wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:40:38 -0600, "Mike"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:49:39 -0600, "Mike"
said:

This is of no benefit to the
average American or the common good.

Yeah. Tough ****, isn't it. Fortunately, you and your friends were
asleep
at
the switch when hearings were held on the project.

Tough **** for who? I don't have to moor my boat almost 100 miles from
where
I live.


Dave could easily have his boat much closer to where he lives.
Instead, he realizes the value in keeping it in an amazingly beautiful
and protected anchorage directly adjacent to some of the best sailing
grounds on the entire east coast. He also has strong ties to the area
because he used to live there. If it wasn't so shallow, I probably
would have put myself on the waiting list there many years ago.

That's all very nice but still doesn't change the fact it is 100 miles away.



And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the
dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number
of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO
spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth
dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also
a designated Federal Harbor of refuge.

So tax breaks and perks from the Federal Government to the "rich" are ok
with you?