Rosalie wrote:

... IMHO, a state facility should be run for the citizens of the area,
and not be an all-the-traffic-will-bear kind of place...

I will not argue with a person's opinions, at least not usually. However
the location in question is not a "state facility" in the sense the phrase
is commonly understood. Further, I don't believe I've encountered many
state-run marine facilities that discourage traffic. Those I've encountered
seem very interested in collecting fees.

Armond wrote:

... Even if the facility were "state-run," there is no reason it should
avoid maximizing taxpayer revenue ...

Rosalie wrote:

Well maximizing profits means setting the rates so that the facility
is used to the maximum amount AFA possible..

Once again, I suspect you are not using "maximizing profits" in the sense
the phrase is commonly understood. In fact maximizing use could easily
lower profits once maintenance and refurbishment expenses are taken into
account.

In any case your statement above that "the facility is used to the maximum
amount" contradicts your earlier statement that "a state facility should be
run for the citizens of the area, and not be an all-the-traffic-will-bear
kind of place."

Rosalie wrote:

If other marinas can make a profit while charging less, then I don't
know why Trumps has to charge so much more in order to break even ...

How did you determine that Trump charges more "to break even"? I don't
think there is any published financial data to support this. I also don't
think I've ever seen _any_ Trump facility charge less than the maximum
amount possible.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/