Downings landing sold!

[ahamer]

Not to be negative, but the fish and game is in the same shape as the united states post office. I question how the money or it's justification of how it is spent, would ever be put forth for such a purpose? Oh and this maybe only my second post but I am a native of Alton, just saying.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by ahamer

Not to be negative, but the fish and game is in the same shape as the united states post office. I question how the money or it's justification of how it is spent, would ever be put forth for such a purpose? Oh and this maybe only my second post but I am a native of Alton, just saying.

At least a valuable asset at a seemingly good price was acquired with the funds, ensuring the property will be used forever by all who want access to the lake. Further, the state always has the option to sell the property. This transaction is far different from endless losses at the post office and bloated pension payments to former bureaucrats.

[songkrai]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

This transaction is far different from endless losses at the post office and bloated pension payments to former bureaucrats.

Too many TV sound bites.
Read up on the facts.
LINK

No tax money goes to the post office since 1971. Retirements are annuities and the employee pays half and the employers pays the other half. No taxpayer money.

But this post is not about the post office.

This post is about the state purchasing waterfront property in Alton.
Remember that the State Police have taken over Marine Patrol. In that administrative move my bet is that access to more state and federal money becomes available. Wait awhile and it won't be long before the Marine Patrol gets it's own helicopter and possibly a drone airplane - all for your public safety.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by songkrai

Too many TV sound bites.
Read up on the facts.
LINK

No tax money goes to the post office since 1971. Retirements are annuities and the employee pays half and the employers pays the other half. No taxpayer money.

But this post is not about the post office.

This post is about the state purchasing waterfront property in Alton.
Remember that the State Police have taken over Marine Patrol. In that administrative move my bet is that access to more state and federal money becomes available. Wait awhile and it won't be long before the Marine Patrol gets it's own helicopter and possibly a drone airplane - all for your public safety.

The approach/interpretation you cite is basically kicking the can down the road. Please read another perspective from a more moderate source, Bloomberg News:

Understanding the Post Office’s Benefits Mess
By Josh Barro Aug 2, 2012 9:17 AM ET
Facebook Share
Tweet
LinkedIn
Google +1
15 COMMENTS
Print
QUEUE
Q
Yesterday, the United States Postal Service admitted that it will miss a legally required $5.5 billion payment toward pre-funding its promised health-care benefits for retirees. But is this even a cost the USPS should have to cover? The answer, unfortunately, is "sort of." Here's why -- and what we should do about it.
Imagine you have a company with only one employee, Steve. If Steve earns a salary of $50,000 and receives no benefits, you have to pay him cash in the current period and reflect the whole $50,000 as an expense.
Now imagine that instead you pay Steve $45,000 a year and promise to pay for his health care in retirement, assuming that he works for a certain number of years. The present value of the health care benefits that Steve will accrue this year is $5,000.
Your employment expenses are still $50,000 a year, even though you had only $45,000 in actual cash outflows to Steve. Whether or not you set aside money to cover Steve's future health-care costs, you incurred a debt to him, and that's an expense.
Unfortunately, most government entities do not treat the accrual of retiree health-care liabilities as a cost (though they do report the size of the liability). Private firms do treat these accruals as costs. These firms are not legally obligated to pre-fund health-care benefits, but about a quarter do so.
Now imagine that Steve is nearing retirement, and all along you had been promising him health benefits but hadn't set aside any money. In order to reach full funding by the time Steve retires, you would now have to set aside $15,000 per year: $5,000 for the benefits he accrues and $10,000 to build up the fund you never created.
Your extra $10,000 payment amortizes a debt you had accrued in past years; it's not an expense any more than paying off principal on a loan is an expense.
Now let's look at how this example applies to the Postal Service. Until 2006, the USPS handled its retiree health benefits on a "pay as you go" basis. They weren't pre-funded; the service simply paid retirees' health bills as they arose, reporting only those expenses. Because the cost of actually providing health care to retirees in a given year is less than the value of benefits current workers are accruing, that meant the post office was understating the cost of retiree health care.
Then in 2006, Congress forced the post office to start prefunding its benefits for retiree health care on a schedule designed to reach full funding in 10 years. Now, the Postal Service is supposed to put about $8 billion a year toward retiree health care.
But the so-called "normal cost" of health benefits -- the value of the benefits current postal employees are accruing this year, the equivalent of Steve's $5,000 -- is only about $3 billion. To the extent the post office pays the other $5 billion, that shouldn't be counted as an expense; it is going to pay off the Postal Service's debts.
As it happens, even while missing the $5.5 billion payment that's in the news this week, the Postal Service will pay about $2.5 billion this year to provide health benefits to its existing retired workers. So, the service will be short of covering the accrual-basis cost of retiree health care this year, but only by about $500 million.
Going forward, the Postal Service should be expected to cover the normal cost of retiree health care, paying a little bit more than it is right now, but far less than what Congress has obligated it to pay.
That will take care of the cost of retiree health benefits that are earned in the future. But what should we do about the $46 billion in accrued but unfunded benefits? All the plausible options involve taxpayers covering that bill.
For example, we could privatize the Postal Service and make the buyer take on the retiree health-care obligation. But that would simply reduce the sale price of the post office by $46 billion -- meaning that taxpayers pay.
Or, we could keep the Postal Service in public hands, restructure it so it produces profits and use those profits to gradually amortize the liability. Basically, this is what the 2006 law was supposed to do, though Congress didn't actually give USPS enough flexibility to restructure. This option costs taxpayers, too -- postal profits that would otherwise go to the government would instead be diverted to pay off the retiree health care liability.
Or, Congress could directly subsidize the post office to fund its retiree health-care costs. Obviously, that would put the cost on the backs of taxpayers.
The only way to avoid having taxpayers bail out the USPS is to default on the benefits -- tell current and retired workers that they won't get the benefits they thought they had earned. Stockton, California, is proposing to do this as part of its bankruptcy filing. But that would be a bad option for several reasons -- unlike Stockton, the federal government is not insolvent and therefore ought to keep its promises, even if they were unwise.
It was a big, boneheaded mistake to let the post office run up such big debts -- and therefore understate its losses -- for decades. But trying to squeeze repayment of those debts out of future postal profits is like getting blood from a stone.
The best way forward is to cut our losses, deregulate the post office and sell it -- as has been done all over Europe. Regardless of how the retiree health issue is handled, declining mail volumes mean that the USPS will eventually become insolvent if it is not reformed; the only question is when. Relieving the post office of the obligation to pay the $5.5 billion this year would give us breathing room to get that necessary restructuring done.
And going forward, we should require government entities to pre-fund their health benefits, just as the USPS should have been doing all along. Retiree health benefits are non-trivial costs, and if governments are required to pre-fund, they will be less likely to make irresponsible promises of the sort that sank Stockton and that have helped to undermine the Postal Service.
(Josh Barro is lead writer for the Ticker. E-mail him and follow him on Twitter.)
Read more breaking commentary from Josh Barro and other Bloomberg View columnists and editors at the Ticker.
Facebook Share

[songkrai]

"In 2006, Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This law requires the Postal Service to do something that no other business or government agency has to do--pre-fund its FUTURE retiree health care benefits. This is a 75 year liability that has to be paid in 10 years. The Postal Service makes a payment of approximately $5.5 billion on September 30 at the end of every fiscal year to meet this obligation. The Post Office has been paying these benefits the past four years into a trust fund for employees who have not even been born yet. This is the burden that is creating the “financial crisis” for the Post Office. The recession that has gripped America the past few years has undoubtedly affected the Postal Service, but even in the worst economic
times since the great depression, the USPS has had a net profit of $611 million dollars. Unfortunately, the red ink associated with the post office is the mandated pre-funding since 2006."

"This onerous payment is barely being reported in the media. Another fact not being widely circulated is that independent agencies and the government itself have concluded that the USPS has overpaid into its two retirement systems. The Post Office has excessively funded the Civil Service Retirement System by at least $50 billion dollars, and the Federal Employees Retirement System around $7 billion dollars."


LINK

[RailroadJoe]

So I take it that the PO is taking over Downings LAnding?

[upthesaukee]

Take your Post Office rants elsewhere. It has nothing to do with Downings

[upthesaukee]

@ FLL...According to the article, there is no change in use. Downing launched boats, the ramp will remain open for boat launching. No change of use. Charging for launching or free launching does not change the use.

Parker Marine does not provide public boat launching at their ramp. I do not see Gillan Marine using their ramp for public launching. No competition in the bay.

I believe that the closest pay for launch would then be West Alton Marina and possibly Robert's Cove Marina (don't know if RCM does public launching).

@playing hooky...You can park your trailer on the Letter S road across from the Town Barn...you can park your vehicle in Bay parking lot. However, realize there is no overnight parking in the Bay.

Overall, I think a win win for the town. The town ramp can be tough in season and on a busy day in the bay. Downings can be less intimidating to those who have some difficulty in backing up a trailer. You can pull in so as to have almost a straight in launch, and far less people to watch and add to the intimidation factor.

[Altonbayicefishingfool]

Could someone please enlighten me on BOAT registration dollars,
Does the money go to marine patrol, State, F&G or all of the above?

Thanks!

[BroadHopper]

Finally Winnipesaukee has a public launch ramp. At least the legislature is doing one thing right. However only 35 parking spaces is on the plan. That will fill up wicked fast!
If we ever want the Pro bass tour to come back to Winni, they need much more than 35 spaces. I wonder if parking down on Letter S drive will still be available?
I believe Harilla's Landing has more space available if the state ever pursue another public launch ramp. I hope so!

[jmen24]

I don't think some folks here realize that fish and game is not attached to the state of NH for funding or budgeting.

The legislature has nothing to do with how fish and game spends its money. Our tax dollars do not go into any fish and game programs (other than a gov grant requirement that the general fund kick in 50K every year, this is a longer story on the why of this). Fish and game is funded by the people that buy hunting and fishing licenses, donate to the org and federal conservation grants.

Fish and game is taxed with aquiring, improving and maintaining most car top and many trailer access points in the entire state, that are state owned.

Altonbayfishin, marine patrol gets money from boat regs, fish and game does not get anything from powerboaters.

[upthesaukee]

Nothing to indicate that Letter S road parking will cease to be available. That all began when trailer parking was prohibited at the Bay parking lots. No reason to expect that availability will cease.

[barefootbay]

Originally Posted by ahamer

Not to be negative, but the fish and game is in the same shape as the united states post office. I question how the money or it's justification of how it is spent, would ever be put forth for such a purpose? Oh and this maybe only my second post but I am a native of Alton, just saying.

Me too, hope this country and state can regain its fiscal sanity soon .

[RLW]

ahamer, I just noticed that you are fairly new to posting on the forum and glad you have joined us. Have fun and enjoy the Winni Forum while making many new friends. I liked your comment.

[ahamer]

My point in my post came across incorrect, I assumed public access with no incoming revenue to protect the lake and offset the purchase costs. The post by altonbayicefishingfool said nothing of costs or plans of the fish and game. My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

[NHBUOY]

Congrats to you AltonIce. Did not know that was who you are.
Spent way too much time and money at the gas dock, arcade, & LandHO.
Always good time memories at the Downings dock.

[upthesaukee]

Talked to Parker Marine folks today, and they said essentially what was in the paper...NH State public access to the lake...good for the public, good for the State. May deploy a Marine Patrol boat during the season as well. Also a F& G boat there. More of a presence.

It is a better launch ramp than the town's ramp..not as steep, water is pretty deep and as long as they keep the "no power loading" in effect, should continue to be good for launching boats, especially those longer ones. One of my friends has a 38 or 39 foot Baja, and he can launch at Downings or go to a place that can lift him off with a crane. that gets a little expensive.