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