+1
Since the tourist line claims to be providing the service at cost, it seems reasonable for them to pass the tax on to customers.
MidlandMikeRegarding moving the tourist train operation out of Jim Thorpe; any town or township he moves to should have the same taxing authority.
The specific case in point involved not moving the operation 'to' another incorporated jurisdiction, but just outside the published city limits (or far enough away that the 'free' bus could service it cost-effectively but keep Jim Thorpe from pushing its borough limits there). That automatically eliminates Jim Thorpe's statutory ability to charge any amusement tax whatsoever under the plain-language interpretation of its statute or the law that enabled it.
You are likely correct that moving to any other 'suitably large tourist-attracting town' -- assuming that town were incorporated and could pass an amusement statute -- would re-involve LG&N's potential liability for the tax. But I see no such convenient option for the runs to the Gorge.
I do think it will be interesting to see where Andy chooses to use the LG&N stock in the event he does terminate the LG&N. I suspect as 'a sadder man but wiser now' the service would either operate point-topoint or from a location with fewer potential tax liabilities... or citizens wanting some cheap additional bucks.
Additionally, a rail line has some unique considerations. Most "amusements" are located in a single spot. A rail line may travel thru several local jurisdictions, and may be subject to those taxes in each of them.
Remember it's been brought up that there are few incorporated municipalities with formal taxing authority in the area the train ran; Old Penn Haven being the largest apparent such community at least from RBMN's published map which is why I used it as the specific 'test case' for published code. Of course it's possible that some tiny community of interest could file for incorporation, develop a statute pursuant to PL 1257, and try to claim some pro rata share of applicable tax -- we covered a couple of prospective collected-tax-allocation methodologies on RyPN. But I suspect the 'windfall' extent of tax collected would be far insufficient to cover the actual cost of such incorporation, and the additional revenue that would be required to sustain incorporated status. I'm not familiar with rural and semi-rural unincorporated towns in Pennsylvania, but have intensive and sometimes participatory interest further west and south.
Remember it's been brought up that there are few incorporated municipalities with formal taxing authority in the area the train ran; Old Penn Haven being the largest apparent such community at least from RBMN's published map which is why I used it as the specific 'test case' for published code. Of course it's possible that some tiny community of interest could file for incorporation, develop a statute pursuant to PL 1257, and try to claim some pro rata share of applicable tax -- we covered a couple of prospective collected-tax-allocation methodologies on RyPN, and several of these don't necessarily involve 'payment of tax at point of admission'. But I suspect the 'windfall' extent of tax collected would be far insufficient to cover the actual cost of such incorporation, and the additional revenue that would be required to sustain incorporated status. I'm not familiar with rural and semi-rural unincorporated towns in Pennsylvania, but have intensive and sometimes participatory interest further west and south.
As a common carrier, the railroad may have been obligated to file all its charges, all its prices for all services, either with the Federal STB for anything interstate or international, and with the Pennsylvania PSC for all intrastate business of any kind that involves transportation. Whether or not the State PSC (or PUC) commented or not, the fares are probably on file. This is not true of the Town's amusements, and on that basis alone, the State Supreme Court can rule that the fares charged are for transportation, and not for amusement.
OvermodRemember it's been brought up that there are few incorporated municipalities with formal taxing authority in the area the train ran; Old Penn Haven being the largest apparent such community at least from RBMN's published map which is why I used it as the specific 'test case' for published code.
Penn Haven may have been some unincorporated place name, however, from everything I read, townships are incorporated municipalities under Pennsylvania law. I doubt that there is an acre of land in Pa. that doesn't come under some local taxing authority.
Also, as a common carrier, the railroad must meet numerous Federal regulations that an amusement in the Town does not. On that basis, the Federal Surpreme Court could decide to take the case. This is not a case of Federal Law overturning state or local law, but rather the mis-application of a local law to something other than what the letter of the law and its original intent apply.
This is a different case than a strictly tourist railroad that does not provide freight and/or passenger service as part of the national network and connected to the national network. Such operations are exempt from most of the Federal juristiction. This operation is not exempt in any respect.
MidlandMike I doubt that there is an acre of land in Pa. that doesn't come under some local taxing authority.
This may be so ... but the only relevant discussion is which of the putative 'local taxing authorities' actually have statutes. If you can show one such statute for the land, say, that Mr. Klepper was talking about RBMN developing north of the Jim Thorpe line, I would be delighted to see it. (But I won't exactly be holding my breath for it.)
As I noted, there might be a reason for an area without a current statute to develop one, but the cost to establish and then enforce it would be at least substantial. It again would be up to you to tell me why you think that would happen.
The statute is the state law that authorizes local amusement taxes. The municiplity(s) could pass an ordinance. It's what they do.
daveklepper Also, as a common carrier, the railroad must meet numerous Federal regulations that an amusement in the Town does not. On that basis, the Federal Surpreme Court could decide to take the case. This is not a case of Federal Law overturning state or local law, but rather the mis-application of a local law to something other than what the letter of the law and its original intent apply. This is a different case than a strictly tourist railroad that does not provide freight and/or passenger service as part of the national network and connected to the national network. Such operations are exempt from most of the Federal juristiction. This operation is not exempt in any respect.
FRA regulates safety. STB is not involved.
"Brightline/All Aboard Florida successfully argued that the STB did not need to provide approval for its services, as the system was not an interstate one."
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/18-RAILrpt.pdf
But the Florida PUC did need to approve, and Brightline does operate under a host of other Federal regulations.
What would the Federal Supreme Court say if some towns got together and decided that all would slap an "Amusement Tax" on Brightline? And the Florida Supreme Court?
daveklepperWhat would the Federal Supreme Court say if some towns got together and decided that all would slap an "Amusement Tax" on Brightline? And the Florida Supreme Court?
Brightline is a transportation system. Using your logic, Greyhound, Trailways, Uber, Lyft, and Checker Cab should all be paying an amusement tax. After all, people use them to reach places of "amusement."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Exactly
And Lehigh Gorge provides awe and enjoyment, defined by the Town as "amusement," to viewers, who may arrive and leave by rail or hiking or private car or taxi or motorcycle or bicycle or bus or kiyak or whatever; and the railroad provides transportation to and from the Gorge for many, but not all, of the viewers.
OvermodThis may be so ... but the only relevant discussion is which of the putative 'local taxing authorities' actually have statutes. If you can show one such statute for the land, say, that Mr. Klepper was talking about RBMN developing north of the Jim Thorpe line, I would be delighted to see it. (But I won't exactly be holding my breath for it.)
Looks like Penn Forest Twp. (to the north of Jim Thorpe) and on the eastern side of the gorge has a 2.1% amusement tax as of 2018.
https://www.tnonline.com/penn-forest-supervisor-asks-board-consider-temporary-occupancy-permits
Not sure if the following will work:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwj_7eCMltDlAhWIZd8KHT52B5UQFjACegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpennforesttownship.org%2Fsupervisorminutes%2FBOS-2018-01-02-REORGANIZATION.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ON8PoTSyykeZUIqB85VUb
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmannLooks like Penn Forest Twp. (to the north of Jim Thorpe) and on the eastern side of the gorge has a 2.1% amusement tax as of 2018. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwj_7eCMltDlAhWIZd8KHT52B5UQFjACegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpennforesttownship.org%2Fsupervisorminutes%2FBOS-2018-01-02-REORGANIZATION.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ON8PoTSyykeZUIqB85VU
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwj_7eCMltDlAhWIZd8KHT52B5UQFjACegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpennforesttownship.org%2Fsupervisorminutes%2FBOS-2018-01-02-REORGANIZATION.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ON8PoTSyykeZUIqB85VU
Link worked well enough for me. Thus you see the wages of arrogance.
Seeing this, I then explicitly checked to see if Kidder Township (which I believe is the corresponding entity for the west side of the gorge) has something... and, embarrassingly enough, they appear to:
https://ecode360.com/6466194
I was proceeding on the assumption that the ecode360 'directory' provided all the references to township code in Pennsylvania. Again we see demonstrated what happens when someone 'ASSume's.
I could salvage a very small bit from this by noting that the indicated 2.1% is much lower than Jim Thorpe's tax, but there's nothing preventing Penn Forest, or any other township north along the route (or in Luzerne County to the north) from implementing or increasing their tax if they sense an opportunity. In fact, Kidder (through which the LV ran; there was a famous wreck there in 1888) has this note, rendered in red in the ecode360 listing):
“This section of Ordinance No. 20-A shall and may be amended from time to time by the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Kidder by Resolution changing the rate of tax. The rate of tax may also be amended by Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Kidder from time to time reflecting any amendments or changes made by statute of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
I'm beginning to wonder whether Andy's terminating the LG&N operation entirely might reflect a realization that the taxes could be made to apply to it, as presently constituted, if the various ordinances were recast to contain the language about railroads that is in Albany Township's ordinance. An immediate piece of research might be to check with the Wanamaker, Kempton & Southern (PO box 24, Kempton PA 19529; 610-756-6469) to see what their experience has been. (Notably they run on an 'isolated section' of ex-Reading line, and are probably not regulated by the PUC as a common carrier; the LG&N ran over track connected to the 'general system of transportation' and, of course, the RDC service from the south, as far as I know, will remain common-carrier point-to-point transportation without a putative 'entertainment' percentage analogous to a cover charge).
Add horseback, sleighs, canoes, sedan chairs, heliocopters, and trucks to forms of transportation in my latest posting above on this thread.
Overmod zugmann Looks like Penn Forest Twp. (to the north of Jim Thorpe) and on the eastern side of the gorge has a 2.1% amusement tax as of 2018. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwj_7eCMltDlAhWIZd8KHT52B5UQFjACegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpennforesttownship.org%2Fsupervisorminutes%2FBOS-2018-01-02-REORGANIZATION.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ON8PoTSyykeZUIqB85VU Link worked well enough for me. Thus you see the wages of arrogance. Seeing this, I then explicitly checked to see if Kidder Township (which I believe is the corresponding entity for the west side of the gorge) has something... and, embarrassingly enough, they appear to: https://ecode360.com/6466194 I was proceeding on the assumption that the ecode360 'directory' provided all the references to township code in Pennsylvania. Again we see demonstrated what happens when someone 'ASSume's. I could salvage a very small bit from this by noting that the indicated 2.1% is much lower than Jim Thorpe's tax, but there's nothing preventing Penn Forest, or any other township north along the route (or in Luzerne County to the north) from implementing or increasing their tax if they sense an opportunity. In fact, Kidder (through which the LV ran; there was a famous wreck there in 1888) has this note, rendered in red in the ecode360 listing): “This section of Ordinance No. 20-A shall and may be amended from time to time by the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Kidder by Resolution changing the rate of tax. The rate of tax may also be amended by Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Kidder from time to time reflecting any amendments or changes made by statute of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” I'm beginning to wonder whether Andy's terminating the LG&N operation entirely might reflect a realization that the taxes could be made to apply to it, as presently constituted, if the various ordinances were recast to contain the language about railroads that is in Albany Township's ordinance. An immediate piece of research might be to check with the Wanamaker, Kempton & Southern (PO box 24, Kempton PA 19529; 610-756-6469) to see what their experience has been. (Notably they run on an 'isolated section' of ex-Reading line, and are probably not regulated by the PUC as a common carrier; the LG&N ran over track connected to the 'general system of transportation' and, of course, the RDC service from the south, as far as I know, will remain common-carrier point-to-point transportation without a putative 'entertainment' percentage analogous to a cover charge).
zugmann Looks like Penn Forest Twp. (to the north of Jim Thorpe) and on the eastern side of the gorge has a 2.1% amusement tax as of 2018. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwj_7eCMltDlAhWIZd8KHT52B5UQFjACegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpennforesttownship.org%2Fsupervisorminutes%2FBOS-2018-01-02-REORGANIZATION.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ON8PoTSyykeZUIqB85VU
Greed will always carve up the Golden Goose!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I think the railroad will win its case in court.
I am asking for advice. I should not ask the Andy or the railroad, because they cannot answer without disturbing their case preparation. The comment I would receive is "We cannot answer because the case in under litigation" or something similar.
So I ask the readers who agree: Should I write the local paper stating in a few words my opinion? The idea is that the mayor may just realize that he does not have a case. That the railroad provides transportation and Gorge, accessable freely by those arriving other than by railroad, provides what he defines as amusement and I define as awe and enjoyment. The Gorge, not the railroad.
Or should a Pennsylvanian resident who agrees with this formulation write the letter. Any volunteers?
daveklepperShould I write the local paper stating in a few words my opinion?
My opinion is 'no'. (Explained further via PM, as appropriate)
daveklepper I think the railroad will win its case in court. I am asking for advice. I should not ask the Andy or the railroad, because they cannot answer without disturbing their case preparation. The comment I would receive is "We cannot answer because the case in under litigation" or something similar. So I ask the readers who agree: Should I write the local paper stating in a few words my opinion? The idea is that the mayor may just realize that he does not have a case. That the railroad provides transportation and Gorge, accessable freely by those arriving other than by railroad, provides what he defines as amusement and I define as awe and enjoyment. The Gorge, not the railroad. Or should a Pennsylvanian resident who agrees with this formulation write the letter. Any volunteers?
I think you should write it if you think it would help. Why not? Just make the letter as clear as a bell. You can also write letters to Andy, and maybe several other parties as well.
I have been reading this thread, and am not quite sure of exactly what course your letter will take. I think I understand whay you are saying in the part of your quote that I highlighted in blue above. But the way that is written is quite confusing to me. So I suggest that if that is to be part of your letter, rewrite it so flows without any confusion.
I would say something like this:
The Gorge is freely accessible to everyone. The railroad provides transportation which amounts to one access option to reach the Gorge. The Gorge alone is the source of the amusement, enjoyment, recreation, or whatever you want to call the subject of the tax. The railroad is simply practical transportation to the Gorge, and not an activity that justifies an amusement tax.
daveklepperOr should a Pennsylvanian resident who agrees with this formulation write the letter. Any volunteers?
Nope. Let the courts decide this. Besides, who reads papers anymore?
It does seem another main target of the amusement taxes up there are ATV/off-road parks. Are they transportation, too?
No. It will only get their back up and backfire resulting in the all too fashionable these days 'double down'.
zugmann daveklepper Or should a Pennsylvanian resident who agrees with this formulation write the letter. Any volunteers? Nope. Let the courts decide this. Besides, who reads papers anymore? It does seem another main target of the amusement taxes up there are ATV/off-road parks. Are they transportation, too?
daveklepper Or should a Pennsylvanian resident who agrees with this formulation write the letter. Any volunteers?
A letter to the paper will not overrule the courts or prevent the them from making their decision. The letter will be read by lots of people in the area.
I would just make the case that the railroad is selling transportation and let it go at that. It gets right to the heart of the dispute and does sound fairly convincing. Sure people will split hairs, but one of these ways of looking at it will prevail.
Do we know that this is going to court? Another possible form of resolution is for public opinion to change the mind of the City.
In the letter, I would stick to the idea that the railroad is only transportation; and also, I would not include anything about the agument that the Gorge is some form of enterainment that is not amusement. I think that is a dead end argument that will be regarded as only a semantic difference that has no bearing on the tax.
Euclid: That is exactly the letter I am proposing to write.
I'll wait for a few more comments, and meanwhile google the newspaper to get the appropriate email address, and possibly snail-mail as well.
Of course I will copy the railroad if my decision is yes, but not expect a reply. And Midelman, of course I respect your opinion also, which is indicated by my asking for advice.
EuclidA letter to the paper will not overrule the courts or prevent the them from making their decision. The letter will be read by lots of people in the area.
Or you know, today is election day for PA municipalities. I haven't searched for a sample Jim Thorpe ballot - but if the residents care - then today is their day.
proposed letter to Reading Eagle:
Dear Editor:
The Gorge is freely accessible to everyone. The railroad provides transportation which amounts to one access option to reach the Gorge. The Gorge alone is the source of the amusement, enjoyment, recreation, awe, or whatever you want to call the subject of the tax. The railroad is simply practical transportation to the Gorge, and not an activity that justifies an amusement tax.
Very best wishes for all the people in Jim Thorpe and the surrounding area,
Dave Klepper
Former President, NYCity-based Electric Railroaders' Association, former member Executive Board, NY Chapter, American Guild of Organists, USA Army Veteran, co-author. Worship Space Acoustics (jrosspub.com), student, Yeshivat Beit Orot, Jerusalem, Israel
Should I add that I am a lifetime member of the American Legion?
Might want to spell Jim Thorpe correctly.
Former President, New York City Electric Railroaders' Association, USA Army Veteran, Life member, American Legion.
I'll take the advice of both of you. Thanks for commenting constructively, and the email will be sent.
Dave, You might want to add a paragraph about the loss of revenue to the towns merchants by the loss of the train due to the tax. I'm not a wordsmithso I leave the wording to others
The letter was emailed late yesterday. I am sure the mayor heard from shopkeepers on the matter you raised, and the shorer the letter, the better chance of its being printed. But thanks for the suggestion, which I will use if further correspondence develops.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.