x-no-archive:yes


"Armond Perretta" wrote:

Rosalie wrote:

... IMHO, a state facility should be run for the citizens of the area,
and not be an all-the-traffic-will-bear kind of place...

I will not argue with a person's opinions, at least not usually. However
the location in question is not a "state facility" in the sense the phrase
is commonly understood. Further, I don't believe I've encountered many
state-run marine facilities that discourage traffic. Those I've encountered
seem very interested in collecting fees.

There are lots of places where there are state owned or national park
owned facilities which are run by private corporations. I think these
places have some kind of contract with the entity that owns the
property.

By state facility I do not mean that it is necessarily run by the
state. Even prisons and schools are sometimes run by private business
rather than by state personal. These are still state facilities, even
when run by private enterprises IMO.

Miamarina doesn't seem to care that their slips are mostly empty.
They collect the fees, but they don't seem interested in maximizing
the revenue or in cutting personnel to offset the fact that less users
means less service is needed. They are perfectly happy to collect the
fees of course, but will not do anything to increase the number of
people who pay them.

To be fair, I think the fees are set by someone higher up, and
possibly they are set that way in order to decrease transient use.
So if that is their goal, they are achieving it. But the fees are
also too high for most local residents, so if their goal was also to
allow more local use, that goal is not being met. (Reduced rates are
available only to Dade Co residents and only for a year contract)

Armond wrote:

... Even if the facility were "state-run," there is no reason it should
avoid maximizing taxpayer revenue ...

Rosalie wrote:

Well maximizing profits means setting the rates so that the facility
is used to the maximum amount AFA possible..

Once again, I suspect you are not using "maximizing profits" in the sense
the phrase is commonly understood. In fact maximizing use could easily
lower profits once maintenance and refurbishment expenses are taken into
account.

In any case your statement above that "the facility is used to the maximum
amount" contradicts your earlier statement that "a state facility should be
run for the citizens of the area, and not be an all-the-traffic-will-bear
kind of place."

I don't agree with this point. A marina can't maximize profit if it
isn't taking in any money because no one stays there. Maximizing
profits means setting the fees so that the marina is full but not so
low that the maintenance expenses are not met. The local businesses
will be getting increased tax revenue from the marina, plus increased
business from transients that stay there. Reduced rates for local
boaters can also be put into effect.

Rosalie wrote:

If other marinas can make a profit while charging less, then I don't
know why Trumps has to charge so much more in order to break even ...

How did you determine that Trump charges more "to break even"? I don't
think there is any published financial data to support this. I also don't
think I've ever seen _any_ Trump facility charge less than the maximum
amount possible.

Well there you are. Trump facilities normally charge the maximum
possible, and I bet that most of it goes to them, and not to the state
owners. So the contract between Trump and the state is probably
skewed in Trump's favor which is taking money away from the local
citizens.

grandma Rosalie