront user. Recreational facilities have to support those
costs with the income from a two and a half month boating season.

Because of our high tides, you can save a bundle on boat storage by
hauling the boat up on your beach in a cradle and storing it yourself.
You'll be paying enough in property taxes to buy a 30 foot boat every
year though.

I run a tight ship, so to speak, and your estimates are only
slightly over

They should be slightly over. These numbers are what you should be
prepared to spend without being forced to either put up with unsafe
situations are end up sitting on your boat wishing you could actually
use it. Hopefully, you can get by with less but you don't want to
spend that kind of money and then not be able to use your boat. You
need a little cushion.

--
Roger Long

Some Maine wharf shouldn't be twice the price.


Roger Long wrote:
No such thing as "some Maine wharf". That Maine disappeared when most
boat were built out of wood. The law was just changed to fix the
problem but it hasn't yet been implemented. Every Maine wharf and
shoreline is currently taxed as if it had condos or a waterfront
mansion on it.

Do you mean that the tax laws have changed so as to reflect
property usage? That is wise and we are trying to get such
laws passed here, otherwise there are no brakes on the
condo-ification of pretty much all desirable real estate in
the country.



Because of our high tides, you can save a bundle on boat storage by
hauling the boat up on your beach in a cradle and storing it yourself.
You'll be paying enough in property taxes to buy a 30 foot boat every
year though.


Ouch! Our taxes are high enough that mom-n-pop businesses,
farms, small friendly marinas, etc etc, have no option but
to sell out to Wal-Mart and the condo developers. And
communities are wondering why things are changing to such an
unfriendly world, but they can't seem to forego the tax dollars.


I run a tight ship, so to speak, and your estimates are only
slightly over

Roger Long wrote:
They should be slightly over. These numbers are what you should be
prepared to spend without being forced to either put up with unsafe
situations are end up sitting on your boat wishing you could actually
use it. Hopefully, you can get by with less but you don't want to
spend that kind of money and then not be able to use your boat. You
need a little cushion.


Very well said. It's very important to have both a set of
priorities, and the bucks in pocket to implement those
priorities. Boats need "stuff" and while you need not pay
the exorbitant cost of some items which triple in price for
the word "marine" printed on the label, it still ain't free.
Even spit'n polish costs something.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote
Do you mean that the tax laws have changed so as to reflect property
usage?

Yes, the referendum passed this fall and the legislature is working on
implementation. In a state that usually shows unusual common sense,
the change failed the first time around. It took a massive education
effort to get enough people to realize that the coastline was
effectively going to become part of Massachusetts and New Jersey if it
didn't pass.

It used to be that, every time a waterfront business watched a new
house going up on a piece of vacant shoreline, they knew that their
property taxes would shortly follow. This still won't prevent
waterfront users from being priced out of obtaining property but it
will help keep them from being forced off of what they have now.

--

Roger Long

The last time I did the ICW was 2001 and the only place over $3 a foot
for a transient was Trump's in AC. I don't remember Cape May as being
particularly expensive, and it is an easy place to anchor. I was only
charged a "catamaran premium" once ($5!) though I did have to pay for
oversize slips a few times. T-heads are special case, though. Next
summer I'll be paying for a 42 foot t-head even though my cat is only
38 (including extensions) feet long.

Overall, I was very impressed by the hospitality and reasonable
treatment we received almost everywhere. Although there were a few
overpriced places, it was more common to find helpful, friendly
places, charging a buck a foot (probably not too many of them left!).
Many of them would load us a car for shopping, or make other special
accommodations. While the prices might be higher now, I'd be
surprised if gouging was the rule, rather than the exception.

A few exceptions do stand out - like the twit who wanted us to pay for
50 Amp service when we were stepping down to 30 Amp and didn't have an
A/C (we said no thanks). Or paying a fortune to raft 4 deep at Block
Island.

OTOH, its clear that we're in an inflationary period now.
Overcrowding is causing rates in Boston to go up - fancy marinas
downtown can get $160 a foot for the summer, without parking. More
unnerving is that the second and third tier places are able to get
rates that just a few years ago were "premium."


Paul Cassel wrote:
Thomas Wentworth wrote:


Is this the way of the world in cruising? Have all the marina's
become thieves?

I didn't quite follow your story, but your reaction mirrors mine. Here
is one of my stories:

I put into Cape May due to some gales when I was sailing south one
November. I was weathered in. Beats me if that was a factor, but the
place charged me $248 / night for my 42' sailboat. Left a very bad taste
in my mouth as you may guess. No, it wasn't a resort marina - just an
end tie with no amenities.

You should check around - you may be asking for something that the
marina doesn't normally do. They may be quoting for renting a crane
or towing the boat to another facility, or hiring a rigger. Or they
may be quoting for both unstepping and stepping. Or they may just be
expensive.



Thomas Wentworth wrote:
I am re-entering the world of cruising. It has been a number of years. My
base is New England.

In the last few days I have been brought to the point of absolute insanity
by two of the local marina's near me.

Today, I called a marina to inquire how much it charged to step a mast. I
explained to the woman on the phone that a boat hauling truck would be
bringing my boat [ I don't own the boat yet, I was seeking the info so that
if I make an offer I would know what the charges would be ] to the marina
where it would be launched.

At first she seemed evasive. She didn't seem to want to answer my question.
She kept saying she was looking for her "paper". Finally, she said it would
be $6 per foot of the boat when the boat was dropped off and another $6 per
foot of the boat when the boat was put in the water. I asked, why are you
charging twice. The truck is bringing the boat, it will go right in the
water. She then said "you are upset by how much it cost". I tried to
explain "I can't be upset since I never knew what the cost was to begin
with".

After she started telling me how I feel about issues I never asked her
about, I asked what was the charge to step the mast. She said around $400
dollars. I almost fell over backwards.

Then, I hung up the phone.

Is this the way of the world in cruising? Have all the marina's become
thieves?

rhys wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:17:00 GMT, "Thomas Wentworth"
wrote:


Wayne,,, if you are right, and you probably are; then boating is doomed. I
suppose I will read in the paper any day now that we, the US Taxpayer, is
building a new yachting facility for the people of Iraq.



Welcome to Nova Scotia.

R.

What?
BTW, this guy could use a home yacht club.
http://www.hfxnews.ca/

Roger Long wrote:
"DSK" wrote

Do you mean that the tax laws have changed so as to reflect property
usage?


Yes, the referendum passed this fall and the legislature is working on
implementation. In a state that usually shows unusual common sense,
the change failed the first time around. It took a massive education
effort to get enough people to realize that the coastline was
effectively going to become part of Massachusetts and New Jersey if it
didn't pass.

It used to be that, every time a waterfront business watched a new
house going up on a piece of vacant shoreline, they knew that their
property taxes would shortly follow. This still won't prevent
waterfront users from being priced out of obtaining property but it
will help keep them from being forced off of what they have now.


We have the same problem up here. Rich 'mericans throwing around Yankee
dollahs and driving up the cost of shore front properties. The
provincial govt jumps on the band wagon by raising assessments sky
high...forcing more & more long time owners to sell at least part of
their family owned properties to... you guessed it...more rich
'mericans. Vicious cycle for locals.

Very well said. It's very important to have both a set of
priorities, and the bucks in pocket to implement those
priorities. Boats need "stuff" and while you need not pay
the exorbitant cost of some items which triple in price for
the word "marine" printed on the label, it still ain't free.
Even spit'n polish costs something.

The only thing more expensive is something that has a STC number on it.

Leanne

Tell me about it. I'm the maintenance officer of a flying club.

--

Roger Long



"Leanne" wrote in message
...
Very well said. It's very important to have both a set of
priorities, and the bucks in pocket to implement those
priorities. Boats need "stuff" and while you need not pay
the exorbitant cost of some items which triple in price for
the word "marine" printed on the label, it still ain't free.
Even spit'n polish costs something.

The only thing more expensive is something that has a STC number on
it.

Leanne

"Roger Long" wrote in news:%DoCf.146409$XC4.144502
@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

This still won't prevent
waterfront users from being priced out of obtaining property but it
will help keep them from being forced off of what they have now.



Everytime I read about these kinds of things, I think back to a quote in
the newspaper from a Beaufort, SC, waterfront mansion owner. She didn't
want that "floating trailer park" blocking her view she'd paid $1.2M for.

Could it be they're trying to get rid of boating for these kinds of people?

The tax bureaucrats are....