Bill, I wouldn't necessarily call it whing. I think Chucks post wasn't
totally about the NW in his area but all around the nation. Condo's are
replacing marina's in FLA. at an accellerated pace. and looks as long
as they'll sell out to developers, the boating access will be
declining.

I realize that money talks. and BIG money screams.

Just on the news last week, a really nice coast line trailer park (and
I do mean NICE) In FLA. was offered HUGE money to sell to developers.
They voted to do so, where each household was going to walk away with
about a million USD each.

Kind of hard to pass up, but in the long run, it seems like the tax
base will rise, and the shorline beauty and accessability will erode.

just an opinion.



Bill Kearney wrote:
These perpetually
increasing costs for DNR "leases" make property taxes look like a
bargain, and the costs are passed along to the boating public or
absorbed by the business owner until they are driven under by the
expense.

So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote
people in that will pay better attention to what you're after.

Bill Kearney wrote:
These perpetually
increasing costs for DNR "leases" make property taxes look like a
bargain, and the costs are passed along to the boating public or
absorbed by the business owner until they are driven under by the
expense.

So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote
people in that will pay better attention to what you're after.

It wasn't intended as a whine. The fact that an organization generally
friendly to boating (BOAT/US) is addressing this as a national issue
suggested that it might serve to stimulate discussion of boating
related topic in the NG.

One challenge that all boaters face when it comes to political
candidates is that there aren't enough of us anywhere to carry much
local clout. When it comes to the sheer number of votes we can deliver
at the ballot box we usually lose out to environmentalists,
preservationists, or a general public that doesn't agree that
facilities for boaters are consistent with the concept of "public"
access. That's not the worst argument in the world, either- "Why should
we have to be wealthy enough to own a boat in order to enjoy the public
shorelines?"

When it comes to the number of dollars we can pump into an expensive
political campaign in order to call in favors after the election is
over, we usually lose out to corporate real estate developers.

I would suppose that if easy solutions were readily apparent there
would be no need for the sponsoring organization to pass out awards to
the best ideas offered, wouldn't you? :-)

"Bill Kearney" wkearney-99@hot-mail-com wrote in message
t...
These perpetually
increasing costs for DNR "leases" make property taxes look like a
bargain, and the costs are passed along to the boating public or
absorbed by the business owner until they are driven under by the
expense.

So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote
people in that will pay better attention to what you're after.


One group here is trying to assemble time lines and present them to the
public early and often. In other words, by the time city planners hold
public comment meetings, they've already got proposals in their hands from
consulting firms who've been paid a few million dollars. So, one goal is to
expose this practice to the public. Who authorizes town council idiots to
spend money on proposals for projects the public hasn't heard of yet, and
probably doesn't want? Is that money somehow different from other public
money?

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 07:08:49 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

Examples of solutions could include creative public/private
partnerships, changes in land use planning or permitting processes, tax
incentives, legislation or public ballots, publicity or public
education. Eligible activities include those undertaken in the last
three years.

You mean like they did in New London where they took an entire
neighborhood by Eminent Domain to sell to a private developer?

Or like what's happening in New York City where they are attempting to
take an entire city block worth billions by Eminent Domain?

Yep - that's the way to go.

I don't think anybody except billionaire developers and any politicians
they might happen to own would be in favor of the government taking
land from one private owner or group of private owners simply to award
it to another private owner. The issue that Boat/US is addressing has
more to do with the conversion of usage from public access and/or
boating
related infrastructure to private property without boating related
infrastructure and restricted or eliminated public access.

It's a tricky balancing act. There are private property rights on one
side of the question. Why should Joe Doaks forego a $50-million sale of
the real estate upon which his boatyard happens to sit, simply to
continue operating a business where he might be lucky to net
$150,000 a year? From one perspective its unfair to Doaks to tell him
that he *must* provide services to boaters, yet it certainly impacts a
lot of people in the community when such services become no longer
available or the complete lack of competition in an area allows the
remaining vendors to price their services artificially high.

This is a very complex issue when all sides are considered.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


It seems rather obvious and simple to me. Land Trusts have been in
operation for years where private property is held in the public trust
by non-profit organizations. There are also tax breaks afforded these
organizations which reduce or eliminate property taxes allowing for
public access. Locally here, one of the organizations I'm involved
in, the Windham Public Land Trust has purchased over 2,300 acres of
land including some on lakes providing open access to the public on
areas where there hasn't been before.


Who funds the "public trust" that buys waterfront property? Is the
capital assembled from private donations, or is it a line item in your
state budget?

Do I understand you to say that existing businesses and services
continue to operate after the trust takes over and the real estate
owners get a discounted, but tax free settlement?

Are the parties that sell to the trust exempt from Federal taxes, or
just state taxes?

And, seriously, you ought to think about entering the contest. :-)

Tim wrote:
Bill, I wouldn't necessarily call it whing. I think Chucks post wasn't
totally about the NW in his area but all around the nation. Condo's are
replacing marina's in FLA. at an accellerated pace. and looks as long
as they'll sell out to developers, the boating access will be
declining.

I realize that money talks. and BIG money screams.

Just on the news last week, a really nice coast line trailer park (and
I do mean NICE) In FLA. was offered HUGE money to sell to developers.
They voted to do so, where each household was going to walk away with
about a million USD each.

Kind of hard to pass up, but in the long run, it seems like the tax
base will rise, and the shorline beauty and accessability will erode.

just an opinion.



Bill Kearney wrote:

These perpetually
increasing costs for DNR "leases" make property taxes look like a
bargain, and the costs are passed along to the boating public or
absorbed by the business owner until they are driven under by the
expense.

So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote
people in that will pay better attention to what you're after.



I agree with you Tim:

I think this is not just about the NW but everywhere. One of the things
I like about Georgia is around the big lakes we have lots of parks. But
the coast is becoming more and more developed and "Natural" coastline is
vanishing as well.

But even the lakes are not going to be safe when the big money
developers decide to target them. The biggest contributor to the last
two governors has been the builders assoication.

I like your - money talks and big money screams line. I will have to
save that one.

Capt Jack R..

Jack Redington wrote:
I like your - money talks and big money screams line. I will have to
save that one.

Capt Jack R..

Jack, you have your ear plugs in???

http://www.mcall.com/business/reales...realestate-hed

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bill Kearney" wkearney-99@hot-mail-com wrote in message
t...
These perpetually
increasing costs for DNR "leases" make property taxes look like a
bargain, and the costs are passed along to the boating public or
absorbed by the business owner until they are driven under by the
expense.
So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote
people in that will pay better attention to what you're after.


One group here is trying to assemble time lines and present them to the
public early and often. In other words, by the time city planners hold
public comment meetings, they've already got proposals in their hands from
consulting firms who've been paid a few million dollars. So, one goal is to
expose this practice to the public. Who authorizes town council idiots to
spend money on proposals for projects the public hasn't heard of yet, and
probably doesn't want? Is that money somehow different from other public
money?

Everyone in your community who votes for the winner of the council seats
is authorizing the practice.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bill Kearney" wkearney-99@hot-mail-com wrote in message
t...
These perpetually
increasing costs for DNR "leases" make property taxes look like a
bargain, and the costs are passed along to the boating public or
absorbed by the business owner until they are driven under by the
expense.
So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote
people in that will pay better attention to what you're after.


One group here is trying to assemble time lines and present them to the
public early and often. In other words, by the time city planners hold
public comment meetings, they've already got proposals in their hands
from consulting firms who've been paid a few million dollars. So, one
goal is to expose this practice to the public. Who authorizes town
council idiots to spend money on proposals for projects the public hasn't
heard of yet, and probably doesn't want? Is that money somehow different
from other public money?

Everyone in your community who votes for the winner of the council seats
is authorizing the practice.


The problem is that no matter who we vote for, we seem to get the same
results. There's also a plan afoot to revitalize downtown by improving the
bus station. The trouble is, nobody can prove that night life is lacking
because of the bus station, and nobody seems to care. The real reasons are
obvious, but not often discussed because to acknowledge them would mean
politicians would have to stop using "improve downtown" as part of their
campaign advertising.

Another example: Our previous town supervisor was making noise about
building a 200 slip marina on Irondequoit Bay to serve what he called
"transients from Canada". The newly elected supervisor has continued to
support the idea. This sounded like the now-defunct fast ferry, which the
city of Rochester lost millions on. It was supposed to transport millions of
Canadians who were dying to eat at our world class restaurants - both of
them. It failed in a year. Anyway, I stopped at the town hall to ask about
the business plan for this marina. A public works robot told me the Army
Corps of Engineers was handling that aspect. I said "No..I mean the business
plan. Where are the numbers indicating that there are so many boaters
looking for a marina at this location?" The guy gave me a blank look and
repeated his comment about the ACOE. So, I went home and called their
Buffalo office. The woman I spoke with said "We may look at traffic levels
to determine if the engineering is done right, but we don't get involved
with the actual business model". OK. I'll be meeting with the supervisor in
two weeks. This should be interesting. I really need to know how they cook
up these ideas.