Agreed on both counts. In other words, this is just another greed-fest grab
for
those with Friends In High Places grabbing public assets.

It's the American way....


I have no problem with privitization of public assets when it's done to enhance
the interests of the customers of those assets.

But in this case, the customers are well served. Millions of people use these
resources every year, and few complain about the quality (excellent) or the
price (nearly free...small tax burden, small burden for various licenses).

Truly a solution in search of a problem when there isn't one.


-- Rich Stern
www.nitroowners.com - The Nitro and Tracker Owners Web Site
www.mypontoon.com - The Pontoon Boat Web Site
www.fishingreportdatabase.com - The Fishing Report Database
www.mysporttrac.com - The Sport Trac Web Site

Rich Stern wrote:

Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia's 9th congressional district, has introduced a
bill (HR 2753, link below) to have the Army Corp of Engineers cede federal
lands above the full pool line of Lakes Hartwell, Russel and Strom Thurmond to
the local counties.

IMO, bad idea. (In the interest of full disclosu I own a lakeside cabin
adjacent to land managed by the COE)


Next time, don't vote for a hard-line GOP congressman who sells out to
real estate developers.





--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Rich Stern wrote:

I have no problem with privitization of public assets when it's done to enhance
the interests of the customers of those assets.

Hmm... if you put it that way, it sounds reasonable enough...

The problem is that greed & human nature tend to coincide to produce results
ranging from awful to tragic for anybody not sharing the profits. Of course, those
reaping the bucks always think it's fine. So the best answer is to keep profiteers
hands OFF public assets as much as possible; and/or to shine the bright light of
publicity on the back room deals.

"Public assets" are owned by all members of the public. That's who should get the
benefit.

Getting back to the Corp of Engineers...



But in this case, the customers are well served. Millions of people use these
resources every year, and few complain about the quality (excellent) or the
price (nearly free...small tax burden, small burden for various licenses).

Truly a solution in search of a problem when there isn't one.

Agreed, but not everybody feels this way. I have to listen all the time to what a
bunch of pointy head tyrants the COE is for not letting people build whatver they
want in sensitive areas. The ones that get the least polite response are the jerks
who want to build some big expensive project in a flood plain.

DSK

"Rich Stern" wrote in message
...

Agreed on both counts. In other words, this is just another
greed-fest grab
for
those with Friends In High Places grabbing public assets.

It's the American way....


I have no problem with privitization of public assets when it's done
to enhance
the interests of the customers of those assets.

But in this case, the customers are well served. Millions of people
use these
resources every year, and few complain about the quality (excellent)
or the
price (nearly free...small tax burden, small burden for various
licenses).

Truly a solution in search of a problem when there isn't one.


-- Rich Stern

You guys get free use of resources the rest of the country subsidizes,
the quality is great, the cost is very low. Of course you don't
complain. :-)

Explain again please why the taxpayers of Minnesota or Mississippi
should pay money so that you folks can have lake cabins for almost free?
And what about the folks in the area who didn't get in on the gravy?
They are paying more taxes than they would if you guys had to pay market
type taxes.

Just a contrary point of view. Same thing happened here in Minnesota
with state land in the school trust that was supposed to be generating
money for schools, but was being leased for cabins on lakes at way below
market rates with no property tax on the land. Took a lawsuit to fix
it.

del cecchi