|
ben87
Apr 27, 2005, 8:35 PM
Post #51 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
You have a good/interesting point about profiting from something that might be viewed as "the commons" or our collective heritage, as opposed to something that you have privately enhanced - such as disneyland. And certainly, I think there is currently a lot of activity by corporations trying to encrouch on and profit from the collective commons.
But, you're wrong about the Gunks. According to their website, The Mohonk Trust was est. as a non-profit organization in 1963 and renamed the Mohonk Preserve in 1978. Definitly a non-profit. A very succesful and valuable private conservation effort.
Both public and private land conservation can be very successful and are valuable - and both can also be done poorly or not really be effective.
|
|
|
|
|
deschamps1000
Apr 27, 2005, 8:42 PM
Post #52 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343
|
First, it is important to remember what non-profit means. An organization can be non profit, but the director can still get paid $300,000/year. That can still be non-profit.
I just don't see how they need $10/person to cover their costs. It seems incredibly high. I feel like they could still cover operational costs for $5. I don't mind paying the money, as long as I'm not taken advantage of by a "non-profit" organization. If they really need $10 to keep operating, fine but I am very surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
a_guy_named_smith
Apr 27, 2005, 8:43 PM
Post #53 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 142
|
In reply to: First just I want to make it clear, that I'm very appreciative of Mohonk Preserve for taking care of the place and letting it become a climbing haven for North Easterners. However, as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are).
nice 'finding skills' buddy :roll: :roll: :roll:
with finding skills like that you must be a sport climber :wink:
page two of this thread
from curt
I would like to add that the Mohonk Preserve enjoys 501-c3 (non-profit) status and was set-up in the early 1960s specifically to protect those lands for public use.
All of the money raised through user fees and donations in the Gunks goes toward maintaining the lands, acquiring additional lands on the Shawangunk ridge, education and research.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=87062&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=15
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Apr 27, 2005, 8:48 PM
Post #54 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: First, it is important to remember what non-profit means. An organization can be non profit, but the director can still get paid $300,000/year. That can still be non-profit. I just don't see how they need $10/person to cover their costs. It seems incredibly high. I feel like they could still cover operational costs for $5. I don't mind paying the money, as long as I'm not taken advantage of by a "non-profit" organization. If they really need $10 to keep operating, fine but I am very surprised.
True about the high salaries. Hell, the NFL is a non-profit! :lol:
However, speculating about how the preserve spends the cash without looking at it's financial records is pointless. Rangers, toilets, administration are expensive. Maybe the fee has the effect of keeping the place (slightly) less crowded.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 27, 2005, 8:57 PM
Post #55 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: First just I want to make it clear, that I'm very appreciative of Mohonk Preserve for taking care of the place and letting it become a climbing haven for North Easterners. However, as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are) and they do indeed use the land for making profit. That is the only part I'm against.....
The Mohonk Preserve is non-profit. What part of my earlier post didn't you understand?
Also, according to the Mohonk Preserve website, they get 150,000 visitors per year. Do the math. Even if every visitor paid $10 per visit (which they do not--because memberships can lower the effective charge) the entire budget of the Preserve would be $1,500,000 - except for additional donations.
Do you really think anyone is getting rich here--after paying a staff of 25 people, paying for trail and carriage road maintenence, conducting research, holding educational activities and then banking some money away for the purpose of acquiring additional lands along the Shawangunk ridge? You've got to be kidding.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Apr 27, 2005, 8:57 PM
Post #56 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: First, it is important to remember what non-profit means. An organization can be non profit, but the director can still get paid $300,000/year. That can still be non-profit. I just don't see how they need $10/person to cover their costs. It seems incredibly high. I feel like they could still cover operational costs for $5. I don't mind paying the money, as long as I'm not taken advantage of by a "non-profit" organization. If they really need $10 to keep operating, fine but I am very surprised.
Non-profit can also mean that everyone working for them does so on a volunteer basis. What non-profit means that generally, the entity is supported by the public and that no money recieved by the entity may inure to the benefit of an individual. All funds received are not taxed at the entity level and must be expended in furtherance of their stated charitable purpose. They are allowed employees, but the IRS knows each year how much their executives are being paid. If it is excessive for the job they do, the entity will loose its tax-exempt status. This is the checks and balance system of the Internal Revenue Code.
As for their operating budget, do you really "feel" like they could cover all of their expenses with half of the money they receive? What does that feel like? Unless you have access to their budget, shut up. You have no idea what their expenses and revenue actually is. I bet that their liability policy alone for allowing rock climbing on their property is staggering.
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Apr 27, 2005, 9:05 PM
Post #57 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
In reply to: However, as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are) and they do indeed use the land for making profit. That is the only part I'm against.
The Mohonk Preserve is very definitely non-profit. The Mohonk Mountain House and associated facilities are FOR profit. Are you sure you are not confusing the two ????? The Mohonk Mountain House, Inc does not own the Trapps and Near Trapps. The Mohonk Preserve does, and they are who is charging you the $10 day fee.
TS
|
|
|
|
|
jayp
Apr 27, 2005, 9:10 PM
Post #58 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2003
Posts: 32
|
Don't pay and just sneak in, pretty easy to do(and lots of fun)
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Apr 27, 2005, 9:22 PM
Post #59 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
In reply to: as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are) and they do indeed use the land for making profit. That is the only part I'm against.
Let's grow up a little and remember that NOTHING IS FREE (especially freedom). It's 2005, Thoreau, God rest his special soul, is dead, and we're all incurring expenses at this very moment.
Non-profit organizations need lots of money to survive. The Mohonk Preserve newsletter asks its members to contribute additional money. The place is a gem, a natural and recreational treasure, and it serves a far greater population than selfish climbers.
Your free and reduced-priced state parks cost you money, just like the free and reduced-priced lunches of the poor students in public schools cost YOU money. I'll say it again: NOTHING IS FREE.
I do not know the salaries of the MP directors, but I do know that all non-profits are required to have a board of directors for oversight, and must conform to tax code.
Now, let's bitch about a real money grubbing 501c3: the AMC. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Apr 27, 2005, 9:31 PM
Post #60 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
In reply to: In reply to: However, as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are) and they do indeed use the land for making profit. That is the only part I'm against. The Mohonk Preserve is very definitely non-profit. The Mohonk Mountain House and associated facilities are FOR profit. Are you sure you are not confusing the two ????? The Mohonk Mountain House, Inc does not own the Trapps and Near Trapps. The Mohonk Preserve does, and they are who is charging you the $10 day fee. TS
Yep, troutboy is right. There may be some confusion because what is now the preserve used to be part of the mountain house, wich the smiley family owned. then in the early 60s they realized they had a crap load of land and they couldnt manage it all. they then decided to open some of it up and do a charitably thing, wich is when the trust was formed. the trust (now preserve) is legally seperate from the mountain house, but they get along nicely... with the exception of climbing policies.
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Apr 27, 2005, 11:50 PM
Post #61 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
How cheap do you get ? It's only $10.
|
|
|
|
|
floridaputz
Apr 28, 2005, 12:34 AM
Post #62 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2002
Posts: 136
|
I don't know what you're complaining about, after all, New Yorkers invented the "Pay Toilet". That's the real crime !
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
Apr 28, 2005, 12:45 AM
Post #63 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
In reply to: I don't know what you're complaining about, after all, New Yorkers invented the "Pay Toilet". That's the real crime !
what are you talking about....?
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Apr 28, 2005, 1:01 AM
Post #64 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
In reply to: In reply to: I don't know what you're complaining about, after all, New Yorkers invented the "Pay Toilet". That's the real crime ! what are you talking about....?
He just wanted to work the words "pay toilet" into a post.
Those crazy chickens. What will they think of next?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 28, 2005, 3:09 AM
Post #65 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: And to compare the Gunks with say Smith Rock: The State of Oregon recognized the potential value of the land to common people and incorporated it into its state park system to protect it. Now you can have access to it for $3/day or $25/year. And for those of you who haven't been there, it is an extremely well maintained area. It is supported by the Access Fund, the State of Oregon, and with organized volunteer help of local climbers. In hindsight, the state of NY might also have done that with the Shawangunks.
Let me make this clear. Goverment owned land is not always good. The only exception I can note is the NYS Forest Preserve which has generally exceeded expectations. Fees once enacted never go away, they only go up. Smith Rock will eventually hit $5 a day and then $7 and then $10. Government is far more wasteful then the private sector. If private companies were run like the government was they'd be belly up in no time at all.
Now, as far as not being able to afford a Gunks pass? Let me explain how easy it is. Every time you get paid put $3.50 in a jar for a whole year. Believe me you can afford to take $3.50 out of your checks. Thats 26 paychecks and you'll have your Gunks season pass. Now getting that first pass might take some sacrifice but you could eat ramen for a month or two while not climbing or going anywhere to make up money. Or charge it and pay it off over the course of a few months. Or you could ask for it as a birthday present. I've done that for a few years. It's like 365 presents in one. Bottom line is $90 might not be $25 but it's not horrendously exhorbitant.
The Mohonk Preserve is non profit and the day passes are $10 to curb overuse. More than likely they will one day hit $15 or $20. However, if you haven't noticed the Preseverve doesn't just collect fees. At a certain point they close it down to new visitors. If they were merely interested in making a profit they'd keeping taking your money regardless of impact.
The fact is Smith Rock is a rare example of state land being affordably priced and open to climbing. I guarantee you that the fees will go up.
I say you take a stand and boycot the Mohonk Preserve. Show them that you won't be a part of the greedy American capitalist landowning aristocracy. Perhaps you should stage a hunder strike or chain youself to High Exposure.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Apr 28, 2005, 12:55 PM
Post #66 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
wayfare you obviously have only been to the gunks once with your observations. did you noticed how the rangers live, what programs they do on the preserve, maintenance, rescue, trail work, how they try to keep the preserve pristine, but have to clean up after your dirty ass. how the preserve goes all out to be environmental friendly. go walk in the visitor center get a year pass then use the bathroom, then read how there toilets save around 40,000 gallons of water/year.
Pay the $10, unless you get up early and climb late which i doubt because you're too busy at the MUA spraying about the climbs you say you’re going to do but won’t do because you're too scared. Sack it up idiot
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Apr 28, 2005, 1:06 PM
Post #67 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
A little civility, please....
|
|
|
|
|
nich_popsicle
Apr 28, 2005, 1:52 PM
Post #68 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 42
|
Not sure if anyone has ever heard of this place, I think they call it Horse Pens 40 (sarcasm, anyone?), but it is owned by this nice couple and they have done a swell job of making it fun and friendly to climbers :wink: . HP-40, in my opinion, is a glowing example of how private ownership can benefit climbers everywhere. The day fee is a MEASLY $3, and for another $5, you can camp FIFTY FEET from some of the best bouldering in the south! I went down for Spring Break with 3 other guys, and we had an INCREDIBLE time (except it rained a majority of the time we were there), and even the other climbers were incredibly friendly and helpful (WOW, sociable boulderers??, haha). I completely recommend HP-40 to anyone looking for some fantastic climbing, and as a perfect example of how ALL private ownership should go. The owners are climbers, and HP-40 is run FOR climbers, and if only ALL privately-owned property was run so well, the world would be a better place.
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Apr 29, 2005, 1:20 AM
Post #69 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
In reply to: Not sure if anyone has ever heard of this place, I think they call it Horse Pens 40 (sarcasm, anyone?), but it is owned by this nice couple and they have done a swell job of making it fun and friendly to climbers :wink: . HP-40, in my opinion, is a glowing example of how private ownership can benefit climbers everywhere. The day fee is a MEASLY $3, and for another $5, you can camp FIFTY FEET from some of the best bouldering in the south! I went down for Spring Break with 3 other guys, and we had an INCREDIBLE time (except it rained a majority of the time we were there), and even the other climbers were incredibly friendly and helpful (WOW, sociable boulderers??, haha). I completely recommend HP-40 to anyone looking for some fantastic climbing, and as a perfect example of how ALL private ownership should go. The owners are climbers, and HP-40 is run FOR climbers, and if only ALL privately-owned property was run so well, the world would be a better place.
I've spent a few days at HP 40, and a couple months worth of days at the gunks. I appreciate your contribution to this discussion, but you have to admit that managing 120 acres (can I get a mule?) in rural Alabama is a shade different than managing over 6500 acres located 90 miles north of NYC. I'm willing to bet that more people live within 100 miles of The Gunks than live within 500 miles of HP40.
Further, the Mohonk Preserve is a nature preserve. Horsepens is "Alabama's Premiere Outdoor Nature Park &
"The Home Of The South's Bluegrass Music""
Managing the two is a vastly different situation.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 29, 2005, 2:20 AM
Post #70 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Not sure if anyone has ever heard of this place, I think they call it Horse Pens 40 (sarcasm, anyone?), but it is owned by this nice couple and they have done a swell job of making it fun and friendly to climbers :wink: . HP-40, in my opinion, is a glowing example of how private ownership can benefit climbers everywhere. The day fee is a MEASLY $3, and for another $5, you can camp FIFTY FEET from some of the best bouldering in the south! I went down for Spring Break with 3 other guys, and we had an INCREDIBLE time (except it rained a majority of the time we were there), and even the other climbers were incredibly friendly and helpful (WOW, sociable boulderers??, haha). I completely recommend HP-40 to anyone looking for some fantastic climbing, and as a perfect example of how ALL private ownership should go. The owners are climbers, and HP-40 is run FOR climbers, and if only ALL privately-owned property was run so well, the world would be a better place.
Ha Ha ha Ha!!!! HorsePens 40 compared to the Gunks. Not even on the same scope. Gunks are thousands of acres located within 8 hours of 30+million people. HP40 probably has that much within a 16 hour drive. Gunks are also world renowned and offer easy access from other countries do to the proximity to NYC. I don't think a lot of europeans are flying into Mobile or Memphis or Red Bay or where ever around Alabama to climb at HP40.
So for $8 a day you can climb and camp at HP40 and for $10 I can climb and camp at the Gunks which have arguably the finest assortment of good quality 3 pitch trad routes in the US on high quality rock ranging from 5.1 to 5.13, plus a shit load of bouldering just to make things interesting. HP40 just might be the better deal :wink: ....reality is what you believe.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Apr 29, 2005, 1:35 PM
Post #71 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
pico23In reply to: the Gunks which have arguably the finest assortment of good quality 3 pitch trad routes in the US on high quality rock ranging from 5.1 to 5.13
don't be suprised if a couple 14 go up by fall time. Cody is superstrong and has some projects. hopefully the new wave at the gunks is coming.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Apr 29, 2005, 2:18 PM
Post #72 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
In reply to: Let me make this clear. Goverment owned land is not always good. The only exception I can note is the NYS Forest Preserve which has generally exceeded expectations. Fees once enacted never go away, they only go up. Smith Rock will eventually hit $5 a day and then $7 and then $10. Government is far more wasteful then the private sector. If private companies were run like the government was they'd be belly up in no time at all.
Bzzzt! Wrong answer (although its very american of you). The government is generally engaged in providing that are not profitable and probably never will be. The shining example of privatization is trash collection. yes, the private sector has figured out how to collect trash more cheaply than the public.
Additionally, the purpose of the government is not to be as efficient as possible, but rather (theorically) effective and equitable.
|
|
|
|
|
photonicgirl
Apr 30, 2005, 1:57 AM
Post #73 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2003
Posts: 152
|
I buy my yearly membership in the Gunks and enjoy unlimited climbing. So do all my friends. What you forgot to mention about state parks out west is the daily use fees...
Quartz mt in OK was once about to get developed/sold and the climbers coalition out there teamed up with the Access fund and bought some rock. To save it, just like the Gunks got saved by climbers.
Pay your money and don't whine about it. The Gunks are well taken care of and that cost money. The rangers are cool, you will get rescued should you deck, and hey, that new bathroom may be nasty but it's available should you shit your pants!
Jules
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 30, 2005, 3:05 AM
Post #74 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: I buy my yearly membership in the Gunks and enjoy unlimited climbing. So do all my friends. What you forgot to mention about state parks out west is the daily use fees... Quartz mt in OK was once about to get developed/sold and the climbers coalition out there teamed up with the Access fund and bought some rock. To save it, just like the Gunks got saved by climbers. Pay your money and don't whine about it. The Gunks are well taken care of and that cost money. The rangers are cool, you will get rescued should you deck, and hey, that new bathroom may be nasty but it's available should you s--- your pants! Jules
Actually, Jules, the Gunks wasn't necessarily saved by climbers. Although I don't know that it wasn't. The land was owned in it's entirety by the Smiley Family and they created the preserve from their land holdings. Someone on here can probably fill us in more on the specifics as I don't really remember the who deal. I don't think climbers necessarily saved the gunks. To be honest. If you look at the usuage on a typical weekend I'd bet only 50% of the day passes are climbers. Likewise, not all season pass holders for the Mohonk Preserve are climbers. Anyway, there was one weekend in particular that we got up there mid morning/afternoon and the place was packed. I thought about heading to Peterskill to just hike around for an hour or two till it died down but we ended up parking in the lower lot and when we got to the carriage road the climbs were oddly deserted even as far down as Laurel. A lot of use at the Preserve is non climbers.
Now those Access Fund shirts would make you think the Gunks are endangered just because you can't climb at Sky Top. I suppose when I knock off the hundreds of other climbs available to me below my lead and follow limits I'll worry about the Sky Top.
But what I'd love to know is why they put the bathroom right on the carriage road by Boston? Why not further down by Baby?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 30, 2005, 3:50 AM
Post #75 of 80
(6679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: Let me make this clear. Goverment owned land is not always good. The only exception I can note is the NYS Forest Preserve which has generally exceeded expectations. Fees once enacted never go away, they only go up. Smith Rock will eventually hit $5 a day and then $7 and then $10. Government is far more wasteful then the private sector. If private companies were run like the government was they'd be belly up in no time at all. Bzzzt! Wrong answer (although its very american of you). The government is generally engaged in providing that are not profitable and probably never will be. The shining example of privatization is trash collection. yes, the private sector has figured out how to collect trash more cheaply than the public. Additionally, the purpose of the government is not to be as efficient as possible, but rather (theorically) effective and equitable.
I knew this would get good eventually.
Actually there is nothing equitable about goverment. If you work in it or around it you see the waste.
Medicaid is one area. People drive through pharmacies driving hummers and cadilacs and refuse their $3 copay. Certainly if they can afford to drive a $50,000 car they have $3, heck the gas to get to the pharmacy was $3. Thats not equitable when there are harder working people with no insurance. Because they work harder they make enough to not be eligible for medicaid but to little to afford the crappy insurance they might be eligible for. And those people can't turn down their $30-100 copays. Thats not equitable.
You realize that there are literally thousands of loopholes that congress is too lazy to close that cost you as a tax payer billions a year. For instance they pay out over a billion in extra student loan aid via some loop hole but students don't get the aid. The loan companies actually bill the government for this money. I have the article saved somewhere because it fascinated me so much. The reason they don't fix it is that it's only 1 Billion dollars and not worth the trouble. So last year when Bush harshened the criteria for Pell Grants to curb spending it was for nothing. They could have simply closed the loophole and disbursed an extra 1 Billion to students. If that was the private sector they'd fix that ASAP. But you as a taxpayer have to make up that billion regardless of whether some needy kid gets it or some big company. Equitable? nope!
The government subsidizes logging and mining companies to use MY LAND that my grandparents, parents, and myself as a generally hard working tax paying individual have paid for for nearly 100 years. But they have the balls to charge me a fee to tread lightly on that same land when it is I who in fact has personally done the trail maintainence on various USFS trails around the US. Equitable? My ass!!!!
Congress enacts demonstration fee programs that by law you CANNOT demonstrate against. Thus the fee program appears to have nearly 100% support of all US citizens. The fees are enacted, raised exponentially on an annual basis, sent into a general fund and then a tiny bit is sent back to the collecting NP/NF. What happens then is congress after gouging you with the promise that your park/forest will be better maintaned for a few dollars a visit actually cuts funding each year, while you pay more each year. Equitable? Nope.
One of the brightest stars of the Republican congress, Sen. Santorum spends his days writing bills to privatize the National Weather Service as another ploy to make us bend over and pay twice. I find that interesting considering we paid to put those satelites in space as well as the ocean gauges and river gauges. And IMO severe weather warnings and information are a right and not a priviledge of the those who are willing to subscribe to yet another fee. With all we are paying supplemental fees for you would think this would be a golden age of America but rather we are rapidly sinking into a chasm. Equitable? I don't know i guess if you want us to sink to the bottom.
The US Gov makes decisions without any long term regard for national interest. Borrow now, pay back in a generation. Private sector can't do that. Congress cuts the average Americans benefits while increasing their own. Equitable? Hell no. When has Congress taken a pay cut? When has Congress opted out of pension plans. You do realize while the overall payout compared the national budget is miniscule your Senators and Representatives get paid a kings ransom for a few years of limited work. And their medical benefits are incredible. I seem to remember the founding principles of this country were to avoid an aristocracy and a central powerful leader. We've created both.
Why can't they create legislation that helps the average American. because they have no clue who the average American is.
The policies are clueless: Bush's answer to the oil/gas prices is more oil and more refineries. You idiot. Can't you see that oil isn't the answer. Start weening us from Big Oil. It will hurt and it's gonna piss your Texas buddies off but it's time to admit we need a completely overhauled plan, one that doesn't simply call for more oil from alternative sources.
Once the goverment enacts a fee, only by the grace of god, or an election year ploy does it remove such a fee. Tolls never go away, demo fees never go away. As a matter of fact they not only don't go away but they go up at a significantly higher rate than inflation.
Bottom line is you are living in a fairy land. Keep believing government is some benovolent soul that only cares for the needy while minimizing waste. Government isn't all bad but it's not all good. I prefer to place as little as possible into hands of our lawmakers.
So I stand by the fact that Smith Rock will be around $10 in 5 years. More in ten years. Government is far to wasteful to bet any other way. The Gunks on the other hand will probably go up in price but at a reasonable cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
