On the Agenda: City Council, 11/28 - boat launch fees, dinghy fees, walk-on beach fee, $1m school feasibility study

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

25 Nov 2017, 18:56 #21

William Taylor.e wrote: If you want to go to a ballgame in Boston you pay 150 bucks for a single person for an amusement that last a couple of hours...and 30 bucks or whatever for parking......
You get to bring a carload of people for an entire day for a fabulous beach experience in Gloucester for what, 25 bucks?

Gloucester taxpayers get the traffic, the beach congestion, mess and the cost of cleanup. Please tell me what is good for Gloucester residents and taxpayers about this.
WT...when you are the guardian of a limited natural resource, you have a responsibility to share it.   If you need to charge in order to keep it clean, safe and accessible that is understandable.  However it shouldn't be priced in a way that denies people access to it.  We benefit from having the ocean near us in many ways and we have a responsibility to share it.
Reply

flounda
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 05:22

25 Nov 2017, 21:31 #22

Cathy (Admin) wrote: I'll just insert a jmho here:  from the President on down to Joe Citizen, I lose some respect for anyone who has a need to comment negatively on anyone's (public official or not) physical attributes.  Fashion statements?  Go for it.  Disagree with an elected official's decision making or education, grammar-spelling-punctuation skills?  Have at it.  But seriously ...
Never said anything about physical a atributes.
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

25 Nov 2017, 21:55 #23

flounda wrote:
Cathy (Admin) wrote: I'll just insert a jmho here:  from the President on down to Joe Citizen, I lose some respect for anyone who has a need to comment negatively on anyone's (public official or not) physical attributes.  Fashion statements?  Go for it.  Disagree with an elected official's decision making or education, grammar-spelling-punctuation skills?  Have at it.  But seriously ...
Never said anything about physical a atributes.
Then why did you think Cathy's post was addressed at you? 
Reply

William Taylor.e
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 04:27

25 Nov 2017, 22:27 #24

DM3194 wrote: William Taylor said:
"Gloucester taxpayers get the traffic, the beach congestion, mess and the cost of cleanup. Please tell me what is good for Gloucester residents and taxpayers about this."

I'm guessing that the 2-mil in parking revenue comes in at least a little bit handy for Gloucester!
And I am guessing that that number could easily be 4 million with perhaps fewer people to contend with and the same costs to the city. What is not to love about that for taxpayers?
You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give..
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

25 Nov 2017, 22:57 #25

I have mixed feelings about this but am personally offended although enriched by beer can beach collections. I think that increasing parking fees (forget the walk in stuff, logistical nightmare) could easily lead to less crowding both of the beaches and roads, less garbage, and to more funds to maintain the beaches and police them. Increase cost, decrease use.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

flounda
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 05:22

26 Nov 2017, 00:35 #26

Karly wrote:
flounda wrote:
Cathy (Admin) wrote: I'll just insert a jmho here:  from the President on down to Joe Citizen, I lose some respect for anyone who has a need to comment negatively on anyone's (public official or not) physical attributes.  Fashion statements?  Go for it.  Disagree with an elected official's decision making or education, grammar-spelling-punctuation skills?  Have at it.  But seriously ...
Never said anything about physical a atributes.
Then why did you think Cathy's post was addressed at you? 


Oh, probably because her comment came immediately after mine.
Reply

DM3194
Joined: 07 Feb 2008, 22:54

26 Nov 2017, 01:40 #27

If we allow only three cars at Good Harbor Beach, and charge each car $27,500.00.... would that work?

I guess we are looking for a price that would cause people not to visit Gloucester Beaches so much.
What is the magic number that would keep the Magyars and gypsies from Lynn, Revere and Lanesville away from our beaches?
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

26 Nov 2017, 14:43 #28

but, but Lynn, Revere and Lanesville people are unlikely to use Good Harbor or Wingaersheek anyway. They have their own beaches. Some even have trash barrels.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

26 Nov 2017, 14:49 #29

How about $50 per car with driver plus $5 for every passenger at least 5 years old. Cost includes trash container to be dropped at the booth on the way back out.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Dun Fudgin
Joined: 21 Jun 2007, 03:54

26 Nov 2017, 17:43 #30

The local tourist flyers and pamphlets all want beach pictures that show the beauty of the local beaches without the crowd shots. I guess thinking that if the beaches are crowded no one would come here!
Which reminds me of a "Yogi-ism" . When someone asked if Yogi went to a particular night club he said: "Nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded"!
Reply

ohyesshedid
Joined: 17 Feb 2016, 17:58

27 Nov 2017, 12:38 #31

How will they verify resident vs non-resident?  We'll all have to bring our driver's licenses/identification?  Sorry, I don't have pockets in my bikini/cover-up. 

And if friends are visiting from out of town, they'll be charged to walk-on, but I won't?  Sounds like a logistical and regulatory nightmare
Reply

Dun Fudgin
Joined: 21 Jun 2007, 03:54

27 Nov 2017, 15:16 #32

ohyesshedid wrote: How will they verify resident vs non-resident?  We'll all have to bring our driver's licenses/identification?  Sorry, I don't have pockets in my bikini/cover-up. 

And if friends are visiting from out of town, they'll be charged to walk-on, but I won't?  Sounds like a logistical and regulatory nightmare
Residential tattoo!
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

27 Nov 2017, 15:19 #33

Dun Fudgin wrote:
ohyesshedid wrote: How will they verify resident vs non-resident?  We'll all have to bring our driver's licenses/identification?  Sorry, I don't have pockets in my bikini/cover-up. 

And if friends are visiting from out of town, they'll be charged to walk-on, but I won't?  Sounds like a logistical and regulatory nightmare
Residential tattoo!
We can call it a Ramp Stamp.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

27 Nov 2017, 15:52 #34

You ask them where they are from. If they pronounce it right they are in.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

jasongrow
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 10:15

27 Nov 2017, 22:09 #35

The beach walk on fee is just a bad idea. I love my beach and yes, it gets crowded during the summer, but damn, folks, finding more ways to make this city less inviting? Bin this one and let's move on. 
Reply

Matisse
Joined: 21 Aug 2007, 02:17

27 Nov 2017, 22:23 #36

jasongrow wrote: The beach walk on fee is just a bad idea. I love my beach and yes, it gets crowded during the summer, but damn, folks, finding more ways to make this city less inviting? Bin this one and let's move on. 
Isn't there a law that protects public access between the high and low water mark that makes this proposal illegal? The city can charge for parking, but I think the public has a protected right to access the beach.
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

27 Nov 2017, 22:34 #37

And, re: the $1m feasibility study - is there just a little bit of irony in the fact that, according to School Committeewomen Melissa Teixeira and Kathleen Clancy, as quoted in the GDTimes story, one of the sites to be looked at in the study is the Green Street playground?

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... 5b42a.html
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

27 Nov 2017, 23:13 #38

That Green Street playground part of the proposal has certainly been noticed by many. I assume the plan is to eliminate the playground by building a big school on it. Then the Fuller school property will be used for a playground? We are simply nuts.

Matisse - the "fishing fowling and navigation"  rule on private tidelands between high and low water lines applies to using the tidelands, not to accessing them over the land. A clam digger can land a skiff on the tidelands in front of your house, but he may not walk across your lawn to get there.

Of course if the property owner applies for a license to build a pier or something on tidelands, the state has the right to require public access in return for granting use of the waterfront.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

NightStalker
Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 05:02

28 Nov 2017, 13:19 #39

we are looking for land to build a school when we already have land to build a school???    And one of the places we are looking at is next to the land we have but won't look at.      sure.     
You think you know it, but you haven't got a clue!!
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

28 Nov 2017, 16:27 #40

.:. at one million dollars just for looking ...
Reply