Tinian mayor ‘fully supports’ limiting wharfage fees
Tinian Mayor Ramon Dela Cruz said he “fully supports” Senate Bill 18-56, which limits wharfage fees that the Commonwealth Ports Authority charges to cargo offloaded at a port or harbor in the CNMI. The bill also waives wharfage fees on cargo shipped to and from the islands within the CNMI.
“For too long, the people of Tinian have been forced to pay double wharfage on products shipped to our island. This practice has unfairly increased the already high cost of living on Tinian,” Dela Cruz said in his letter to House Public Utilities, Transportation and Communications chair Rep. Lorenzo Deleon Guerrero (Ind-Saipan).
The House PUTC Committee is currently reviewing Sen. Frank Cruz’s (R-Tinian) Senate Bill 18-56 for recommendation to the full House.
The Tinian mayor said the bill’s passage will allow people of Tinian to “buy more goods with their limited income.”
Dela Cruz also recommends amending the bill as introduced to include “a waiver on all passenger facility charges and planeing and de-planeing charges on inter-island flights to help make transportation more affordable for our people and for guests arriving from foreign destinations but transiting to Tinian and Rota.”
He added that encouraging travel between islands will support the CNMI’s general economic development.
Senators, during passage of the bill, took turns slamming CPA for what they describe as double wharfage fee imposition. The bill wants to ensure that wharfage fees are charged “one time” for commodities that are offloaded at any port or harbor under CPA jurisdiction.
The brain trust is at it again. They might as well make gas free on Tinian and Rota also. “We paid for gas lai when we left Saipan nai… Lanya, why should we pay for it when we get to Tinian too…” Wharfage is the fee for using a port. If you use the Port of Saipan, you will pay wharfage here. If you use the Port of Rota you will pay wharfage there. Do you !diots think that maintaining a port is without cost? Why should you get a free lunch on Tinian or Rota just because you ate when you were on Saipan? If you don’t want the additional expense associated with living on a remote island, move to LA, SFO, NY or MNL…
Buenas Bananarepblic670
Please read the findings and purpose of Senate Bill 18-56 and the reason the bill was initiated.
“Section 1. Findings and Purpose.
2 The Legislature finds that the cost of commodities on Rota and Tinian is a great
3 burden to the consumers. A portion of the added cost is a result of the wharfage fees
4 imposed by the Commonwealth Ports Authority (CPA) on commodities shipped from
5 Saipan to Rota and Tinian.
6 The intent of this Act is to ensure that wharfage fees are charged one time for
7 commodities that are off loaded at any port or harbor under the CPA jurisdiction. The
8 same commodities shall not be assessed wharfage a second time regardless whether the
9 same cargo is shipped from Saipan to Rota or Tinian on a different vessel. In addition,
10 this Act provides that no wharfage fees shall be assessed on cargo shipped to and from
11 any Commonwealth port or harbor.”
We shipped vehicles and household goods from the United States to the CNMI in the past. We paid wharfage fees when our vehicles and household goods arrived in Saipan and we were assessed a second wharfage fees when we shipped the same vehicles via SN-5 to Tinian to our final destination.
People from Tinian and Rota had to forked up extra cash to have their vehicles or household goods ship from outside the CNMI, because usually the port of entry to any vessels coming from outside the CNMI is the island of Saipan. People from Rota and Tinian were being charge twice for wharfage anyway you look at it. To minimized the burden for our people in Rota and Tinian from paying extra wharfage, the bill was initiated. Senate Bill 18-56 was not intended for our people from Rota and Tinian to get a free ride within our system as you stated, but to alleviate the hardship from us commoners and it is a no brainer bill.
We the people from Rota and Tinian are in need of your support for the passage of Senate Bill 18-56.
Si Yu’us Ma’ase
Buenas Jun,
As I previously stated, wharfage is charged when goods cross the wharf. It is a choice to live in a remote location, and there are additional expenses that accompany that choice. Your argument is like saying that you shouldn’t have to purchase a transfer when using more than one line or form of public transportation in the city because you would be paying more to get home than someone who lives closer. Rota is actually a port of entry and has customs officers at the ready. If you want to pay once, ship direct (maybe on Vic’s fairy-tale boat). Fairy-tale findings don’t change the fact that you are using multiple wharfs multiple times in multiple ports, and CPA must fund its operations by assessing wharfage. Would rather have them increase them for shipments to Saipan to cover the lost revenue? Sure you would, because we would then be subsidizing your expense.
Your arguments would apply nicely to customs duties, which are assessed upon entry and not assessed a second time when goods are transshipped to Rota or Tinian.
Respectfully,
Bananarepublic670
This has been tried many times in the past. (and failed) More election year polaticks by those that are extremely afraid of losing their seat.
Captain
According to our assessment at the CNMI Legislature at the present time, the likely hood of this bill passing is higher than before. The CNMI Senate and the CNMI House of Representatives are in good terms. We had not seen such cooperation between the two entity for a long while.
If the dynamic of the CNMI Legislature changes after this coming CNMI General Election, then that will be a different story.
Imagine after lobbying for a bill for over two decades, it finally garner enough votes on both chambers of our legislative body and it was signed into law by the governor last year.
We see light at the end of the tunnel at our hill in the future. The elected few would succumb to we the people sooner or later.
I think that a major argument in favor of “dropping” the wharf charges at Tinian port (and Rota) along with the past passenger fees, is that none of those fees are going back into the Tinian and Rota ports.
In the past with Dynasty Ferry(s) Dynasty maintained their dockside and put up their small “terminal” while paying for the space and the power and water. They even paid for and ran their own power lines and water lines.
Much more than 20 years there has been .no repairs or upkeep by CPA. Repairs that have been done on Tinian have been funded by the Feds due to typhoon damage. OR out of the municipality funds.
In 1997 there was a little bit of a breakwater left. (from WWII) then by about 2001 there was nothing left. Only constant talk and meeting about what to do.
Inner small boat docks were Fed funded, many times. The same comparison could be pointed out in regards to the airport, why is cargo not accessed at the airport, while the port is charged. They are both under CPA and there is more traffic at the airport than at the small docks.
BTW, years ago there was much local grown produce being shipped to Saipan fromTinian on SN5 landing craft. This vessel used to run daily trips and bring back cargo.
It was an added cost on the produce because of both ends port fees and then also the SN5 kept raising their prices inspite of them running empty to Saipan each morning. This led almost all of the farmers to move to Saipan. This left only the Chinese that also have the grocery store.
Another note, the docking facilities for the SN5 vessel was built and maintained by ‘Chandia’ (San Nicholas) and his SN5 operation. NOT by the CPA. Even until the Feds gave money, the small ‘docks’ were “put together” by the small boat owners, NOT CPA. while charging them a monthly fee.
So point being CPA does little or nothing at these off island ports to warrant any fees.
For so many years I have not seen anything done at the Rota West Harbor. (but I don’t live there are travel there very often.