high rock fee

[bustedwing2]

The memberlist has 145 names,if all or most of them are active paid members of chgpa less than 20 bucks each will cover Emma Janes taxes,just increase the yearly dues to cover her bill,write the check,and eliminate all the confusion,then fly as much or as little as you want,conditions and tfrs permitting. Rich

[hang_pilot]

Hi, Rich-

Thanks for the feedback! You make a good suggestion, but your math is a
little off. This forum has 146 subscriptions, CHGPA has about half that
many paid memberships. Dues would have to be increased significantly if
CHGPA members alone shouldered this burden.

~Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: bustedwing2 [mailto:bustedwing@pa.net]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:53 AM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: high rock fee


The memberlist has 145 names,if all or most of them are active paid
members of chgpa less than 20 bucks each will cover Emma Janes
taxes,just increase the yearly dues to cover her bill,write the
check,and eliminate all the confusion,then fly as much or as little as
you want,conditions and tfrs permitting. Rich



LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
[ST:XCL]

[markc]

Well ok, suppose that CHGPA members *did* shoulder
the burden alone . Say 80 members, and $25 per person
per year. That's $2000 right there.

An extra $25 per year is $0.06 cents per day.

Just a couple of flights per year, and a pilot's
total donation is no more than under the old
system.

Yes, some pilots who fly less wouldn't be "getting
their donation's worth" . But *sheesh*, $25 to
preserve the only cliff-site in our area? With its
long history? Not to mention helping out the Carbaughs,
who've been so generous to pilots for 30 years?

Seems like a no-brainer to me....

--mark c.

[stevek]

I do not think it is essential that we pay EJs full tax bill and we should not commit to do this. We need to look after our interests in the same way that EJ needs to look out for hers. If EJ could rent that land to a farmer for 3000 a year, we would be outa there. I would not blame her. But from what I understand about renting farm land in the area, she would be lucky to get $1000. I think a guaraantee of 1500 based on projected fllying fees and a promise to pass the hat for more, would be very generous. That would probably work out to $10 a day flying fee. Pretty high but in line with what most people were alreaady paying. We need to realize that if the fee goes beyond a certain amount we may very well collect less rather than more. I also think pilots deserve a fixed flying fee figure. $10 is a nice round figure. We also need to realize that there are many piilots who do not fly the Rock and that some of these pilots might resent being assessed a fee to support those who do. I am in favor of promising her $1500, $10 fee and a pass the hat campaign.

[Joe Schad]

I like this simple approach. It avoid the issue of coming up short
during the year and then having someone try to collect more money to get
the bill paid. Let do it.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: markc [mailto:markc@chgpa.org]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:12 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: high rock fee


Well ok, suppose that CHGPA members *did* shoulder
the burden alone . Say 80 members, and $25 per person
per year. That's $2000 right there.

An extra $25 per year is $0.06 cents per day.

Just a couple of flights per year, and a pilot's
total donation is no more than under the old
system.

Yes, some pilots who fly less wouldn't be "getting
their donation's worth" . But *sheesh*, $25 to
preserve the only cliff-site in our area? With its
long history? Not to mention helping out the Carbaughs,
who've been so generous to pilots for 30 years?

Seems like a no-brainer to me....

--mark c.

[mcgowantk]

I agree too.? We have not founded a new site since I have been flying.? We can't afford to lose a good site that is so close to DC.
?
Tom McGowan

Joseph Schad <jgs1942@shentel.net> wrote:

I like this simple approach. It avoid the issue of coming up short
during the year and then having someone try to collect more money to get
the bill paid. Let do it.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: markc [mailto:markc@chgpa.org]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:12 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: high rock fee


Well ok, suppose that CHGPA members *did* shoulder
the burden alone . Say 80 members, and $25 per person
per year. That's $2000 right there.

An extra $25 per year is $0.06 cents per day.

Just a couple of flights per year, and a pilot's
total donation is no more than under the old
system.

Yes, some pilots who fly less wouldn't be "getting
their donation's worth" . But *sheesh*, $25 to
preserve the only cliff-site in our area? With its
long history? Not to mention helping out the Carbaughs,
who've been so generous to pilots for 30 years?

Seems like a no-brainer to me....

--mark c.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[stevek]

Interesting philosophical divide over how we donate money to help EJ pay her taxes. I agree that we have a community interest in maintaining the site and that as member of the community we should all share in the expense. A stirring principle, but I also think that, as a pracitical matter, long run viability requires that people who use high rock pay for it and that foisting the costs off on to paraglider pilots and towheads will foster resentment and undermine the effort. We don't want joining the CHGPA to become a hard sell.

I will now be philosophically consistant: As probably the primary beneficiary of the communal approach I hereby endorse it.

[Flying Lobster]

Would these tax-relief flying fees be tax deductable???

marc

[Richard Hays]

Right on Marc! Your comments say it all. Y'know...we spend thousands of
dollars on instruction and wings and misc. crud and then get whiney about a
mere 25.00 flying fee for "the" closest flying site to Balt./ Wash.? Lets'
just pay and play, and thank god EJ isn't selling the place ( yet ).

Rich

>From: "markc" <markc@chgpa.org>
>Reply-To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: high rock fee
>Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 00:11:56 -0400
>
>Well ok, suppose that CHGPA members *did* shoulder
>the burden alone . Say 80 members, and $25 per person
>per year. That's $2000 right there.
>
>An extra $25 per year is $0.06 cents per day.
>
>Just a couple of flights per year, and a pilot's
>total donation is no more than under the old
>system.
>
>Yes, some pilots who fly less wouldn't be "getting
>their donation's worth" . But *sheesh*, $25 to
>preserve the only cliff-site in our area? With its
>long history? Not to mention helping out the Carbaughs,
>who've been so generous to pilots for 30 years?
>
>Seems like a no-brainer to me....
>
>--mark c.

[hang_pilot]

Thanks to all for your input which has been constructive and supportive.
Certainly, we're not going to jeopardize High Rock over the dollar
amounts under discussion. We love Emma Jane and we love the Rock!

It is noteworthy that the pilots who have expressed support for raising
membership fees -- a positive attitude which I really appreciate -- fall
into the foot-launched, hang gliding category.

I have not made up my mind how I personally think we should restructure
the landing fee system, but as things currently stand my inclination is
to not ask paragliding and aerotow pilots to share the burden. It's not
fair and I don't want to alienate anyone. Consider the case of the
pilots who fly High Rock more than 2.5 times per year. For those pilots
(myself included) a $25 increase in membership fees means that the rest
of the club has started subsidizing their flights.

Additionally, we are in the process of trying to get EJ's property taxes
reduced and seeking permission from Wash. Co to make the launch
accessible to paragliders. The resolution of these two issues, one way
or another, will affect the terms of the debate.

Anyway, the eventual decision will be discussed and voted on at the
membership meetings of CHGPA and MHGA with details worked out by the
joint Boards. The next CHGPA meeting will be the 4th Wednesday of
October. This item will be on the agenda and we should have news on the
taxes and paragliding access by then. I hope all members will attend
and vote their conscience.

Here are the options, now as I see them:

1) Across the board membership fee increase;
2) Different membership classes, with different fees;
3) MHGA & CHGPA together stroke a yearly check and then collect from
individuals based on usage.

We will attach numbers to these proposals by the meeting and feel free
to suggest other plans in the interim. It will help to streamline the
debate later if we have the opportunity to put numbers to those ideas,
too.

Best,
Daniel


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hays [mailto:mshgflyer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 4:16 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: RE: high rock fee


Right on Marc! Your comments say it all. Y'know...we spend thousands
of
dollars on instruction and wings and misc. crud and then get whiney
about a
mere 25.00 flying fee for "the" closest flying site to Balt./ Wash.?
Lets'
just pay and play, and thank god EJ isn't selling the place ( yet ).

Rich

>From: "markc" <markc@chgpa.org>
>Reply-To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: high rock fee
>Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 00:11:56 -0400
>
>Well ok, suppose that CHGPA members *did* shoulder
>the burden alone . Say 80 members, and $25 per person
>per year. That's $2000 right there.
>
>An extra $25 per year is $0.06 cents per day.
>
>Just a couple of flights per year, and a pilot's
>total donation is no more than under the old
>system.
>
>Yes, some pilots who fly less wouldn't be "getting
>their donation's worth" . But *sheesh*, $25 to
>preserve the only cliff-site in our area? With its
>long history? Not to mention helping out the Carbaughs,
>who've been so generous to pilots for 30 years?
>
>Seems like a no-brainer to me....
>
>--mark c.



LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
[ST:XCL]

[Scott]

Not to mix it up too much, but...though I'm primarily a towpark pilot now, I fully intend to start flying the mountains again once I've earned my H3 and my AT rating (this fall). HR is right up the road from me, and since I make my own schedule, I could (and likely will) fly it any day of the week when others can too.

So though I'm not taking advantage of the site now, I'm more than willing to fork out $10, $15, or even $50 to contribute to preserving the site---and towards my future use of the site.

It seems almost a given that flying the mountains is "free." And I hope it stays that way. But considering how almost nothing in society is free anymore, I'm not too bothered by the possibility that one day flying the mountains may necessarily (to ensure our access to them) cost $$ just like the towparks. I know---terrible thought! But that's society. (There are even whitewater rivers---like the Lower Yough---for which a fee must be paid every time you want to kayak it, at least during busy times of the year.)

Scott

[drice21037]

Speaking also as a mountain pilot who became a tow-head, I do like how it
seems "free" to fly the mountains. Of course it's not even close to free
really but it does seem that way. I don't mind fooling myself into thinking
things are free. In fact I can almost feel like towing is free because it
doesn't involve spending any cash. I put gas in my Jeep ($$$) on a credit
card, I cross the bridge with my EZ Pass and buy a tow package so most days at
Highland I don't pay anything. Of course I make up for it on the days that I
buy a new tow package but my point is it seems free. Maybe I'm just able to
enjoy the bliss of ignorance more than most people.

As much as I love the convenience of Highland (I live in Annapolis) there's
just something about running off a mountain. I'm willing to pay now so that
option will always be available to me. I understand that everyone does not
share my feelings for the mountain sites and that's OK. Maybe there should be
some kind of mountain pass that we can buy, separate from regular club dues so
as not to discourage tow pilots from joining the club.

Paying a yearly fee would help keep my fantasy of flying for free alive.
Assuming I can still ignore the fact that a tank of gas may cost $50.00 before
the end of the year.

Dave


Quoting Scott <sw@shadepine.com>:

>
> Not to mix it up too much, but...though I'm primarily a towpark pilot now, I
> fully intend to start flying the mountains again once I've earned my H3 and
> my AT rating (this fall). HR is right up the road from me, and since I make
> my own schedule, I could (and likely will) fly it any day of the week when
> others can too.
>
> So though I'm not taking advantage of the site now, I'm more than willing to
> fork out $10, $15, or even $50 to contribute to preserving the site---and
> towards my future use of the site.
>
> It seems almost a given that flying the mountains is "free." And I hope it
> stays that way. But considering how almost nothing in society is free
> anymore, I'm not too bothered by the possibility that one day flying the
> mountains may necessarily (to ensure our access to them) cost $$ just like
> the towparks. I know---terrible thought! But that's society. (There are even
> whitewater rivers---like the Lower Yough---for which a fee must be paid every
> time you want to kayak it, at least during busy times of the year.)
>
> Scott
>



___________________________________________________________
This mail sent using ToadMail -- Web based e-mail @ ToadNet

[stevek]

Last post on this subject. Promise.

The previous system of individual donations to EJ plus a pass the hat campaign worked fine. We got her the money or close to it. She was and is happy (more or less) on that score. The only thing that needs changing is that EJ no longer wants to be the collection point for individual donations and instead would like a single donation at tax time. This request requires only minor changes to the existing system. So why are we proposing totally restructuring the fee/donation system? Why do we wish to replace something that works, that is voluntary, that is based on usage and that considers a pilots finances with something that is not voluntary and ignores usage and ability to pay?

Its not broken. Stop fixing it.

[hang_pilot]

(Steve) why are we proposing totally restructuring the fee/donation
system?

Because there are logistical challenges that could make what you've
proposed so cumbersome that we might not want to go that route.

The clubs would have to pay Emma Jane and then bill/collect from
everyone who flew the Rock over that year. That will be a
time-consuming task. What happens if the log disappears? We couldn't
rely on Hangola, too many pilots don't post to the forum. When you
consider this, you can see why a simple yearly fee looks attractive.

If you are volunteering to handle the process, Steve, I'd go for it
because I think usage based fees are the most fair. I'm just not that
excited about taking on this duty.

~Daniel


-----Original Message-----
From: stevek [mailto:steven_kinsley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:26 AM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: high rock fee


Last post on this subject. Promise.

The previous system of individual donations to EJ plus a pass the hat
campaign worked fine. We got her the money or close to it. She was and
is happy (more or less) on that score. The only thing that needs
changing is that EJ no longer wants to be the collection point for
individual donations and instead would like a single donation at tax
time. This request requires only minor changes to the existing system.
S Why do we wish to replace something that works, that is voluntary,
that is based on usage and that considers a pilots finances with
something that is not voluntary and ignores usage and ability to pay?

Its not broken. Stop fixing it.



LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
[ST:XCL]

[stevek]

ok -- not my last post.

Sure. I'd do it.. Not that hard. The log book disappearing does pose a problem but there are some ways around that possibility.

A couple months or so before tax time I would post something to the forum. It would say. Tax time guys! Time to help EJ pay her taxes. Please help preserve high Rock. Whether you fly it or not pls help. Send donations for EJ to Steve K who has never been convicted of a felony. For help in determining your donations here are the usage figures;

Sam 4 flight days
Ed 8 flight days.
etc

The suggested donation is 10 per flight day but more if you can afford it (or less if you can't). There were 150 flight days this year. So 10 each would only give us 1500. We would like 2300!


Maybe a reminder: Hey we gots 2k we would like 300 more. Pls help.


Then I would give EJ a check for whatever we got.

[brianvh]

It's always good to have topics to discuss at meetings.

One thing to think about: the pulpit fee is $15 and covers 3 sites, while
HR donation would likely be more and only cover one site, although an
exceedingly rare cliff launch. It may be hard to get out-of-area pilots
to join as they do for the pulpit. Keep the recommended daily donations
for those who don't pay the yearly donation?

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Broxterman.Daniel wrote:

>
> Thanks to all for your input which has been constructive and supportive.
> Certainly, we're not going to jeopardize High Rock over the dollar
> amounts under discussion. We love Emma Jane and we love the Rock!
>
> It is noteworthy that the pilots who have expressed support for raising
> membership fees -- a positive attitude which I really appreciate -- fall
> into the foot-launched, hang gliding category.
>
> I have not made up my mind how I personally think we should restructure
> the landing fee system, but as things currently stand my inclination is
> to not ask paragliding and aerotow pilots to share the burden. It's not
> fair and I don't want to alienate anyone. Consider the case of the
> pilots who fly High Rock more than 2.5 times per year. For those pilots
> (myself included) a $25 increase in membership fees means that the rest
> of the club has started subsidizing their flights.
>
> Additionally, we are in the process of trying to get EJ's property taxes
> reduced and seeking permission from Wash. Co to make the launch
> accessible to paragliders. The resolution of these two issues, one way
> or another, will affect the terms of the debate.
>
> Anyway, the eventual decision will be discussed and voted on at the
> membership meetings of CHGPA and MHGA with details worked out by the
> joint Boards. The next CHGPA meeting will be the 4th Wednesday of
> October. This item will be on the agenda and we should have news on the
> taxes and paragliding access by then. I hope all members will attend
> and vote their conscience.
>
> Here are the options, now as I see them:
>
> 1) Across the board membership fee increase;
> 2) Different membership classes, with different fees;
> 3) MHGA & CHGPA together stroke a yearly check and then collect from
> individuals based on usage.
>
> We will attach numbers to these proposals by the meeting and feel free
> to suggest other plans in the interim. It will help to streamline the
> debate later if we have the opportunity to put numbers to those ideas,
> too.
>
> Best,
> Daniel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Hays [mailto:mshgflyer@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 4:16 PM
> To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
> Subject: RE: high rock fee
>
>
> Right on Marc! Your comments say it all. Y'know...we spend thousands
> of
> dollars on instruction and wings and misc. crud and then get whiney
> about a
> mere 25.00 flying fee for "the" closest flying site to Balt./ Wash.?
> Lets'
> just pay and play, and thank god EJ isn't selling the place ( yet ).
>
> Rich
>
> >From: "markc" <markc@chgpa.org>
> >Reply-To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
> >To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
> >Subject: high rock fee
> >Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 00:11:56 -0400
> >
> >Well ok, suppose that CHGPA members *did* shoulder
> >the burden alone . Say 80 members, and $25 per person
> >per year. That's $2000 right there.
> >
> >An extra $25 per year is $0.06 cents per day.
> >
> >Just a couple of flights per year, and a pilot's
> >total donation is no more than under the old
> >system.
> >
> >Yes, some pilots who fly less wouldn't be "getting
> >their donation's worth" . But *sheesh*, $25 to
> >preserve the only cliff-site in our area? With its
> >long history? Not to mention helping out the Carbaughs,
> >who've been so generous to pilots for 30 years?
> >
> >Seems like a no-brainer to me....
> >
> >--mark c.
>
>
>
> LEGAL DISCLAIMER
> The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
> [ST:XCL]
>
>
>
>
>
>

[hang_pilot]

{Steve} Sure. I'd do it
>>>Thanks, Steve, that's very helpful.

{Steve} Sam 4 flight days
Ed 8 flight days.
>>>Who are Sam and Ed and why aren't they CHPGA members? I sure hope
they didn't learn to fly at a tow-park.

{Steve} Then I would give EJ a check for whatever we got.
>>>If you stroke the check and not the clubs, then I don't think we need
a membership vote on this. Hey, everyone: any reason not to consider
Steve's proposal a done deal? As I said, if Steve will run it then I'm
for it.

~Daniel



LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
[ST:XCL]