Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. 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." 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. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
#52
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#53
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#54
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
x-no-archive:yes
Dave wrote: In business, the objective isn't to break even, it's to maximize profit. So what is the objective for a state-run marina? (As opposed to a state owned marina that is leased to a private contractor) And what is the objective for a state owned but leased marina? grandma Rosalie |
#55
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
x-no-archive:yes
Dave wrote: In business, the objective isn't to break even, it's to maximize profit. So what is the objective for a state-run marina? (As opposed to a state owned marina that is leased to a private contractor) And what is the objective for a state owned but leased marina? grandma Rosalie |
#56
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#57
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ANNOUNCE Jacksonville In Water Boat Show | General | |||
OT Hanoi John Kerry | General | |||
NEW Boat Profit Margins | General | |||
Boat Show Season | General |