| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
ICW -- In Danger
Dave wrote: I'd have no problem imposing much of the costs of maintaining the waterway on those communities that benefit from it, and letting them figure out either how to recoup the costs from actual users or whether they want to have their residents provide a subsidy to encourage users to come. But I think the benefit to the resident of an Arizona desert is too remote to require him to pay for the yachtis' pleasures. Following that line of reasoning maybe the Corps and the BLM should close down lakes Alamo, Apache, Abiquiu, Avalon, Brantley, Cabello, Cochiti, Cinchas, Galisteo, Havasu, Jemez Canyon, Sumner and the other 250+ recreational lakes they maintain west of Colorado that us folks back East don't get much benifit from. After all, their budget totals about 40 times what the ICW costs and they don't carry freight. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
ICW -- In Danger
Seems to me that's exactly Glenn's point: end the government subsidy and if
those communities don't ante up, the lakes would deteriorate. Your words suggest it's OK for payments from these lake communities to be voluntary. Don't pick on only the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.. "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:11:51 -0500, Glenn Ashmore said: Following that line of reasoning maybe the Corps and the BLM should close down lakes Alamo, Apache, Abiquiu, Avalon, Brantley, Cabello, Cochiti, Cinchas, Galisteo, Havasu, Jemez Canyon, Sumner and the other 250+ recreational lakes they maintain west of Colorado that us folks back East don't get much benifit from. After all, their budget totals about 40 times what the ICW costs and they don't carry freight. Wrong. Following that line of reasoning those benefiting from those lakes should pay the freight for maintaining them. If the surrounding communities believe a subsidy is appropriate to encourage local businesses, let them pay that subsidy. |
ICW -- In Danger
Seems to me that's exactly Glenn's point: end the government subsidy and if
those communities don't ante up, the lakes would deteriorate. Your words suggest it's OK for payments from these lake communities to be voluntary. Don't pick on only the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.. "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:11:51 -0500, Glenn Ashmore said: Following that line of reasoning maybe the Corps and the BLM should close down lakes Alamo, Apache, Abiquiu, Avalon, Brantley, Cabello, Cochiti, Cinchas, Galisteo, Havasu, Jemez Canyon, Sumner and the other 250+ recreational lakes they maintain west of Colorado that us folks back East don't get much benifit from. After all, their budget totals about 40 times what the ICW costs and they don't carry freight. Wrong. Following that line of reasoning those benefiting from those lakes should pay the freight for maintaining them. If the surrounding communities believe a subsidy is appropriate to encourage local businesses, let them pay that subsidy. |
ICW -- In Danger
Isn't that the same logic Glenn was suggesting?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:49:29 -0500, "Garland Gray II" said: Seems to me that's exactly Glenn's point: end the government subsidy and if those communities don't ante up, the lakes would deteriorate. Your words suggest it's OK for payments from these lake communities to be voluntary. Don't pick on only the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.. I'm not. I'm applying the same principle across the board. You want deep water for your yacht (or runabout or whatever), expect to pay for it. You want your local lake to be suitable for boating, swimming, etc., expect to pay for it. Don't expect the general taxpaying public who don't have yachting waters, lakes, etc. to carry the freight for your leisure time activities. |
ICW -- In Danger
Isn't that the same logic Glenn was suggesting?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:49:29 -0500, "Garland Gray II" said: Seems to me that's exactly Glenn's point: end the government subsidy and if those communities don't ante up, the lakes would deteriorate. Your words suggest it's OK for payments from these lake communities to be voluntary. Don't pick on only the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.. I'm not. I'm applying the same principle across the board. You want deep water for your yacht (or runabout or whatever), expect to pay for it. You want your local lake to be suitable for boating, swimming, etc., expect to pay for it. Don't expect the general taxpaying public who don't have yachting waters, lakes, etc. to carry the freight for your leisure time activities. |
ICW -- In Danger
You
want your local lake to be suitable for boating, swimming, etc., expect to pay for it. Don't expect the general taxpaying public who don't have yachting waters, lakes, etc. to carry the freight for your leisure time activities. It's the general taxpaying public that has contributed to the silting. All the upstream paving and developments increase stream flows so that more river bank gets washed out to form a delta. Why should the boaters have to pay, exclusively, for environmental damage done upstream by Suburbia and the WalMart parking lot? |
ICW -- In Danger
You
want your local lake to be suitable for boating, swimming, etc., expect to pay for it. Don't expect the general taxpaying public who don't have yachting waters, lakes, etc. to carry the freight for your leisure time activities. It's the general taxpaying public that has contributed to the silting. All the upstream paving and developments increase stream flows so that more river bank gets washed out to form a delta. Why should the boaters have to pay, exclusively, for environmental damage done upstream by Suburbia and the WalMart parking lot? |
ICW -- In Danger
On 28 Feb 2004 03:39:34 GMT, (Gould 0738) said:
It's the general taxpaying public that has contributed to the silting. All the upstream paving and developments increase stream flows so that more river bank gets washed out to form a delta. That's the kind of tale that should begin with "Once upon a time." Nice try, though. Hmm. Let's see here. I identify a well know cause of silting and "Dave" responds with an allegation that I'm lying. No facts, no refutation, just an allegation that I'm posting a falsehood. Ever notice how the losers in a debate don't bother to counter any factual points, but rather turn immediately to impugning character? Tell us, , exactly why upstream development has no effect on drainage and accelerated silting in harbor areas. I'm sure your version of reality will prove fascinating. |
ICW -- In Danger
Road and other development in Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Michigan, Washington, etc. etc., etc. are responsible for silting up the ICW? I don't think so. Dave, this is getting silly. YOU made that statement, no one else. "General public" doesn't necessarily mean every citizen in the country. If the need for government expenditure has to be caused by the actions of each and every citizen, which seems to be what you are expecting, or accrue to the benefit of every citizen, there wouldn't be many dollars spent. There is some validity to your argument--in effect to cut the pork. But I suspect the ICW can be justified in terms of revenue produced--taxes and safety to a greater extent than a number of other federal projects. |
ICW -- In Danger
Road and other development in Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Michigan, Washington, etc. etc., etc. are responsible for silting up the ICW? I don't think so. Dave, this is getting silly. YOU made that statement, no one else. "General public" doesn't necessarily mean every citizen in the country. If the need for government expenditure has to be caused by the actions of each and every citizen, which seems to be what you are expecting, or accrue to the benefit of every citizen, there wouldn't be many dollars spent. There is some validity to your argument--in effect to cut the pork. But I suspect the ICW can be justified in terms of revenue produced--taxes and safety to a greater extent than a number of other federal projects. |
ICW -- In Danger
Remember, we're talking about a specific geographic area here--the ICW.Your
general proposition that it's the "general taxpaying public" that is responsible for silting in the ICW is so specious no one should take it seriously. Road and other development in Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Michigan, Washington, etc. etc., etc. are responsible for silting up the ICW? I don't think so. Even assuming that development in the general area of the ICW has contributed to its silting, (and so far your only authority for even that proposition is claiming that it's "well known") that's certainly no argument for burdening the resident of the Arizona desert or the mountains of Montana with the costs of dredging it so the local yachties can have their fun. Deltas build up from silt that is brought downstream. Areas that require dredging to remain navigable are those ares near the mouth of a stream or a river. Upland development exacerbates silting. Please don't take my word for it alone, do a little research. I just now typed the phrase "upland development and silting" into a search engine and got 86 hits. Suppose it's a fairy tale conspiracy spanning a number of years? A trick just to make you look silly? My point about the general tax paying public is in response to some opinions that have been expressed stating that boaters should bear the entire cost of dredging the ICW, (and by extension of principle all other waterways). I maintain that the silting problem is a consequence of a much more extensive problem, and that all who participate in making the mess should participate in cleaning it up. To say that only boaters should have to pay for dredging the nation's waterways is akin to saying that folks who never fly shouldn't have to repay bonds sold to build an airport. How about the communities all across the country going hundreds of millions in debt to finance professional baseball stadiums. Should people who aren't baseball fans be required to pay the taxes used to retire the bonds? Just as each of us can point out a use of tax money here or there that does not benefit us as individuals, virtually everybody benefits from some expenditure of tax money that somebody else could criticize as not directly contributing to their own immediate personal needs. Got kids in school? Mine graduated years ago- but I don't mind helping to pay for yours. Somebody paid taxes when my kids were in school, and now my kids are paying taxes too. :-) |
ICW -- In Danger
Remember, we're talking about a specific geographic area here--the ICW.Your
general proposition that it's the "general taxpaying public" that is responsible for silting in the ICW is so specious no one should take it seriously. Road and other development in Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Michigan, Washington, etc. etc., etc. are responsible for silting up the ICW? I don't think so. Even assuming that development in the general area of the ICW has contributed to its silting, (and so far your only authority for even that proposition is claiming that it's "well known") that's certainly no argument for burdening the resident of the Arizona desert or the mountains of Montana with the costs of dredging it so the local yachties can have their fun. Deltas build up from silt that is brought downstream. Areas that require dredging to remain navigable are those ares near the mouth of a stream or a river. Upland development exacerbates silting. Please don't take my word for it alone, do a little research. I just now typed the phrase "upland development and silting" into a search engine and got 86 hits. Suppose it's a fairy tale conspiracy spanning a number of years? A trick just to make you look silly? My point about the general tax paying public is in response to some opinions that have been expressed stating that boaters should bear the entire cost of dredging the ICW, (and by extension of principle all other waterways). I maintain that the silting problem is a consequence of a much more extensive problem, and that all who participate in making the mess should participate in cleaning it up. To say that only boaters should have to pay for dredging the nation's waterways is akin to saying that folks who never fly shouldn't have to repay bonds sold to build an airport. How about the communities all across the country going hundreds of millions in debt to finance professional baseball stadiums. Should people who aren't baseball fans be required to pay the taxes used to retire the bonds? Just as each of us can point out a use of tax money here or there that does not benefit us as individuals, virtually everybody benefits from some expenditure of tax money that somebody else could criticize as not directly contributing to their own immediate personal needs. Got kids in school? Mine graduated years ago- but I don't mind helping to pay for yours. Somebody paid taxes when my kids were in school, and now my kids are paying taxes too. :-) |
ICW -- In Danger
So nobody is responsible for the results of their actions?
If I sand my boat at the same time you're varnishing yours in an adjacent slip, and the wind carries my dust into your work, am I exempt from any responsiblity because the dust landed beyond the confines of my own slip? Should I respond to your righteous protest with "Tough, dude. Deal with it. You shouldn't expect to be able to varnish- everybody knows that sanding is a common activity in a marina." Upstream activites that accelerate silting can be reasonably found responsible for proportionate shares of the accelerated silting. Upstream taxpayers should participate in clean up/ dredging costs. |
ICW -- In Danger
So nobody is responsible for the results of their actions?
If I sand my boat at the same time you're varnishing yours in an adjacent slip, and the wind carries my dust into your work, am I exempt from any responsiblity because the dust landed beyond the confines of my own slip? Should I respond to your righteous protest with "Tough, dude. Deal with it. You shouldn't expect to be able to varnish- everybody knows that sanding is a common activity in a marina." Upstream activites that accelerate silting can be reasonably found responsible for proportionate shares of the accelerated silting. Upstream taxpayers should participate in clean up/ dredging costs. |
ICW -- In Danger
Harry Krause wrote:
Dave wrote: On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:05:03 GMT, (Norm) said: I bet in the end the cost of maintaining all of these waterways will be passed down to the people who use them. "User Fees". If you pass thru, you pay a fee. It will soon be too expensive for most of us. Back to being a rich man's sport? That will also solve some of the pollution problems and most importantly, we lose some more of our freedom. There are lots of places that ban anchoring or you have to pay a fee to anchor. The ICW is most likely next in line to see these user fees passed down to boaters. Let's all hurry and jump in to defend boaters' divine right to have the costs of their sport paid from the taxpayers' pockets. That's the American way. Having to pay your own freight would be downright unAmerican. I vote to have the thousands of dollars of my tax payments going over to Iraq and being flushed down that toilet instead be used for maintenance of the ICW. The ICW was paid for by tax dollars, so it belongs to 'the public.' The public benefits by licensing commercial use. The revenues defrays the cost, and consumers benefit from having an alternative shipping route, energising competition and the 'free market.' The ICW is also a somewhat secure inside passage for defence purposes, another public benefit, if somewhat obsolete. Can you imagine those so numberous barges on the outside in weather? Do previously licensed business users have rights to expect continuation of licensing? Who would be liable to a lawsuit for lost business if negligent maintenance should cause losses? What a convenience to some businesses about to go belly up, eh? It must and will be supported by tax dollars either way, unless some government decision decides that the people of the public are liable or have no right to the continued benefits of tax invested in this public utility infrastructure, at which point, the politicians who voted for that should be pilloried, stripped of their jobs, pensions, even their trousers. I will donate one set of stocks and one bushel basket of switches, anyone else? Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. U.S. out! Terry K |
ICW -- In Danger
Harry Krause wrote:
Dave wrote: On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:05:03 GMT, (Norm) said: I bet in the end the cost of maintaining all of these waterways will be passed down to the people who use them. "User Fees". If you pass thru, you pay a fee. It will soon be too expensive for most of us. Back to being a rich man's sport? That will also solve some of the pollution problems and most importantly, we lose some more of our freedom. There are lots of places that ban anchoring or you have to pay a fee to anchor. The ICW is most likely next in line to see these user fees passed down to boaters. Let's all hurry and jump in to defend boaters' divine right to have the costs of their sport paid from the taxpayers' pockets. That's the American way. Having to pay your own freight would be downright unAmerican. I vote to have the thousands of dollars of my tax payments going over to Iraq and being flushed down that toilet instead be used for maintenance of the ICW. The ICW was paid for by tax dollars, so it belongs to 'the public.' The public benefits by licensing commercial use. The revenues defrays the cost, and consumers benefit from having an alternative shipping route, energising competition and the 'free market.' The ICW is also a somewhat secure inside passage for defence purposes, another public benefit, if somewhat obsolete. Can you imagine those so numberous barges on the outside in weather? Do previously licensed business users have rights to expect continuation of licensing? Who would be liable to a lawsuit for lost business if negligent maintenance should cause losses? What a convenience to some businesses about to go belly up, eh? It must and will be supported by tax dollars either way, unless some government decision decides that the people of the public are liable or have no right to the continued benefits of tax invested in this public utility infrastructure, at which point, the politicians who voted for that should be pilloried, stripped of their jobs, pensions, even their trousers. I will donate one set of stocks and one bushel basket of switches, anyone else? Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. U.S. out! Terry K |
ICW -- In Danger
Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave Seems to me that's exactly Glenn's point: end the government subsidy and if those communities don't ante up, the lakes would deteriorate. Your words suggest it's OK for payments from these lake communities to be voluntary. Don't pick on only the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.. I'm not. I'm applying the same principle across the board. You want deep water for your yacht (or runabout or whatever), expect to pay for it. You want your local lake to be suitable for boating, swimming, etc., expect to pay for it. Don't expect the general taxpaying public who don't have yachting waters, lakes, etc. to carry the freight for your leisure time activities. So just what color is the sky in your world? Capt. Bill |
ICW -- In Danger
Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave Seems to me that's exactly Glenn's point: end the government subsidy and if those communities don't ante up, the lakes would deteriorate. Your words suggest it's OK for payments from these lake communities to be voluntary. Don't pick on only the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.. I'm not. I'm applying the same principle across the board. You want deep water for your yacht (or runabout or whatever), expect to pay for it. You want your local lake to be suitable for boating, swimming, etc., expect to pay for it. Don't expect the general taxpaying public who don't have yachting waters, lakes, etc. to carry the freight for your leisure time activities. So just what color is the sky in your world? Capt. Bill |
ICW -- In Danger
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:47:38 -0500,
Garland Gray II wrote: Road and other development in Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Michigan, Washington, etc. etc., etc. are responsible for silting up the ICW? I don't think so. Dave, this is getting silly. YOU made that statement, no one else. "General public" doesn't necessarily mean every citizen in the country. If the need for government expenditure has to be caused by the actions of each and every citizen, which seems to be what you are expecting, or accrue to the benefit of every citizen, there wouldn't be many dollars spent. There is some validity to your argument--in effect to cut the pork. But I suspect the ICW can be justified in terms of revenue produced--taxes and safety to a greater extent than a number of other federal projects. Pork can allways be justified, if you only ask those at the trough. Is the ICW worth using general tax revenues for? to be honest, I don't know. But when folks talk about pork, it seems they almost allways talk about the *other* guy's pork. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock Unix has security which has been tested by conniving, unscrupulous college students over generations. |
ICW -- In Danger
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:47:38 -0500,
Garland Gray II wrote: Road and other development in Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Michigan, Washington, etc. etc., etc. are responsible for silting up the ICW? I don't think so. Dave, this is getting silly. YOU made that statement, no one else. "General public" doesn't necessarily mean every citizen in the country. If the need for government expenditure has to be caused by the actions of each and every citizen, which seems to be what you are expecting, or accrue to the benefit of every citizen, there wouldn't be many dollars spent. There is some validity to your argument--in effect to cut the pork. But I suspect the ICW can be justified in terms of revenue produced--taxes and safety to a greater extent than a number of other federal projects. Pork can allways be justified, if you only ask those at the trough. Is the ICW worth using general tax revenues for? to be honest, I don't know. But when folks talk about pork, it seems they almost allways talk about the *other* guy's pork. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock Unix has security which has been tested by conniving, unscrupulous college students over generations. |
ICW -- In Danger
I don't have a problem with that in principle. If the states along the ICW
want to allocate cost on that basis, seems to me that's a legitimate choice. But as I say, no reason to reach into the pocket of the guy out in the Arizona desert to pay for it. The navigable waters of the United States are much like the Interstate Highway system. When the guy in AZ pays his federal taxes and some of that tax money goes to build a freeway in Wisconsin, the overall economy benefits by improved transportation efficiencies. The $5 of the AZ taxpayer's annual bill that goes to a federal highway project in AZ comes back, maybe, by Wisconsin cheese costing him $5 less per year due to savings in transportation costs. If we get completely carried away and say that people living outside of a certain state should never have to pay anything for a public benefit in a neighboring state, we'd have no need for a federal government. Heck, if Fidel Castro raised an army to invade FLA, the other 49 states could all sit back and say, "not our problem since he hasn't invaded our state yet." :-) |
ICW -- In Danger
I don't have a problem with that in principle. If the states along the ICW
want to allocate cost on that basis, seems to me that's a legitimate choice. But as I say, no reason to reach into the pocket of the guy out in the Arizona desert to pay for it. The navigable waters of the United States are much like the Interstate Highway system. When the guy in AZ pays his federal taxes and some of that tax money goes to build a freeway in Wisconsin, the overall economy benefits by improved transportation efficiencies. The $5 of the AZ taxpayer's annual bill that goes to a federal highway project in AZ comes back, maybe, by Wisconsin cheese costing him $5 less per year due to savings in transportation costs. If we get completely carried away and say that people living outside of a certain state should never have to pay anything for a public benefit in a neighboring state, we'd have no need for a federal government. Heck, if Fidel Castro raised an army to invade FLA, the other 49 states could all sit back and say, "not our problem since he hasn't invaded our state yet." :-) |
ICW -- In Danger
Seriously, we gotta stop falling for the politician's line: "I'm gonna give
you everything you want and the next guy is gonna pay for it." Everybody is a "next guy" to somebody's favorite swill. Do you suggest, instead, "Go ahead and alter the hydrology of the drainage basin. We'll make the boaters pay for it!" ? |
ICW -- In Danger
Seriously, we gotta stop falling for the politician's line: "I'm gonna give
you everything you want and the next guy is gonna pay for it." Everybody is a "next guy" to somebody's favorite swill. Do you suggest, instead, "Go ahead and alter the hydrology of the drainage basin. We'll make the boaters pay for it!" ? |
ICW -- In Danger
Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave On 02 Mar 2004 05:00:58 GMT, (LaBomba182) said: So just what color is the sky in your world? Could you perhaps put whatever your point is in intelligible form? Yes, but at this point I think it would just be easier for you if you if you just comb down your mussed up hair. Here have a comb on me. Capt. Bill |
ICW -- In Danger
Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave On 02 Mar 2004 05:00:58 GMT, (LaBomba182) said: So just what color is the sky in your world? Could you perhaps put whatever your point is in intelligible form? Yes, but at this point I think it would just be easier for you if you if you just comb down your mussed up hair. Here have a comb on me. Capt. Bill |
ICW -- In Danger
For any of those interested in an ICW special site for the Dismal Swamp Canal which is also severely hit... Please visit www.dismalswamp.net and have a look. There are a lot of links there to other ICW links as well. Bill dismalswamp.net |
ICW -- In Danger
For any of those interested in an ICW special site for the Dismal Swamp Canal which is also severely hit... Please visit www.dismalswamp.net and have a look. There are a lot of links there to other ICW links as well. Bill dismalswamp.net |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:21 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com