ICW -- In Danger
 

In article ,
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.

I want all the MARINE fees and taxes (state and federal) used for MARINE
purposes!

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

ICW -- In Danger
 

Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave

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.

The above would be funny if it wasn't so clueless.

Capt. Bill

ICW -- In Danger
 

Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave

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.

The above would be funny if it wasn't so clueless.

Capt. Bill

ICW -- In Danger
 

I know it's not amusing, but private pilots pay through the nose to
land at any old grass airfiled in England, and we are accustomed to
having the tax-payer pay the freight for our landings in the US.
Same issue

Brian W

On 26 Feb 2004 23:35:39 GMT, (LaBomba182) wrote:

Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave

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.

The above would be funny if it wasn't so clueless.

Capt. Bill

ICW -- In Danger
 

I know it's not amusing, but private pilots pay through the nose to
land at any old grass airfiled in England, and we are accustomed to
having the tax-payer pay the freight for our landings in the US.
Same issue

Brian W

On 26 Feb 2004 23:35:39 GMT, (LaBomba182) wrote:

Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave

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.

The above would be funny if it wasn't so clueless.

Capt. Bill

ICW -- In Danger
 

Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave

On 26 Feb 2004 23:35:39 GMT, (LaBomba182) said:

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.

The above would be funny if it wasn't so clueless.

On the contrary. Nothing approaches the gullibility of those who believe the
promises of politicians who say they're gonna give you whatever your heart
desires for free because the other fella is gonna pay for it.

My point, which you seemed to miss, is that boaters, both commercial and
pleasure, that use the ICW spend tens of millions of dollars each year in the
communities that border the ICW.
Those communities benefit by the employment/business opportunities and tax
dollars generated by said boaters. As does the Federal government in tax
dollars.
And it's very short sighted to say "we can save a bunch of money" by just
cutting off the ICW funding.


Just the other night another boater and I were expressing our frustration at
seeing our mooring area become nearly useless because the town has to wait
for the Congress critters to appropriate money to dredge the silt that has
accumulated since the last time it was dredged.
The mooring fee is so low
that there's a waiting list of years to get in, but now once you get in you
can't use it except at high water. But to keep your mooring you still have
to put it in each year. If the town had been tacking on a small user fee
each year since the last dredging, there would be much less of a waiting
list, or no waiting list, and they wouldn't have to go hat in hand for the
money to restore the area to a useable state.

Apples to oranges.

Capt. Bill

ICW -- In Danger
 

Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave

On 26 Feb 2004 23:35:39 GMT, (LaBomba182) said:

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.

The above would be funny if it wasn't so clueless.

On the contrary. Nothing approaches the gullibility of those who believe the
promises of politicians who say they're gonna give you whatever your heart
desires for free because the other fella is gonna pay for it.

My point, which you seemed to miss, is that boaters, both commercial and
pleasure, that use the ICW spend tens of millions of dollars each year in the
communities that border the ICW.
Those communities benefit by the employment/business opportunities and tax
dollars generated by said boaters. As does the Federal government in tax
dollars.
And it's very short sighted to say "we can save a bunch of money" by just
cutting off the ICW funding.


Just the other night another boater and I were expressing our frustration at
seeing our mooring area become nearly useless because the town has to wait
for the Congress critters to appropriate money to dredge the silt that has
accumulated since the last time it was dredged.
The mooring fee is so low
that there's a waiting list of years to get in, but now once you get in you
can't use it except at high water. But to keep your mooring you still have
to put it in each year. If the town had been tacking on a small user fee
each year since the last dredging, there would be much less of a waiting
list, or no waiting list, and they wouldn't have to go hat in hand for the
money to restore the area to a useable state.

Apples to oranges.

Capt. Bill

ICW -- In Danger
 

Does this mean all highways should be tolled, all roads?

ICW -- In Danger
 

Does this mean all highways should be tolled, all roads?

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