Getting them interested is not the problem....


Gene Kearns wrote:
If I read your response correctly, you missed my point. The money for
the ICW is being collected from commercial shippers through fuel use
taxes... the money has already been "collected," it just isn't being
spent where is was earmarked.... and the ICW, required to be
maintained to a certain level by Federal Law, is being left to wither.


So, it is a Federal law that the ICW must be maintained?
Cool, does that mean we can put Congress and the Bush
Administration in jail?


They are digging in your pockets at Kerr Lake because there isn't a
"usage" fee for the owners of the lake. "Administrative costs" are a
lot like a "handling fee" for shipping an item... you are buying
nothing but blue sky.


To some extent that's true. "Administrative costs" are
slippery to quantify, but you can certainly tell when a
large public resource is being poorly administered (or not
at all). Of course, it takes more than money to administer
things efficiently.


Wait until the idiots in Raleigh start going after your pocketbook
with toll roads. It isn't enough to have the 4th highest state tax on
fuel... now they need to find an extra $900,000,000.00+ to build a
toll bridge in Wilmington.


Good move. I guess it's out of the question to spend money
on maintaintance for the bridges they have now?

What I want to know is: how many people who are indignantly
refusing to pay an "unfair share" of ICW costs are perfectly
happy to have us pay a share of public (in theory) bridges &
roads to very expensive residential development along the coast?

DSK

The Navigation Branch at the local Corps District would love to dredge the
channel. They'd do it annually if they could. Dredging is one of the major
pieces that keeps them in a job.

The rules under which they operate is the problem.

If you want to buy some BBQ for someone try a lobbiest. One of those can do
a lot more good than any Corps employee.

Butch
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:35:23 -0500, DSK wrote:

Getting them interested is not the problem....


Gene Kearns wrote:
If I read your response correctly, you missed my point. The money for
the ICW is being collected from commercial shippers through fuel use
taxes... the money has already been "collected," it just isn't being
spent where is was earmarked.... and the ICW, required to be
maintained to a certain level by Federal Law, is being left to wither.


So, it is a Federal law that the ICW must be maintained?
Cool, does that mean we can put Congress and the Bush
Administration in jail?


Seems fair to me.
--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Gene,

Agree that the Corps has no control over the dredging budget. Your
congressional delegation is the place to go. My earlier suggestion to use a
lobbiest (sp?) was a little tounge in cheek but is, regardless, valid.

Butch
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 17 Nov 2006 11:24:52 -0800, jamesgangnc penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

I'm thinking it is safe to say that none of that fuel tax went to
Hanover county. So how come they are being asked to cough up 3/4 mil
for icw maintenance? Hanover county's revenue, like any other county
in nc, is most likely about 3/4 property tax. The overwhelming
majority of that property tax is from people that do not have a boat
and do not have a home on the icw. So why is it that you think these
taxpayers should be paying to maintain the icw?


If you are posting to me..... I certainly don't think ANY county (in
any state) should be asked to pay for any portion of ICW
maintenance.... for the following reasons:

1) Federal Law REQUIRES the maintenance be made to a certain level,
and

2) Federal Taxes are required to be paid to fund the above
service.....

Thus, we have the mandate and we have the funding.... we simply have
no performance... and no oversight..... and no enforcement.

See your elected representative and ask, "Why?"

Ask for the poster suggesting that this is job security for the
Corps... true, very true, but only if the project is funded.... thus,

See your elected representative and ask, "Why?"

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats