home

Sanderson Boat Fee Hike Dredges Up Questions
March 27, 2013

To The Editor:

The response by Captain Barton is well-reasoned and offers a good look at the issue of the proposed boating tax increase proposed by some of the “no new taxes” politicians we sent to Raleigh. As a boat owner (maybe too many), I will be impacted if this bill is passed and am opposed to such ill-conceived legislation.

What are they thinking? What are our representatives thinking when they propose legislation that is specifically detrimental to the people that elected them? Senator Sanderson’s latest bill to increase registration fees (read: taxes) for boats by an outlandish amount is a slap against all who own boats, which in this area, is most of us.

The offered reason for increasing these taxes which he will certainly call “fees” is to provide funds for needed channel dredging. Such claims should always be regarded with suspicion with good reason.

There are many such taxes imposed that are claimed to be only for dedicated purposes. Automotive fuel tax is supposed to be for highway maintenance and constructions but it goes into the general fund where legislators can, and do, raid if for whatever they deem suitable while highway maintenance goes begging. Another one is the “Education Lottery” that was sold to the public as a means of providing additional funds for North Carolina’s educational needs. Anyone notice a big increase in the ratio of North Carolina revenue going to education after the Education Lottery went on line? Anyone?

There are three main areas of misinformation in Sanderson’s proposal. First, very few of the boats that will be taxed by this proposal will ever have need of the channels that he proposes to dredge. That is true of most small boats on the coast and is patently ridiculous to claim for boats on inland lakes where most of North Carolina’s boats reside.

Second, as stated above, the likelihood that these taxes will ever result in improved dredging based on past history is near zero.

Third, the channels in marinas that most privately owned boats use are dredged by private funds, not from any government. The actual dredging that is done now or in the past with government funds are in channels used by commercial boats that will not be taxed by Sanderson’s bill.

Further, my understanding is that a fee is a direct charge for a specific use while a tax is general revenue to be utilized or disbursed as the government sees fit. Since we did not just fall off the turnip truck, we know which these are.

I have several small boats that would be severely impacted by the proposed taxes and none of them have any need for the dredged channels that might be served by such funds. Many people have boats that are used very few times during the year and even the existing registration fees are high on a per use basis.

Some feel that our representatives are not representing their constituents very well. Perhaps, in the words of a friend, they are doing so but that the people in Eastern North Carolina are not really their constituents.

Tom Lathrop
Oriental
3/28/13

The following is from an open letter to State Senator Norman Sanderson. It was excerpted to keep within the Letters To The Editor word limit.

Dear Norman,

I am a registered Republican who supported you in the last two elections. Let us get right to the point. I am disappointed in your performance so far as our State Senator for District 2, a view I believe many share after discussions at last night’s ferry meeting at Pamlico Community College.

We understand you are sponsoring a Bill regarding fees on boats. For the life of us many cannot understand what you are doing. You say the Bill’s purpose is to raise funding for dredging; yet it carries little specificity.

Additionally, the 2007 fishing license fee authorizes funds for emergency dredging. In 2012, 415,310 fishing licenses were issued in the State of North Carolina. At $15 for a saltwater license, that amounts to at least $6,229,650 collected last year. Add to that the funds collected in the previous 5 years and you have a pretty substantial potential dredging pool. The Fund Board of trustees must operate under G.S. 147-69.2 and G.S. 147-69-3. Further, for the first 10 years of the fund they may authorize disbursement of only up to 50% of license revenues. There should be a large available amount of funds in the trust.

What is curious about your proposed Boat Bill in my opinion is

(1) its lack of specificity as regards dredging;
(2) the way in which rates were derived;
(3) the apparent lack of correlation metrics between this new source of revenue and other resources, particularly the Salt Water Fishing Fund and funds available through the Corps of Engineers who are responsible for maintenance of navigable waters;
(4) failure to demonstrate any correlation through a comprehensive budget plan or analysis as to why this additional revenue source is required; and,
(5) failure to consider the fact that much dredging in the East is currently done through private contributions by interested parties.

I live on Pierce Creek in Oriental, a Level 1 and 2 fishery. Coordinated by the Sea Harbour Marina, funds ($300 per individual annually) are raised for dredging as required from its membership and neighbor contributions along Pierce Creek. It works. I have contributed into that fund without fail for the last 7 years even though I have a boat with a shallow draft. All of this makes us wonder just where these funds will go and why I, an avid boater must pay an additional $150 a year to dredge somebody else’s creek.

Many of us are looking for answers. We want a State Senator who, in fact, represents our interests and communicates with his constituency. I think an explanation for your actions and an outreach to the communities you represent is mandated.

Sincerely,

Captain James D. Barton (U.S. Navy –ret)
Oriental
3/19/13

TownDock.net welcomes correspondence on this subject and others. Please limit your letter to 500 words. Send your letter to letters@towndock.net. No anonymous letters will be accepted. Well-made, civilly-spoken points welcomed. Please include the city & state where you live. If you cc TownDock letters you send to government officials, they may be included in the Letters column. (Such correspondence to government – town, county, state federal – is part of the public record.)