The post you are reporting:
Paul, I know full well that KCC is responsible for roads, and don't know how many times I've stated that a part of the Port Toll would go to KCC, a part to DDC, and a part of DTC, and a part to the Treasury.
I've also been in contact with KCC on this in early 2011, as they too have applied to Gov. for a Port toll at Dover.
DPPT don't seem to realise that port traffic transits on roads that need constant repair and overview, including traffic jams and all bits and pieces, and this needs financing. The Port is not just of interest to Dover, but to the County too, and, as said, KCC are also asking the Government to allow a Port Toll to cover - at least in part - the County's expenses on roads.
I've mentioned all this before on the Forum, many times, Paul, but I'm not sure if the idea is clear that the expenses connected to Port maintenance, Port development and road repairs (including new sections of road) are something that go way beyond what DPPT propose, who seem to believe that they can even regenerate Dover and Deal while they're about it, without any need of a Port Toll!
Even the Government has since brought up the news that Britain needs road tolls.
My vision, as of Feb. 2010 in the first representation, is the only realistic and comprehensive one, and later developments, such as the request by KCC for a Port Toll, and the Government's acceptance that we do need a road toll (of which I have claimed from the start is the equivalent to a Port Toll), have proved me right.
By flinging in a "bit of knowledge", Paul, explaining something you assume I didn't already know, but which in fact is part of my representation (regards KCC and roads), you can't detract from the facts, that my representation has proposed something that later both KCC and the Government have accepted as a necessity.
Of-course, if we don't have a Port Toll in all British ports, then the money for local Council budgets that would derive from such a Toll, and for the maintenance of roads, and for further development of port infrastructure, would all have to come from elsewhere, from other taxes, or by borrowing money that must be later repaid with the interest.
It's just a matter of this reality of economic facts sinking in, and if you think it over, what I have proposed from day 1 in Feb. 2010 to the DfT DOES make sense. In fact, the more money you make on Port Tolls, the LESS money you need to get from other taxes and loans to pay for expenses and budgets.
If you don't have a Port Toll, Gov. (or KCC etc.) will have to get that money from elsewhere...
And if you don't use some of the Port Toll for local regeneration, then who will ever give the money for local regeneration?
Neither DPPT nor DHB would, because they'd be only giving a one-off pittance followed by annual "dividends" paramount to peanuts, while never, ever being able to repay the money they borrowed (DPPT plan) or received from a purchaser (DHB plan).
No private purchaser would invest money without the intention of getting it back with a profit, and no City lender would lend money without asking for it back with interest. DPPT only has membership equivalent to 1% of Dover's District population, because clearly most people have seen through it all!