206 Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 This was emailed to me, hope this hasn't been posted yet but something worth following for sure. trent user fee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smally21 Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 user fee to be on a lake? no problem paying to use a dock, a lock,etc. but a lake? a quote from the article.. "If you want to ride your motorcycle on the road or ride your snowmobile on the trail, you have to pay a fee." hey this i get because someone built the road, or the trail, owns the land,etc. but the govt didnt build the lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 that is one big money grab and is crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Field Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 I don't know how they would figure out a user fee for people owning a cottage on say Big Rideau Lake . Would you go by lake frontage or just charge each cottager a flat yearly fee of say $2000. What do they charge owners of trailer parks on the lake when not all their tenants have boats? These fees would certainly lower the value of cottages on these systems knowing a yearly fee was going to be charged if you used the system or not. Perhaps a good time to dump the cottage if you are on the Trent or Rideau systems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
young_one Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Simply ridiculous! If this is passed, we'll see all kinds of fee for other systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooner_jr Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Other than the locks, what does the federal gov't maintain on the system? Boat launches etc are maintained by the municipalities, and they generally charge a fee for that. I haven't been through a lock, but I imagine there is a charge for that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beans Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 that is one big money grab and is crap Another way of getting the average Joe to subsidise the fees for those with the big boats going thru the locks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bailey Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 If they think any sensible person will pay they can think again. If introduced, this is one of those laws which should not merely be ignored, but should openly and blatantly be broken. And anyone who does knuckle under and pay had better be doing so in order to force a court challenge, or they will forever be my enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meely Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 What a load of Crappie!!! It goes without saying then, that if I were to hit a rock (just like hitting a pot-hole) and damage my bottom end,I could send the bill to the TSW and have them pay for the repair as they are in charge of maintenance??? Meely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskywizard Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 If they think any sensible person will pay they can think again. If introduced, this is one of those laws which should not merely be ignored, but should openly and blatantly be broken. And anyone who does knuckle under and pay had better be doing so in order to force a court challenge, or they will forever be my enemy. If it comes to pass, I expect it will show up on my tax bill. So to avoid being your enemy I'll lose my property. hmmm. have to think about this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bailey Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 If it comes to pass, I expect it will show up on my tax bill. So to avoid being your enemy I'll lose my property. hmmm. have to think about this one. If it comes directly off your taxes there isn't much you can do except fight it afterward. But if I am told that I have to pay before launching a canoe I will ignore any such request, and any collection action attempted will be met with a string of expletives that would curl the ears of a Sergeant Major. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backbay Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Simcoe North MP Bruce Stanton, the meeting chairman, confirmed afterwards that the user fee concept was discussed and that the MPs will likely recommend the measure to the federal minister of environment later this summer. “There are a massive number of people who visit and live on the Trent-Severn Waterway from which there is currently no financial contribution,” he said. This "massive number" of people don't pay taxes on fuel, or contribute to the gov't's coffers from the registration of their boats, or pay land or income taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bailey Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 “There are a massive number of people who visit and live on the Trent-Severn Waterway from which there is currently no financial contribution,” he said. There are a massive amount of people walking around breathing air and absorbing sunlight from which there is currently no financial contribution. If you reside in the riding of the dishonourable member, and you vote for him in the next election, you are an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 There are a massive amount of people walking around breathing air and absorbing sunlight from which there is currently no financial contribution. Oh gawd, don't give these idiots any ideas. If you reside in the riding of the dishonourable member, and you vote for him in the next election, you are an idiot. X2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnsled Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 that is one big money grab and is crap x2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Field Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Would this measure , if enacted , lower the taxes of the average Canadian who cannot afford a summer cottage on one of these systems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowanjo Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 This is issue emotive, I think we should be charged a fee and I will happily become someones enemy. Canada has it great, on the trent we live on the money paid by previous generation and yes we pay taxes but infrastructure away from the lake is crumbling or at least it is in the kawarthas. The problem I have is what is the fee going to be and then the annual rachet once its in vs affluent lakes with zero - if its consolidated reveneue I have an issue, if its as some say here to improve opportunity for all to share great, build ramps even better, make my kids get what we have - i will pay it now. The biggest issue is the small local gov need to consolidate and no fee will be required, just look at the number at the meeting today consolidate and eliminate the duplication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue pickeral Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 user fee to be on a lake? no problem paying to use a dock, a lock,etc. but a lake? a quote from the article.. but the govt didnt build the lake. In actual fact, yes they did. Many of the lakes/waterways on the system would not exist without the construction of the canal system. And without constant maintenance, they will eventually fail. With the sales of lock passes down and many of the waterway features needing expensive dredging and repair, new means of revenue must be found. Can't see how an extra $20-$30 per cottage is going to 'break' people into bankruptcy. Trying to collect all the fees is going to be the challenge though. Maybe you need a sticker such as required for a seasonal permit to a provincial park or a radio frequency device that can be read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hirk Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Im very surprised local business reps in attendance supported the idea. The MP's may not think in the same terms as them but would they not see the potential for economic suicide? The $ lost to their area's and the ripple effect could be huge. There are other bodies of water that day users have free use of. Many people that dont see the cost as justifiable will go elsewhere.They are already indicating they will recomend it in Aug. yet obviously no economic impact study has or likely will be done by then. Edited June 22, 2012 by hirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoty Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 LMAO... what a joke! Yet another example of our lovely gov't bending us taxpayers over! Maybe if they didnt waste so much of our money on giving THEMSELVES huge bonus' and raises... they wouldnt be faced with such large deficits! I'll have no problem laughing in the face of whoever TRIES to get me to pay a "day pass" to go fishing! “There are a massive number of people who visit and live on the Trent-Severn Waterway from which there is currently no financial contribution,” he said. So people that travel in the system dont buy food, gas, clothes, etc, etc from local businesses??????? Keep up the great work gov't!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecmilley Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 so for ten years my increased mill rate for waterfront property went where? seeing i get no extra services from the cokl. rubbish for sure always looking for a way to gouge how about toll roads as well for the 115/35 28 12 and 11 highways just to make sure no one wants to come to the kawarthas. they want increased revenues then they need to increase tourism by way of making the area more appealing to visitors they have obviously squandered the money collected from the system for the last 50 years so what will collecting a fee resolve, as usual with goverment it will cost more to collect than they will earn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleheader Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 This is what goverments do, they always have a reason to justify additional taxation, and the sky is going to fall if they don't get the revenue. When they are challeneged they always, always, say the rich guy is paying less than his fair share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskywizard Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 The Trent-Severn system is in decline. Contrary to what some posters here seem to think, the system is manmade and as with any structure, it requires routine maintenance. And it no longer serves its original purpose. Tourism and recreation have replaced timber and basic transportation. But before maintenance begins, the T-S Authority has years of catch-up to do. The system is in poor condition, with many parts of the system needing extensive repair/refit. Some locks need extensive work, the maintenance of aids to navigation has slackened, dredging is falling behind, and some wharves, piers and docks are falling into the water. As a year-round resident on one of the Trent-Severn's man-made lakes, I would be OK with an additional fee to ensure the infrastructure gets upgraded and then maintained. The local camps/lodges and merchants need the T-S to remain healthy, so I can see why they would also support a user fee. But I need two things: 1. I need to see that I'm getting value for my money, and 2. I need to see that other users are carrying their fair share of the costs. That would apply to day-users too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskywizard Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Maybe if they didnt waste so much of our money on giving THEMSELVES huge bonus' and raises... they wouldnt be faced with such large deficits! I'd bet we all agree on this. I'll have no problem laughing in the face of whoever TRIES to get me to pay a "day pass" to go fishing! We all pay for the services we want. phone, cellular, internet, gym memberships, etc., etc. Why should anybody get free access to, and benefit from, a man-made system that costs a great deal of money to maintain and operate? Why not assess a fee for just those folks who get direct benefit and pleasure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Why not assess a fee for just those folks who get direct benefit and pleasure? And that would be the merchants on the Trent-Severn system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now