[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] Re: pct-l-digest V1 #986



pct-l@edina.hack.net writes:
>It appears that most people who disagree with me really object to being
>overcharged for poor or non-existent service. I do too. We don't disagree.
>If your position is to fight all user fees because the government is
>incapable of delivering service for our money then I would have to say
>this
>is a reasonable position.

I agree, that if the budget was not cut by 50% and if at least 90% of the
fees I am charged went to 1) trail maintenance  2) road repairs  3)
outhouses @ trail heads  4) repairs of overused areas  5) maps/trailhead
postings  6) purchasing more lands for public lands...etc.   I wouldn't be
so bent out of shape.  The budget cut was because the
government/politicians decided to put our tax $ elsewhere....maybe to the
Clinton legal fund?? I dunno..

This all reminds me of when I worked for a non-profit agency raising
money.  In the end it was apparent that I was raising money so the agency
could pay me to raise money.  (and no, it was only a 7$/hour part time
job) 
Basically there was no purpose in all of it, but someone thought the
agency should be raising money. 
 
Have we come up with some ideas about what those of us that oppose 1) the
fees in general and/or 2) the misappropriation of the fees.. can do?  
We do seem to generally agree that it is a problem one way of the other. 

ohhh.. regarding the outhouse without the connector tube. That was
probably the effect of the government having to go to the lowest bidder!  








* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *

==============================================================================