Thanks to all for their input. Being that it is $5 for the vehicle and
$5-7.50 for the trailer, that's $10 or $12.50 per day except for canoes
and dinghies would end up being $5.
About 1.5 miles away from the launch is a public beach. Not much of a
place, about 400' of waterfront, on perhaps 3 acres. They have restrooms
with 3 stalls for the women (my wife says) and 2 urinals and 2 stalls
for the men. There's some picnic tables off the beach. There's parking
for about 100 cars, making the parking area as large as the rest of the
park. They do have a lifeguard and the place is fairly clean.
Parking is strictly residents only. They've sold decals ($10 per year)
for a good 300 cars, despite only having 100 spaces. The logic is some
of these people work in town and there is also a residents only parking
lot off the street.
You have to get in early. Anyone can use the beach. There's probably 100
other cars parked near the beach. Half residents, half out of towners.
This has left people with businesses or homes in the area rather miffed.
It is not a thriving area, but a little better than a mud hole.
The point of the honor system sounds good. I used to live in an area
where parking was $1 per day at the bus station, for commuters. It was
on the honor system. People were not paying for the most part.
Eventually parking meters went in and the fee to park was 25¢ per hour,
so commuters like myself had to pay $2.50 per day, plus have the hassle
of having so many quarters...
I also see the point of someone staying 4 days in a row costing $40-50.
In that perspective, it does seem excessive.
I suspect someone sees this as a cash cow for the town (which it may not
be) plus summer/weekend jobs for someone's kids.
I'm still not certain what I'll write or say, but I believe this needs
to be significantly revised before they vote on it.

"user" wrote in message
In that perspective, it does seem excessive.
I suspect someone sees this as a cash cow for the town (which it may not
be) plus summer/weekend jobs for someone's kids.
I'm still not certain what I'll write or say, but I believe this needs
to be significantly revised before they vote on it.


Fee systems usually come about as a result of some community operating
commitee or board.. It is seldom that these things happen without an
opportunity for community input or objections..

Once they are in place the revenue is budgeted and it is much more difficult
and complicated to eliminate or modify a fee or use tax.

If you want to have a user fee removed, be prepared to offer suggestions on
where else this revenue could come from..

My recommendation is to follow all local proceedings with an eye towards
objecting to any new fees or increases to existing fees..

On any election day, my moto is not "I Voted", rather "I Voted No".. I vote
NO on everything..

The public service, fees and taxes were just fine at the time I retired 8
years ago and I don't need an increase in anything..

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:24:43 -0800, "Steve" wrote:


"user" wrote in message
In that perspective, it does seem excessive.
I suspect someone sees this as a cash cow for the town (which it may not
be) plus summer/weekend jobs for someone's kids.
I'm still not certain what I'll write or say, but I believe this needs
to be significantly revised before they vote on it.


Fee systems usually come about as a result of some community operating
commitee or board.. It is seldom that these things happen without an
opportunity for community input or objections..

Once they are in place the revenue is budgeted and it is much more difficult
and complicated to eliminate or modify a fee or use tax.

If you want to have a user fee removed, be prepared to offer suggestions on
where else this revenue could come from..

My recommendation is to follow all local proceedings with an eye towards
objecting to any new fees or increases to existing fees..

On any election day, my moto is not "I Voted", rather "I Voted No".. I vote
NO on everything..

The public service, fees and taxes were just fine at the time I retired 8
years ago and I don't need an increase in anything..

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

I agree. What happens is towns figure "boat people have a lot of
money, so lets go get some from them." It sucks.
John C.

I agree. What happens is towns figure "boat people have a lot of
money, so lets go get some from them." It sucks.
John C.



If the money goes into a dedicated fund to
maintain/improve the boat ramp and associated parking lot, it's hard to see
what the beef would be----but that's a huge "if".

In WA, every gallon of gasoline sold is subject to a large tax to maintain
state highways. I believe the tax is now almost 30-cents a gallon, so every
time a driver burns 20 gallons of gas in his car he's
contributing $6 toward highway maintenance. Doesn't seem all that far out of
line- the roads aren't paved and maintained by magic.

When the law was put in, years ago, the legislature acknowledged that not all
gaoline is used by vehicles driving on a highway. Boaters are allowed to keep
track of their gasoline purchases, and individually file for a refund of the
gas tax each year. Of course, the paperwork is a hassle, a lot of boaters only
pay $15-20 in tax, and so most people don't file for the refund.

The unrefunded portion is *supposed* to go to improving boat ramps and other
boating-oriented uses. Ha! The state capped the refund at 19-cents when they
raised the tax beyond that point. That's almost understandable, since the
majority of boats that burn gasoline are traveling down the road on a trailer
for a lot more miles than they are travelling across the water.However, in most
years the money allocated for boating infrastructure gets raided for other
uses. What would seem to be a reasonable idea gets screwed up by greedy
politicians.

Conservatives should be applauding user fees for boat ramps, trailer parking,
etc.
This places the financial burden squarely on the shoulders of the people
benefitting from the service, rather than the taxpayers at large. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I agree. What happens is towns figure "boat people have a lot of
money, so lets go get some from them." It sucks.
John C.



If the money goes into a dedicated fund to
maintain/improve the boat ramp and associated parking lot, it's hard to
see
what the beef would be----but that's a huge "if".

In WA, every gallon of gasoline sold is subject to a large tax to maintain
state highways. I believe the tax is now almost 30-cents a gallon, so
every
time a driver burns 20 gallons of gas in his car he's
contributing $6 toward highway maintenance. Doesn't seem all that far out
of
line- the roads aren't paved and maintained by magic.

When the law was put in, years ago, the legislature acknowledged that not
all
gaoline is used by vehicles driving on a highway. Boaters are allowed to
keep
track of their gasoline purchases, and individually file for a refund of
the
gas tax each year. Of course, the paperwork is a hassle, a lot of boaters
only
pay $15-20 in tax, and so most people don't file for the refund.

The unrefunded portion is *supposed* to go to improving boat ramps and
other
boating-oriented uses. Ha! The state capped the refund at 19-cents when
they
raised the tax beyond that point. That's almost understandable, since the
majority of boats that burn gasoline are traveling down the road on a
trailer
for a lot more miles than they are travelling across the water.However, in
most
years the money allocated for boating infrastructure gets raided for other
uses. What would seem to be a reasonable idea gets screwed up by greedy
politicians.

Conservatives should be applauding user fees for boat ramps, trailer
parking,
etc.
This places the financial burden squarely on the shoulders of the people
benefitting from the service, rather than the taxpayers at large. :-)

The problem us fiscal conservatives have with the fees, is the usage.
California has (had) $35 billion + in the highway fund. Now we can not get
any highway improvements as there is no money in the state budget available.
Seems as if the Former Governor Gumby and his Legislature borrowed all the
money for the general fund. Reduced the deficit we saw. But still $35
Billion in money that has been stolen.