Liveaboard Fees - again

[Jim Cate]

So let the private marinas charge what they can get away with, but the public ones need to be "Fair".

In just such a marina here in Oz (one owned, operated and developed by a public entity) the fees were raised from a relative bargain to being ~equal to the privately owned ones (this was around 20 years ago). When I asked why, the reason was that the private ones complained about unfair competition... sorta like the Towboat vs USCG issues in salvage ops in the USA.

Justified or not, the marina owners have the right to charge whatever they wish for the services they provide, and it is up to the customer to decide if it is worth the price, "fair" or not.

Jim

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

You seem to think the entire world should be on a cost plus basis? Apple should have to provide you a parts, overhead, and R&D breakdown to justify the cost of an iPhone? Restaurants should have to justify their food costs, spoilage, salaries, and overhead with every menu choice? Authors should have to provide you their per book royalties and justify them based on how hard they worked on every book you read? Seems a pretty dystopian requirement that customers demand they justify every line item of their cost to customers, is this just a requirement you advocate for Marina's, because somehow they shouldn't be part of the free market?
To be honest some customers are more of a PITA then they're worth and most of us who've run businesses have had the experience of firing such customers. Until we hit some kind of marina glut, the live aboard folks demanding line by line justification for rates definitely fall into the category of customers worth firing and replacing with the next person in line who understands basic micro economics.

I "seem to think the entire world should be on a cost plus basis"?? Where did you get that? I said nothing of the sort, but your comment sort of blows like a conservative dog whistle to me, Of course I'm right, aren't I?

And you seem to have missed the point I tried to make clear that the justification was in the case of a Port Authority operated marina, which, being a publicly owned facility had no right to charge more than their costs.

We didn't demand the line by line cost justification until the Port decided to jack up the rates, without justification. Then, when they had to release the financials, we found that they were pulling in income more than their operating costs of over $600,000 per year, which was going to fund other Port operated facilities. Of course their "profit" was high because they didn't have to buy the land, build the marina, or pay taxes.

But there are two points here:
1. Don't spin these fees as justifiable on the basis of extra costs incurred on the part of the liveaboards. It is profit motive pure and simple, and capitalism which, of course, is how we operate. Fair enough, but your spin is disingenuous, like I said. (and you sound like a sweetheart of a marina owner, just be happy you were in a seller's market, otherwise your customers would find a guy with some sense of what constitutes a customer and how they should be treated to keep them). Compare it to Apple computer? What a crock. Nobody is suggesting anything like that. It's the marina owner, the likes of YOU, who brings up the false claim that liveaboards cost the marina more and that is why the liveaboard rates are what they are. BS.
2. A lot of marinas are government owned and operated. The "what the traffic will bear" argument should not fly in those cases.

[a64pilot]

I’m real sure that is why the USCG won’t tow you anymore, until after Seatow and BoatUS decline.
The US Army used to fly civilian Medevac under a program called MAST
It was a win - win. The taxpayer got a medevac helicopter and crew that they had paid for through taxes so no additional fees, and the Military got the training, additionally the Military aircraft were very much larger and could carry much more lifesaving gear and medical crews etc that the little Lifeflight civilian helicopters could not.
However Hospitals and others took the Army to court and made them stop, because they of course couldn’t compete and the Fed Government isn’t allowed to compete with private companies.
So now you get to pay tens of thousands of dollars for less service than what you used to get for free, so that the hospital can make money with their Lifeflight helicopters.
Now to be clear, this was only near a military base, Lifeflight was free to fly and make money in probably 95% of the US.

For some reason MAST is still operational in Hawaii I believe.

Then I have to wonder every year why California burns, when probably a hundred or more Blackhawks sit on the ground unused.
In truth I know the answer and it is money of course, if the State Government used their National guard helicopters for firefighting, then a lot of companies would lose contracts.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I "seem to think the entire world should be on a cost plus basis"?? Where did you get that? I said nothing of the sort, but your comment sort of rings a conservative dog whistle to me, right?

And you seem to have missed the point I tried to make clear that the justification was in the case of a Port Authority operated marina, which, being a publicly owned facility had no right to charge more than their costs.

We didn't demand the line by line cost justification until the Port decided to jack up the rates, without justification. Then, when they had to release the financials, we found that they were pulling in income more than their operating costs of over $600,000 per year, which was going to fund other Port operated facilities. Of course their "profit" was high because they didn't have to buy the land, build the marina, or pay taxes.

For what it’s worth I can stay in the Key West Naval Air Station marina for $1 a ft per day, everything included, water, power, pump out etc.
It’s a very, very nice Marina, unfortunately not in the middle of anything, when compared to that mooring field with the prison bathrooms, it’s a palace.
Now before you complain about the taxpayer, MWR or Morale Welfare and Recreation facilities are 100% funded by the users, the Military and or the taxpayer pays nothing, zero.
But it because I’m sure the land is paid for, I assume no taxes and the power I’m sure they get at a very good rate, whatever the base pays etc.

So a municipal marina could be run very cheaply if they so desired. I’m sure though that any money made there is shifted to pay for other things.

[john61ct]

Since Reagan, government orgs can and do make profits.

And public owned resources are turned over to private enterprise to make huge profits off **all the time**.

[Mike OReilly]

The marina I’m in is a not-for-profit corporation. Prices are low because it does operate on a cost+ basis. And as I said, there is no liveaboard fee. Along with all the other services, parking is also included.

The world is a big place. The whole point of living on a sailboat is so you can move if you don’t like the neighbourhood. So move...

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I "seem to think the entire world should be on a cost plus basis"?? Where did you get that? I said nothing of the sort, but your comment sort of blows like a conservative dog whistle to me, Of course I'm right, aren't I?

And you seem to have missed the point I tried to make clear that the justification was in the case of a Port Authority operated marina, which, being a publicly owned facility had no right to charge more than their costs.

We didn't demand the line by line cost justification until the Port decided to jack up the rates, without justification. Then, when they had to release the financials, we found that they were pulling in income more than their operating costs of over $600,000 per year, which was going to fund other Port operated facilities. Of course their "profit" was high because they didn't have to buy the land, build the marina, or pay taxes.

But there are two points here:
1. Don't spin these fees as justifiable on the basis of extra costs incurred on the part of the liveaboards. It is profit motive pure and simple, and capitalism which, of course, is how we operate. Fair enough, but your spin is disingenuous, like I said. (and you sound like a sweetheart of a marina owner, just be happy you were in a seller's market, otherwise your customers would find a guy with some sense of what constitutes a customer and how they should be treated to keep them). Compare it to Apple computer? What a crock. Nobody is suggesting anything like that. It's the marina owner, the likes of YOU, who brings up the false claim that liveaboards cost the marina more and that is why the liveaboard rates are what they are. BS.
2. A lot of marinas are government owned and operated. The "what the traffic will bear" argument should not fly in those cases.

Why don't you search my posts, the Denatured Alcohol "Banned" in California thread is a good start, and then let me know about conservative dog whistles I did choose my name purposely to screw with people's stereotyping, work this time?
If you're restricting your comments to only publicly owned marinas then certainly you have every right to demand the elected officials be held accountable for explaining their decisions. As a retired Coast Guard officer it is a bit frustrating to have folks take their demands out on someone who doesn't set policy, as no harbormaster at any public marina does. Those public officials may very well have decided that pricing based on micro economics is sound business and using the proceeds to support other public projects is a good idea, just like they do with revenue from something like a convention center or publicly owned stadium (the few that actually make money!). If you disagree, get involved in local politics, democracy in action.
BTW, I think you're confusing me with another poster in this thread, as much of your post doesn't apply to what I said but may apply to other posters. I would fully agree that I wouldn't, if I owned a marina, justify live aboard fees based on it costing the marina more. I'd justify it, as I did in my post, as basic micro, and as long as there are more people looking for slips then there are slips in desirable areas, slips are priced based on that demand and cost has nothing to do with it. And FYI, the businesses I've started are all in "sellers markets"...because why would you start a business in any other space? Its not accidental luck, it's basic business sense!

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

. So move...

So how far have you moved to know what options are available in various areas? How far from my present location do you think I would need to move to find a amrina without the liveaboard fee that wouldn't require paying the day transient rate all month long? I last moved from a marina with no liveaboard (for the first month and if I stayed a second had to pay the fee) to this one that worked out to stay price, but was a nicer basic facility.

"So move" ......... sounds good, but doesn't mean much really. Marinas are like most boat problems, they can be fixed with the application of cash.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

So how far have you moved to know what options are available in various areas? How far from my present location do you think I would need to move to find a amrina without the liveaboard fee that wouldn't require paying the day transient rate all month long? I last moved from a marina with no liveaboard (for the first month and if I stayed a second had to pay the fee) to this one that worked out to stay price, but was a nicer basic facility.

"So move" ......... sounds good, but doesn't mean much really. Marinas are like most boat problems, they can be fixed with the application of cash.

I have no idea, but clearly there are plenty of places out there where you don’t have to fork out this extra liveaboard fee. Since this is your whole gripe, and since you live on a movable home, why don’t you find a place where it doesn’t happen.

I’ve noted that I’ve never been charged such a fee. Others have said the same. So move … or don’t. But if you don’t, then you’ve just proven the marina is correct in charging the extra fee. Clearly the market will bear it.

[sailorboy1]

Damn, let me just roll on out of here to the place that that doesn't charge the fee.

The point is NOT whether some places don't charge the fe, it's what is the fee for? So far it isn't for:

- extra electric
- extra water
- extra service
- extra amenities or service

near as I can tell it's for
- some extra trash (trash is empty on Friday and full on Monday morning so who really is putting in most of the trash)
- walking on the dock boards more often

I already have said the fee is "because they can". Some far lots of people have come on posted with the empty storyline that is given, but it never really holds up.

[Mike OReilly]

So… what? You’re just bored? You’ve stated the answer; that they are charging what the market will bear. And you’re proving this to be true by staying there and continuing to pay it.

I agree. It’s not cleanly linked to:
- extra electric
- extra water
- extra service
- extra amenities or service

Some liveaboards no doubt do use more of everything. Some do not. Some weekenders use more, some less. So it’s not cleanly based on anything — except what the market will bear.

Personally, I think a fairer approach (if markets can ever be “fair”) would be to base the fee on boat volume. Larger boats tend to have more systems and larger crews. Both lend themselves to greater resource use, i.e.
- extra electric
- extra water
- extra service
- extra amenities or service

So if you’re looking for a fairer way to charge, then I’d vote for boat volume, or just area (L x W) to make it easy.

[montenido]

While this has been an interesting thread, has everybody forgotten that even with live-aboard fees added, living aboard is still way cheaper than living in a house or apartment? Compare your live-aboard fees to a home mortgage or monthly rental for an apartment. It helps to keep perspective.

I look forward to the day that I can pay live-aboard fees and lose my dirt house.

Carry on. Cheers, Bill

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by montenido

, has everybody forgotten that even with live-aboard fees added, living aboard is still way cheaper than living in a house or apartment?

It isn't and I've owned both at the same time. Especially if you consider the space and living conditions.

But that's a different thread.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So… what? You’re just bored? yes, just like you apparently

So if you’re looking for a fairer way to charge, then I’d vote for boat volume, or just area (L x W) to make it easy.yes that would be great, a new way to say the bigger boat should pay more

the only "fair" way is a pay for the slip you take up and for each service you use

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

the only "fair" way is a pay for the slip you take up and for each service you use

Yes, I’m bored as well

But to do as you say would require a more intricate and detailed infrastructure for measuring exact usage. This would drive the costs higher compared with applying simple, but arbitrary, rates.

So yes, it would be more fair, but everyone would likely be paying more. Sounds a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face … but it would be “fair(er)."