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.

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?

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?

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.

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.