Originally Posted by LauderBoy
This is completely wrong. When I lived in an apartment in Orlando I paid rent, which went to the property owners who paid the property taxes on the apartment I lived in.
I now rent a slip at a marina, who pay property taxes(and probably a crap ton more taxes and fees than my apartment owners ever had to deal with) with the money I pay for on my slip.
It's no different.
It seems you are right unless the property taxes paid by marinas does not correspond to the number of livingaboard boats or should you say the number of cruising boats?
I have heard some numbers regarding property tax per month that are similar to the numbers of property tax by year in some European countries. If those values were applied to marinas in proportion to their number of places marinas in the US would be much more expensive than marinas in Europe and that don't seems to be true.
If they were applied only to liveaboards it will make those places hugely more expensive than normal ones. This has nothing to do with paying the water the electricity and superior maintenance due to more use. It has to do with that but with paying house/boat tax while the others that use the boat as a toy should not have to pay. And what about those that live on the boat on the summer and week-ends? Does not second houses (holiday houses) pay property taxes?
That seems all a bit blurred.
If things are so simple as you say why this hot discussion and most of all why marinas or states do not want liveaboards?
Marinas want clients and state would always be glad to get more money from tax so why all this fuss?