|
Post by frankf on Oct 31, 2014 10:12:44 GMT -4
I for 1 no longer go to our permit required parks. As has been said I already pay taxes for those parks & the supposed upkeep, even though it is out of county folks that come here to do volunteer cleanup. Also why would I want to buy a permit when it is only good for a couple of months, as they all expire 12-31-14. I'm also not paying for extra patrols unless someone is going to be assigned to beach areas alone to cite violators. I can tell you that from living here & spending time in the parks those that are leaving trash, crappy dippers, beer bottles etc arent coming in by POV. They are coming in by a pick up/drop off & entering through the back areas. So I will enjoy living here but I will continue to go across the bridge where I can go to any park over there without a permit or at the most having to stop in the office to get a pass but there is no fee (a benefit of being military & a county employee) For the state parks I have a 1 time $10 fee lifetime pass for any of them. Why pay to go here & still have to deal with illegals & all the other garbage? I was with you until the bigotry reared it's ugly head. So how can you tell the "illegals" from those who are legal? Do they wear sombreros or what? BTW, in an email to our illustrious commissoners (most of which will hopefully be out of a job soon) I mentioned the bigotry involved in the creation of this new tax. Dumnemil took offense because there was no intent to "run off hispanics". Yeah. Right.
|
|
|
Post by puddintane on Nov 1, 2014 7:18:05 GMT -4
"Illegals" was a poor choice of words, but anyone who frequents those beaches can see with their own eyes the reality of the fact that the majority of the weekend users of the beaches are large groups of people, mostly Hispanic families, coming to fish and spend the day partying and hanging out. That's not bigotry, that's just a factual observation. Nobody says they can't do that... it's a fine way to spend a day no matter what race you are -- as long as you don't litter in the process. And if the beaches are being littered with diapers and sippy cups and beer bottles (which is the case in my experience picking up trash), and if the majority of the users are in that group of people (being observed bringing toddlers and drinking beer), then it's not an illogical stretch of the imagination to determine who's doing the littering. So no, the intent is NOT to "run off hispanics" -- it's to run off the litterbugs, who in this case happen to be mostly Hispanic. That's not bigotry, it's just a fact, but so often anytime anyone states what's manifestly obvious gets labelled as xenophobes or whatever. It doesn't mean that nobody else is littering, and certainly everyone who litters should be subject to the same fines, but I think it can help to figure out a solution to the problem if you can identify the offenders and address them specifically. If it's some sort of cultural problem or difference in how "we do things back home," then address that. Here's an example -- I have a friend who owns a commercial orchard. They have problems with large groups of Asian families coming into the orchard and just picking whatever fruit they want and driving off with bucketloads. She addressed them once, and they took offense and told her "back home orchards are for everyone and it is free for the taking." She explained to them that it's NOT that way here, and they are in fact stealing from her, and would they please pay. (Not relevant, but they apologized and paid, and then the very next weekend were back again, same people, this time sending some kids over to the farm stand to distract the workers so they could continue their stealing unimpeded. When approached again, they pretended they didn't speak English -- the exact same person she'd spoken to the weekend before. *eyeroll* But at least she was trying to address the offenders.)
Anyway, my point is that if you're trying to "run off" littering offenders, and those offenders happen to be of a particular ethnic group, that is not bigotry. And it might help address the actual litter problem if it does in fact happen to be some sort of cultural thing or whatever that can be discussed and some rational solution reached. But I'm probably just wearing rosy glasses.
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Nov 1, 2014 11:28:45 GMT -4
Well said.
Love how instantly someone claims bigotry. Give me a break
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Nov 1, 2014 14:21:13 GMT -4
Plus, you can't say from looking at someone that he or she is an illegal, nor can you say that the only illegals are Hispanic, as some seem to say.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Nov 2, 2014 18:02:02 GMT -4
"Illegals" was a poor choice of words, but anyone who frequents those beaches can see with their own eyes the reality of the fact that the majority of the weekend users of the beaches are large groups of people, mostly Hispanic families, coming to fish and spend the day partying and hanging out. That's not bigotry, that's just a factual observation. Nobody says they can't do that... it's a fine way to spend a day no matter what race you are -- as long as you don't litter in the process. And if the beaches are being littered with diapers and sippy cups and beer bottles (which is the case in my experience picking up trash), and if the majority of the users are in that group of people (being observed bringing toddlers and drinking beer), then it's not an illogical stretch of the imagination to determine who's doing the littering. So no, the intent is NOT to "run off hispanics" -- it's to run off the litterbugs, who in this case happen to be mostly Hispanic. That's not bigotry, it's just a fact, but so often anytime anyone states what's manifestly obvious gets labelled as xenophobes or whatever. It doesn't mean that nobody else is littering, and certainly everyone who litters should be subject to the same fines, but I think it can help to figure out a solution to the problem if you can identify the offenders and address them specifically. If it's some sort of cultural problem or difference in how "we do things back home," then address that. Here's an example -- I have a friend who owns a commercial orchard. They have problems with large groups of Asian families coming into the orchard and just picking whatever fruit they want and driving off with bucketloads. She addressed them once, and they took offense and told her "back home orchards are for everyone and it is free for the taking." She explained to them that it's NOT that way here, and they are in fact stealing from her, and would they please pay. (Not relevant, but they apologized and paid, and then the very next weekend were back again, same people, this time sending some kids over to the farm stand to distract the workers so they could continue their stealing unimpeded. When approached again, they pretended they didn't speak English -- the exact same person she'd spoken to the weekend before. *eyeroll* But at least she was trying to address the offenders.) Anyway, my point is that if you're trying to "run off" littering offenders, and those offenders happen to be of a particular ethnic group, that is not bigotry. And it might help address the actual litter problem if it does in fact happen to be some sort of cultural thing or whatever that can be discussed and some rational solution reached. But I'm probably just wearing rosy glasses. The Post said: "Why pay to go here & still have to deal with illegals & all the other garbage?" It didn't say "litterers". It said "illegals". There's no evidence that those who are littering are illegals. They may be of hispanic origin, but there's no evidence of being illegal. The institution of the tax was to run off the hispanics, and we all know it. You too if you would simply acknowledge it.
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Nov 2, 2014 19:52:39 GMT -4
"Illegals" was a poor choice of words, but anyone who frequents those beaches can see with their own eyes the reality of the fact that the majority of the weekend users of the beaches are large groups of people, mostly Hispanic families, coming to fish and spend the day partying and hanging out. That's not bigotry, that's just a factual observation. Nobody says they can't do that... it's a fine way to spend a day no matter what race you are -- as long as you don't litter in the process. And if the beaches are being littered with diapers and sippy cups and beer bottles (which is the case in my experience picking up trash), and if the majority of the users are in that group of people (being observed bringing toddlers and drinking beer), then it's not an illogical stretch of the imagination to determine who's doing the littering. So no, the intent is NOT to "run off hispanics" -- it's to run off the litterbugs, who in this case happen to be mostly Hispanic. That's not bigotry, it's just a fact, but so often anytime anyone states what's manifestly obvious gets labelled as xenophobes or whatever. It doesn't mean that nobody else is littering, and certainly everyone who litters should be subject to the same fines, but I think it can help to figure out a solution to the problem if you can identify the offenders and address them specifically. If it's some sort of cultural problem or difference in how "we do things back home," then address that. Here's an example -- I have a friend who owns a commercial orchard. They have problems with large groups of Asian families coming into the orchard and just picking whatever fruit they want and driving off with bucketloads. She addressed them once, and they took offense and told her "back home orchards are for everyone and it is free for the taking." She explained to them that it's NOT that way here, and they are in fact stealing from her, and would they please pay. (Not relevant, but they apologized and paid, and then the very next weekend were back again, same people, this time sending some kids over to the farm stand to distract the workers so they could continue their stealing unimpeded. When approached again, they pretended they didn't speak English -- the exact same person she'd spoken to the weekend before. *eyeroll* But at least she was trying to address the offenders.) Anyway, my point is that if you're trying to "run off" littering offenders, and those offenders happen to be of a particular ethnic group, that is not bigotry. And it might help address the actual litter problem if it does in fact happen to be some sort of cultural thing or whatever that can be discussed and some rational solution reached. But I'm probably just wearing rosy glasses. The Post said: "Why pay to go here & still have to deal with illegals & all the other garbage?" It didn't say "litterers". It said "illegals". There's no evidence that those who are littering are illegals. They may be of hispanic origin, but there's no evidence of being illegal. The institution of the tax was to run off the hispanics, and we all know it. You too if you would simply acknowledge it.That's absurd, I think you may be projecting just a bit. People have a problem with trash being left all over the place. I'm sure there's a small minority of bigots that have a problem with hispanics using the beaches, but that is certainly not what the majority of us have a problem with. What you're suggesting is that if the beaches and parks were being polluted by a bunch of white rednecks then everyone would be fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by cranky64 on Nov 3, 2014 7:02:11 GMT -4
People Please!! We don't have illegals in Maryland, we have "New Marylanders". Lets show some sensitivity here!
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Nov 3, 2014 9:39:40 GMT -4
People Please!! We don't have illegals in Maryland, we have "New Marylanders". Lets show some sensitivity here! or 'future democrats'!
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Nov 3, 2014 13:24:29 GMT -4
What you're suggesting is that if the beaches and parks were being polluted by a bunch of white rednecks then everyone would be fine with it. That's not too far from the truth. Moved to the area about 13 years ago and used Terrapin a lot. In those days there were very few hispanics frequenting the beach and there was a lot of trash then. Cigarette boxes, bait containers, beer cans, tangled lines, and other trash. Not so different than today, except perhaps for the numbers of people fishing there, many more today. Whether these people are "illegals" or local rednecks is irrelevant and shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. But of course there are those who refuse to believe their redneck buddies could be the problem as well, and look for scapegoats of anyone other than their own type. Just remember who it was of the commissioners who decided raising your taxes in order to use your beach was a good idea tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by barnaclebill on Nov 3, 2014 13:41:54 GMT -4
To be fair, It doesn't make sense that a $5.00 @ day fee (per car) should deter anybody from going fishing all day. But you have to ask yourself who employed all these immigrants, illegal or otherwise? What was their party affiliation?
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Nov 3, 2014 16:32:41 GMT -4
Care to clarify your statement and questions?
|
|
|
Post by barnaclebill on Nov 3, 2014 18:11:15 GMT -4
Sure. It is a stretch to say Hispanics were targeted by the beach fee. I can't explain why you don't see many at Terrapin park now. I'm guessing littering tickets, alcohol infractions, no fishing license, maybe fear of authorities. I now go camping out of state so I can have a beer after a long hike. You can't do that in Maryland or the revenuers could get you.
Since you ask, I believe a lot of people have made a lot of money off illegals who have no safeguards we Gringos have. They come here in large numbers to work. Unsafe conditions, wage theft ... who are you going to complain to? And it mystifies me that Republicans have immigration as a plank because their base probably has benefitted from them more than the other party. That's why nothing on immigration will ever be done. What are the demographics I don't know. That's why I asked.
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Nov 3, 2014 23:06:41 GMT -4
What you're suggesting is that if the beaches and parks were being polluted by a bunch of white rednecks then everyone would be fine with it. That's not too far from the truth. Moved to the area about 13 years ago and used Terrapin a lot. In those days there were very few hispanics frequenting the beach and there was a lot of trash then. Cigarette boxes, bait containers, beer cans, tangled lines, and other trash. Not so different than today, except perhaps for the numbers of people fishing there, many more today. Whether these people are "illegals" or local rednecks is irrelevant and shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. But of course there are those who refuse to believe their redneck buddies could be the problem as well, and look for scapegoats of anyone other than their own type. Just remember who it was of the commissioners who decided raising your taxes in order to use your beach was a good idea tomorrow. Well that's interesting because in the first few pages of this thread you and others were saying that Terrapin used to be nice, and that at one point they did have the money to maintain the parks. That was your (and others) response to me when I said that if you want increased services you have to pay for them. So which is it? BTW, I agree with you that it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion, so why do you keep bringing it up? Why did you include that in your letter to the commissioners if it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion? Edit - And yes I realize that this time you were responding to someone that called them illegals, but you brought it up earlier in this thread and you included it in a letter to the commissioners.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Nov 5, 2014 15:47:10 GMT -4
Well that's interesting because in the first few pages of this thread you and others were saying that Terrapin used to be nice, and that at one point they did have the money to maintain the parks. That was your (and others) response to me when I said that if you want increased services you have to pay for them. So which is it? BTW, I agree with you that it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion, so why do you keep bringing it up? Why did you include that in your letter to the commissioners if it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion? Edit - And yes I realize that this time you were responding to someone that called them illegals, but you brought it up earlier in this thread and you included it in a letter to the commissioners. The park was nicer. The trash was there however. This is nothing new. If you don't believe that the new tax was racially motivated, just look back through the comments in this thread and others, along with pictures posted by various forum members in regards to the park. If you're truthful you'll have to agree that it was.
|
|
|
Post by KITransplant on Nov 5, 2014 16:14:13 GMT -4
Well that's interesting because in the first few pages of this thread you and others were saying that Terrapin used to be nice, and that at one point they did have the money to maintain the parks. That was your (and others) response to me when I said that if you want increased services you have to pay for them. So which is it? BTW, I agree with you that it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion, so why do you keep bringing it up? Why did you include that in your letter to the commissioners if it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion? Edit - And yes I realize that this time you were responding to someone that called them illegals, but you brought it up earlier in this thread and you included it in a letter to the commissioners. The park was nicer. The trash was there however. This is nothing new. If you don't believe that the new tax was racially motivated, just look back through the comments in this thread and others, along with pictures posted by various forum members in regards to the park. If you're truthful you'll have to agree that it was. We all know that "trash" is code for certain white people. Shame on you, frankf! Just trying to keep it light here. I agree--the new tax is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by puddintane on Nov 6, 2014 6:55:48 GMT -4
The Post said: "Why pay to go here & still have to deal with illegals & all the other garbage?" It didn't say "litterers". It said "illegals". There's no evidence that those who are littering are illegals. They may be of hispanic origin, but there's no evidence of being illegal. Correct. Which is why my post began with " 'Illegals' was a poor choice of words." However, your next statement of "The institution of the tax was to run off the hispanics, and we all know it. You too if you would simply acknowledge it" does not follow logically. I still believe the institution of the fee was a poor attempt to run off litterbugs (who may or may not be Hispanic but in this case mostly seem to be so) and so no, I will not 'simply acknowledge it.' It seems to me that nobody cares who uses the beaches, as long as they follow the rules and take their trash with them when they leave. And I think we all seem to agree that whatever goals this "beach fee" accomplishes, keeping the beaches litter-free is not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Nov 6, 2014 10:19:57 GMT -4
Correct. Which is why my post began with " 'Illegals' was a poor choice of words." However, your next statement of "The institution of the tax was to run off the hispanics, and we all know it. You too if you would simply acknowledge it" does not follow logically. I still believe the institution of the fee was a poor attempt to run off litterbugs (who may or may not be Hispanic but in this case mostly seem to be so) and so no, I will not 'simply acknowledge it.' It seems to me that nobody cares who uses the beaches, as long as they follow the rules and take their trash with them when they leave. And I think we all seem to agree that whatever goals this "beach fee" accomplishes, keeping the beaches litter-free is not one of them. Comments made on this forum certainly don't bear out that at all. Nonetheless, 3 out of the 5 commissioners who will be in place shortly have supported rescinding the beach tax. I have heard that the parks people are in favor of rescinding it as well, which is good news. Hopefully we can hold them to their promises.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 6, 2014 11:00:14 GMT -4
First, it doesn't matter who uses the parks, simply do not litter, clean up after yourself and ticket those that do not.
Secondly, why do folks continue to call the permit fee a "tax"? Is the parking permit ones needs to pay when going to the Romancoke Fishing Pier a "tax" too? Why the differentiation between the parking permit one has to pay at Romancoke and the uproar over the fee needed to be paid using the beaches? Why not make it equal for all? Whether you use the Romancoke Pier, Mattapeake Fishing Pier or Mattapeake Beach, pay a parking permit fee for the day or get an annual pass.
Lastly, what is interesting, as noted earlier, is how the new crop of commissioners want to eliminate the "fee" and put the expenses to maintain the parks/beaches on the tax payer using general revenues (read "property taxes"), whether you use the parks/beaches or not. Granted, our taxes pay for a lot of things many of us may never benefit from, but, the "beach users" certainly made the noise to get this expense off their shoulders and onto the taxpayers of the county. Keep in mind, it is these "beach users" that are the causes of the problems indicated here.
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Nov 6, 2014 11:05:31 GMT -4
First, it doesn't matter who uses the parks, simply do not litter, clean up after yourself and ticket those that do not. Secondly, why do folks continue to call the permit fee a "tax"? Is the parking permit ones needs to pay when going to the Romancoke Fishing Pier a "tax" too? Why the differentiation between the parking permit one has to pay at Romancoke and the uproar over the fee needed to be paid using the beaches? Why not make it equal for all? Whether you use the Romancoke Pier, Mattapeake Fishing Pier or Mattapeake Beach, pay a parking permit fee for the day or get an annual pass. Lastly, what is interesting, as noted earlier, is how the new crop of commissioners want to eliminate the "fee" and put the expenses to maintain the parks/beaches on the tax payer using general revenues (read "property taxes"), whether you use the parks/beaches or not. Granted, our taxes pay for a lot of things many of us may never benefit from, but, the "beach users" certainly made the noise to get this expense off their shoulders and onto the taxpayers of the county. Keep in mind, it is these "beach users" that are the causes of the problems indicated here. Ding ding ding! However, they can argue that the fees have only paid for the enforcement of the parking pass, not the clean up. However, I'd argue that if there was no permit, how many liter bugs would be there on those busy weekends that Sandy point closes and folks end up over here?
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 6, 2014 11:17:00 GMT -4
EMS... you have to pay to go to Sandy Point, as I recall.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Nov 6, 2014 11:18:46 GMT -4
First, it doesn't matter who uses the parks, simply do not litter, clean up after yourself and ticket those that do not. Secondly, why do folks continue to call the permit fee a "tax"? Is the parking permit ones needs to pay when going to the Romancoke Fishing Pier a "tax" too? Why the differentiation between the parking permit one has to pay at Romancoke and the uproar over the fee needed to be paid using the beaches? Why not make it equal for all? Whether you use the Romancoke Pier, Mattapeake Fishing Pier or Mattapeake Beach, pay a parking permit fee for the day or get an annual pass. Lastly, what is interesting, as noted earlier, is how the new crop of commissioners want to eliminate the "fee" and put the expenses to maintain the parks/beaches on the tax payer using general revenues (read "property taxes"), whether you use the parks/beaches or not. Granted, our taxes pay for a lot of things many of us may never benefit from, but, the "beach users" certainly made the noise to get this expense off their shoulders and onto the taxpayers of the county. Keep in mind, it is these "beach users" that are the causes of the problems indicated here. If you read the post by QA County posted a week or so ago, virtually NOTHING goes into Terrapin Park. $16K out of the $2.5 million paid by taxpayers. The tax collected goes to paying the TAX COLLECTORS not to maintaining the park. In the meantime volunteers clean the park.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 6, 2014 11:57:02 GMT -4
So, Frank, the county is going to have to find the money in the budget to take care of the parks. Given the new commissioners intent to cut taxes, I wonder where this money will be found and what other services will be cut to satisfy the beach users.
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Nov 6, 2014 14:03:40 GMT -4
You pay to go into sandy point and sandy point cleans their beaches daily
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 6, 2014 14:13:23 GMT -4
I hate paying taxes and fees are a form of tax but it is shocking to me how upset people get about a $35 fee.
If you don't charge the user the rest of the citizens will pay for it one way or another if you want clean and safe beaches. I pay to use the boat ramp and I do not expect other citizens in QAC to pay for the boat ramps if they don't have a boat.
I think Jim Moran and Mark Anderson have a good compromise in the works and I hope Paul Comfort hears them out after they have had a chance to make sure it is 100% legal before he attempts to reverse it. Why should out of county residents get a free ride off the backs of the QAC taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Nov 7, 2014 2:05:08 GMT -4
Well that's interesting because in the first few pages of this thread you and others were saying that Terrapin used to be nice, and that at one point they did have the money to maintain the parks. That was your (and others) response to me when I said that if you want increased services you have to pay for them. So which is it? BTW, I agree with you that it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion, so why do you keep bringing it up? Why did you include that in your letter to the commissioners if it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion? Edit - And yes I realize that this time you were responding to someone that called them illegals, but you brought it up earlier in this thread and you included it in a letter to the commissioners. The park was nicer. The trash was there however. This is nothing new. If you don't believe that the new tax was racially motivated, just look back through the comments in this thread and others, along with pictures posted by various forum members in regards to the park. If you're truthful you'll have to agree that it was. lol, nice try. You said the parks were nice 10 years ago. Dirty diapers, cinder blocks on the beach, fishing line and hooks, random trash, etc... that is exactly what you will find at Terrapin right now. It was like that 10 years ago? Can anyone else confirm that it was no different 10 years ago? You have a strange definition of nice. What's wrong with taking pictures of the people that are trashing our parks? You seem extra sensitive because it is largely hispanics that are doing this. Does that say anything about hispanics as a whole? No, it does not. Like you said, it's completely irrelevant, which still leaves me wondering why you felt the need to mention it in your letter to the commissioners. Anyways, back to my point. Previously you said that the parks were being maintained, but now they are not. This is why you had a problem with an extra fee (or tax, whatever). You've contradicted yourself several times in this thread. People want the parks cleaned up, it doesn't matter who is making the mess. I don't care what a couple of random people on a message board posted unless they were personally responsible for enacting the permits. How are those posts even relevant?
|
|