Should cruisers pay for infrastructure in Alaska?

[mercedes]

Should cruisers pay for infrastructure in Alaska? And, if so, what sort of infrastructure?

The question has taken center stage over the past week in the wake of the cruise industry's landmark lawsuit against Alaska over the state's controversial, $50-a-head tax on arriving cruisers.

Among the industry's arguments against the tax is that Alaska already has illegally appropriated millions of dollars of the money on projects that have nothing to do with cruisers or cruise ships.

The lawsuit, filed by an association of the nine major cruise lines operating in the state, cites everything from $1.5 million earmarked for the reconstruction of a community hall in Saxman, Alaska, to $1.675 million to construct a dock in Valdez that cannot accommodate the industry's ships to $1 million for a bear education awareness research sanctuary near Portage, Alaska.

The cruise industry argues that, by law, the state cannot collect taxes and fees from a cruise ship unless the taxes and fees directly defray the cost of services and facilities for the vessel.

 

[coloradocruisers]

Interesting case. I think cruisers and the industry generally agree that port fees are necessary for certain infrastructure, but it sounds like some of these projects are quite removed from the cruise ports.

[jacketwatch]

Is it legal to tell the state how they must spend taxed money?   I really don't know. It seems the cruise companies think so. However isn't the cost being added to the price of the cruise. I don't think the cruise lines would pay for this so are they being cruisers advocates?  Interesting. I would like to know more about the actual law and where the money is coming from.