daveklepperViewing scenery is not an amusement. It is education. Otherwise we would not have the Nastional Park System and all the Government-funded facilities to view Nature's wonders.
Citation on that one?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
I should also point out, as a general matter, that when a poster writes "Mr. ___ seems to think..." the writer is converting an issue into a personal issue, not a question of just which fact or opinion is correct.
And in this case I did point out in previous posts that the railroad does pay other taxes. So (1) the scenergy isn't for free, and (2) it's the freight, not the scenery, that provides a living for the railroad and its employees. And for both the scenery and the frieght, the railroad provides transportation, not amusement.
Median Mike, you are 100% wrong:
Viewing scenery is not an amusement. It is education. Otherwise we would not have the Nastional Park System and all the Government-funded facilities to view Nature's wonders.
The specific railroad is in business to provide transportation. It earns money from freight transportation. Obviously the extent of the subsidization of the transportation of passsengers to view the scenery would require detailed analysis of the books of the railroad, but it is very clear that the passenger operation was not a money-maker and was provided as a service and contribution for and to the community.
And the railroad pays real-estate taxes and other taxes to the community to support the services it and its employees receive. Additional expenses to the town due to railroad operations are not only supported by those taxes, but also by the additional taxes received because of the increased business in all sectors of the town the railroad has made possible.
There is no precedent of any railroad operating an excursion passenger service that was successfully taxed with an amusement tax.
Just to head further taxation "off at the pass" (Short-Line RR Association, are you listening?), riding an historic train is not an amusement. It is education. It teaches the kind of transportation our granfathers and grandmothers and those who "Settled the West" had when they were alive and active. Rick Laubscher, of San Francisco's Market Street Railway Association, coined the term "Museums in Motion" to describe the E and F streetcar lines' and Cable Car lines' vehicles. This also obviously applies to vintage trains. And museums are not taxed with amusement taxes. They are providing education. And Steamtown is part of the National Parks System.
A circular railroad in an amusement park is not a common carrier. It usually is more of a characterization of a real train than anything that could provide education of what trains in the steam era were reaily like, although there are exceptions. In any case, there the train ride and only the train ride is the object.
But railroads that operate excusion trains have other reasons for passengers riding than just the ride: scenery, history, rare mileage and the campaign to restore passenger service, promomotion of a area or facility, such as athletics (Winter Park Ski Train, trains to the ballpark), etc.
Penn Haven Junction is accessible (barely) only by a rough cinder road from the northwest (aside from the Lehigh Gorge State Park's rail-trail). But neither is a public road.
White Haven - northern end of the Lehigh River Gorge - would prove your point better. More easily accessible off I-80 (and PA 940) than Jim Thorpe, and a nice little town (borough, technically), it doesn't have near as much 'cachet' as JT. But I don't know if RBM&N has rights that far north, or if it's NS only (little rusty on things that far upstate).
- PDN.
Local residents, and businesses that cater to them, pay local taxes. Municipalities also tax tourist businesses additionally to capture some money from tourist to pay for services provided to them such as police, fire, EMT, roads, parking, parks, water, sewer, garbage, administrative costs, etc. Most successful secinic railroads seem to have an interesting anchor town to be based out of. For example Lake Placid, Saratoga, Durango/Silverton, Banff/Jasper, and yes-- Jim Thorpe. I doubt he would get as much business based out of Penn Haven Junction.
As far as the scenic portion goes, there is no wild land left in the continental US. Everything is developed or protected in some way. Either as a government reserve, or by a landowner who wants it kept natural and pays the taxes. In many states, the state or federal government pays a "swamp tax" to help support local government services. Mr. Klepper seems to think the scenery was provided free, and that the railroad should not have to pay for this, as they are just providing a nice amusement passtime for the passengers. I wonder what the park ranger would say if he used that arguement to try to bring a bus-load of friends into a national park for free.
daveklepperThe railroad provided transportation, not amusement. The amusement was provided by Mother Nature, and I would call it education, not amusement.
And a roller coaster's amusement comes from gravity. So I guess they shouldn't be taxed, either?
With all due respect, you are really reaching for some of these points, Dave.
daveklepper They have not been providing the passenger service to earn money.
I honestly doubt that. While they may not be getting rich off of it, I doubt it's a charity case.
Regarding where the 10 year tax bill figure came from, many states have a 10 year look back limit on tax collections. I'm guessing that is the case in PA. Something could have been happening for 20 years or more, but the maximum that can be collected on is 10 years.
Answering both posts. The railroad has the upper hand in this case. They have not been providing the passenger service to earn money. The money comes from the freight business. They have been providing it as a service for the community to benefit the economy of the coummunity, and to have some fun themselvres.
The taxes you mention on are facilities that earn money. The airport fees and rental-car fees at airports also serve in a manner of renting property and paying for services the profitable operation uses.
The railroad has every right to simply shut down the passenger operation that they were providing as a public service transportation mode to and from a scenic location. As far as back taxes, where are the dated invoices of have received notice of being taxed?
The railroad provided transportation, not amusement. The amusement was provided by Mother Nature, and I would call it education, not amusement.
Whether or not the tourist train is an amusement, or not, is immaterial. Local jurisdictions are able to tax tourist operatons such as amusements, hotels, and yes, transportation (look at your rental car taxes/fees) and airports.
BaltACDLet the Mayor know you were there because of the Lehigh Gorge RR and you spent money in town that you would not have if the Lehigh Gorge RR was not operating.
But be careful not to send the wrong message: that you spent a lot of money because of the Lehigh Gorge. Then they'll think that a leetle more admission price for their tiny nominal amusement tax per ride is easily in your budget...
Lithonia OperatorYes, in Jim Thorpe the (extremely picturesque) business district is right there. We ate at an Irish pub about 50 yards from the depot. And it was good food.
Let the Mayor know you were there because of the Lehigh Gorge RR and you spent money in town that you would not have if the Lehigh Gorge RR was not operating.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yes, in Jim Thorpe the (extremely picturesque) business district is right there. We ate at an Irish pub about 50 yards from the depot. And it was good food.
At least it appears the business district is a very short walk from the station.
In our case, folks coming up from the Utica area are still about a mile short of downtown Old Forge when they arrive at the station. If they don't take the time to explore (many do ask) they could easily just turn around and head back south.
Fortunately, a good many are also looking for something to eat, and that's where most of the restaurants are.
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...
Lithonia OperatorWhat was "the situation in Port Arthur?"
Steam locomotive 503. It would take too long to explain; you'll get a much better idea if you look it up. Vast and wonderful coverage on RyPN, which was involved in both the effort and the aftermath.
Some facts that may help illuminate this discussion:
If you look at an aerial photo of Jim Thorpe, you'll see that the large Carbon Co. parking lot - the only one of any size in the vicinity - is on the opposite side of the tracks from the nearest street (US 209). It paralells the tracks on its east side for quite a distance, ~2,000 ft. The grade crossing from 209 into the parking lot is at these Lat./ Long. coords.: N 40.86377 W 75.73680 . There's no other access into the parking lot - the other side abuts the Lehigh River. The parking lot is big enough to accomodate most train riders, I think. The County charges like $5 a car to park, as I recall. I believe it's a private crossing, and the railroad protects it when the train is crossing.
A train rider - once they've driven into town - could park in the County lot, ride the train, and return, and need never set foot on any other public or private street or property other than railroad and County until they leave. Even the bathroom facilities are in the tourist/ visitors bureau in the train station. It's only when the visitors cross 209 - which usually has one or two policemen of some type (fire police?) to protect the main crossing by the station - to eat, shop, visit the attractions, etc. that they really go into the town and use any services on a routine basis (excluding emergency services).
Flintlock76Let's look at it this way, what expenses are incurred by the town when the train shows up? Is there overtime required for a police presence to handle the crowds? Are there EMT personnel standing by just in case someone on the train has a medical issue? Is extra trash pick-up required? Or anything else?
I can't speak for the railroad in question. For us, the answer to all of the questions is no. We handle our own crossings, our crowds at the station don't usually require any law enforcement attention, and even when we bring in a train of 500 passengers, it's just that many more people downtown. Trash pickup is nothing out of the ordinary. Just one more dumpster to empty as they make their rounds - and even the taxpayers aren't charged specifically for trash pickup.
That said, the downtown businesses like to know how many we are bringing - most (especially the restaurants) want to have enough staff available. An occasional miscommunication brings hard feelings when trains show up that they weren't expecting, or trains don't show up when they were expected.
At one point, when the businesses realized just how much business we were bringing them, said businesses funded the shuttle busses between the station and the downtown area.
That said, the railroad probably does qualify as an amusement, so in that respect, they ought to be paying the tax.
I really have to question, however, why it took the municipality over ten years to discover they weren't getting the money. Either someone wasn't paying attention, or there was a sweetheart deal (handshake, whatever) letting the railroad off. Clearly, if that was the case, the deal is now off.
Wanting the "back pay" may just be getting greedy, or serve as a way to balance the books ("free money!"). The municipality needs to take a look at the financial effect of the trains on local businesses and consider that information as they move forward. Some negotiation may be in order - maybe paying back at cents on the dollar, or over time.
Otherwise, it's another case of killing off the goose that lays the golden eggs.
What was "the situation in Port Arthur?"
Port Arthur TX?
daveklepperDo you want to have all railfan trips everywhere have the additional burden of an amusement tax?
This does raise additional questions, but I think they're already addressed in many respects during planning and execution of railfan 'excursions'. The concern I've had about this is much the same as yours: whether municipalities or other government agencies 'wake up' and find a new revenue opportunity to impose on excursion operators -- this being somewhat more pronounced a threat for repeated operations like the Cuyahoga Valley's recent 'Steam in the Valley" trips.
At present some of the additional costs for 'government' presence -- increased security, accommodation of road crossings and the like -- appear to be handled either by mutual agreement or pre-arranged payment, not by a tax on the actual value of ticket sales (which is what an amusement-tax arrangement would do). To some extent, towns through which excursion trains pass ... especially without stopping ... have not tried further recouping for their own inconveniences; note that I haven't even started addressing the weird behavior of railfans chasing inappropriately, setting up for photos dangerously, and the rest of the uncompensated-liability issues that make city attorneys start to chew their nails. I have to suspect concerns like these are part of why Andy and crew are fighting this idea so much on 'principle': if you establish a precedent that excursions are 'amusement' ... and most of them, honestly, are ... you also establish the likelihood that all sorts of jurisdiction will want to be part of the pie -- or not leave pie on the table, as it were.
If we learned anything from the situation in Port Arthur, it's that local government, confronted with a potential gain or loss to its taxpayers, may react with what appears greed. While that's exacerbated in a chronically poor (or tax-limited) community, it certainly applies to any even remotely Bayesian city management... once the precedent is established.
I don't think this is a stalking horse to expand the reach of 'governments', or even their prerogative to impose new 'regulations' to justify increased taxation. It's revenue, pure and simple, and the promise of reducing taxes on its constituent voters.
I don't think the railroad is going to defeat the tax by challenging the City's definition of "amusement." They can call the tax anything they want. What I would like to know is how this tax came to be charged retroactively. That would make it far more galling than just the imposition of a new tax. It sounds to me like this issue quickly turned personal, and now neither side is capable of backing down.
daveklepperI see this as an opening to a process of destruction of much of what railfans enjoy.
If a tourist railway is depending on railfans, they aren't going to be around very long.
daveklepperBut in general, are railfan trips to be characterized as amusement?
I would say: yes.
How do you know the purpose of the riders? Have you ridden the train and talked to them? If the train were hauled by steam, I could agree. But in general, are railfan trips to be characterized as amusement? Do you want to have all railfan trips everywhere have the additional burden of an amusement tax?
Or are you part of the trend in some political circles to expand the role of government in general? (I am not commenting on the other circles that wish to dminish its role, regardless of what the needs met by particular roles are.)
To me amusement taxes may be appropriate in specific situations for movie houses, theatres, pool rooms, horse-race and car-racing venues with betting, amusement parks and trains in parks that just go round-and-round in a small cirscle, sort of a train version of a merrygoround, etc. I would question such a tax on athletic facilities of all types. But I do not believe they should apply on transportation facilities, regardless of the motives of individual riders. If it goes from one place to another, even if it brings you back, it's transportation, not amusement.
I see this as an opening to a process of destruction of much of what railfans enjoy.
OK everyone, simmer down a bit. There's got to be a middle ground.
Let's look at it this way, what expenses are incurred by the town when the train shows up? Is there overtime required for a police presence to handle the crowds? Are there EMT personnel standing by just in case someone on the train has a medical issue? Is extra trash pick-up required? Or anything else?
If not, then the town is benefiting from all those tourist dollars the train brings in at no cost to themselves. A God-send for a town in the boonies that few people would have any reason to visit to begin with. (Does anyone really care that the great Jim Thorpe is buried there?) If so, then I'd say it's reasonable for the town to ask for a little help from the railroad in covering the above expenses.
Again, middle ground. Still, as I see it the town benefits a lot more from the railroad going there than the railroad does by going there.
Let me give an example from personal experience. When Norfolk-Southern was running their steam program back in the 90's the train from Richmond made a three-hour stop in Appomattox. (The train proceeded to Danville where it was turned, and then returned.) Appomattox had a "Rail Fair" on train days and local merchants made quite a bit of money from the several hundred people the train brought in. The town knew a good thing when they saw it and never hit up NS for money, not to anyone's knowledge anyway. As a matter of fact they were devastated (Figuratively, not literally) when the steam program ended in 1994. All that revenue, gone.
Yeah, we're getting married next month. Coming to the reception?
I think you're looking at this with a 1960's nostalgic view of and excursion railroad, not a current day scenic, and yes, entertainment operation. People are not riding this from A->B. They are riding for the sake of riding. Like a roller coaster.
And knowing you meant well, I'll excuse you for your remarks of my interest in the railroad industry this time.
Again, the railroad provides transportation to and from a scenic location, so just as other railroads put a city in their name, this railroad's passenger operation puts its destination, scenery, in its name. That does not imply in anyway that it is an amusement. You are defining amusesment to suit the Mayor's needs, and in doing so you are working agains the interests of the railroad industry in general, expcially all short-line railroads that run excursion trains. All/
And just because one form of transportation is regulated by one government agency and another one by another agency has absolutely zero to do with the simiple fact that taxing one system of transportation with a specific tax and not taxing another is discrimination. Are you in love with the mayor? I happen to be in love with trains.
Combined messages below.
daveklepperAndy Mueller might to well to request a meeting with the Mayor and give him this message:
From what I read, the mayor has been requesting to meet with the railroad.
daveklepperHow does that taxi-driver's service to me differ from what the railroad does?
Taxis are regulated under the PUC, and have a different host of regualtions to abide by that the railraod doesn't. If we are going to regard the railroad as transportation, then there's a host of issues that will open up.
You're equating two different things here. It doesn't make sense. RBMN may even have had an easier case if they were flying under the RBMN banner, but when they are operating the Lehigh Gorge SCENIC railway, then yeah, it sounds more of an amusement than transportation.
You want to argue whether amusement taxes should be a thing, then yeah, I'm all up for a debate on that. But there seems to be a play of personalities up in Mauch Chunk.
Andy Mueller might to well to request a meeting with the Mayor and give him this message:
"I'm a visitor to your town. I wish to see Lehigh George. I hire a regular taxi takes me there and waits while I take photos, and then brings me back to Jim Thorp. Are you going to have that taxi driver pay an amusement tax?
How does that taxi-driver's service to me differ from what the railroad does?
Not only that, but the taxi driver asks me what music I like. When I say Jazz, he says, 'Fine, I've got a Count Bassi CD,' and I enjoy the music as well as the scenery and trip.
If you don't charge the taxi driver with an amusement tax and charge the railroad, isn't that rank discrimination against the railroad industry?"
'
Overmod The issue that isn't being discussed here is all the other residents in the area, who don't benefit financially from the tourism but certainly have to deal with the crossing flaggings, parking issues, and other issues without, in all probability, deriving any continuing joy from watching the operation. They are the ones whose votes matter in local elections, and it wouldn't be surprising to see them vote to have those costs redressed by a direct tax on the 'cause' rather than a forced levy on them.
The issue that isn't being discussed here is all the other residents in the area, who don't benefit financially from the tourism but certainly have to deal with the crossing flaggings, parking issues, and other issues without, in all probability, deriving any continuing joy from watching the operation. They are the ones whose votes matter in local elections, and it wouldn't be surprising to see them vote to have those costs redressed by a direct tax on the 'cause' rather than a forced levy on them.
On the other hand; the local businesses such as shops and restaurants that do benefit from the tourists who arrive by train presumably are paying local business and property taxes. These taxes WOULD help support the services enjoyed by the residents of Jim Thorpe such as police, fire and street maintenance.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.