User pays is fairest way

This money, plus a further 10% for future improvements, was held in the Ports Holding Account, until it was requisitioned by Treasury and Resources and disappeared from sight.

At that time, T&R should also have taken over responsibility for all maintenance and future improvements to the marinas. If they did not, then this seizing of our savings is unjustifiable and should be reversed.

Similarly, the new car parks at QEII and Salerie were removed from the Harbour Authority control, but when paid parking is introduced, that revenue should be credited to the harbour, not general revenue. As I have to pay to park my boat in the marina and pay again if I lay up ashore, then why should drivers object to paying for parking in the 'marina' car parks?

Renting a privately owned car park costs £100 per month.

User pays.

So, Ms McGreevy and her political bosses are asking the marina users to pay twice for harbour improvements.

As a marina user, I do not use the passenger terminal, nor the ro-ro ramp, nor the proposed deep-water petrochemical berth, nor the spare crane, nor... I only use the marina and I have seen no plans to improve that.

User pays is a fair and reasonable policy.

Let the users pay for the upgraded passenger terminal and perhaps the ferry operators will settle for better insulation and some climate control and not insist on a hugely expensive rebuild.

Liner passengers pay at least £100 per day for their cruise, so a charge of, say, £5 for using our harbour would probably not put too many off visiting Guernsey and would yield half a million pounds a year.

If the deep-water fuel berth is as essential as is claimed in the proposals (and it accounts for over half the proposed costs) then it should be paid for by all taxpayers in Guernsey, as all will benefit, not just the marina users.

User pays would indicate that the fuel importers should pay and pass the cost on to their customers. It is not acceptable to require marina users, just because they are sited in the harbour, to pay for facilities that they do not use.

Of course some marina users are wealthy (and so pay a lot more tax already) but most are not. Most of the boats cost less than a 4x4 car, but rather than a car's design life of seven years, they, like my own boat, have an expected life of more than 30 years.

This perception of wealth is not a valid reason to overcharge.

Marina users are a 'soft target', because the States has a virtual monopoly of marinas in Guernsey, but again, not a valid reason to hike the charges.

A show of hands at the recent Boat Owners' AGM indicated that many would quit boating if the charges were to be doubled, as proposed. Voting with their feet is the term, but they will be voting with their pencils at the next election.

User pays, and if it is too expensive for the user, then it is too expensive. Full stop.

Name and address withheld.