Ok, Bob, who said that ADSB is being introduced for safety? Did you put that straw-man argument up because you believe it, or you need to keep twisting and turning (in true Dick style) because you are running another agenda?
How many times does this have to be spelled out? THE MONEY THAT COULD BE SPENT ON ADS-B IS GOING TO BE PISSED DOWN THE DROWN REPLACING OLD-TECHNOLOGY RADARS, WITH MORE OLD-TECHNOLOGY RADARS. The money could be used to fit a better technology, but for that technology to be inclusive, everybody needs to carry it. Doing so, EVEN IF YOU CAN'T SEE A BENEFIT TO YOURSELF, is being offered via a subsidy.
As for the perpetuation of the "I'm all right Jack" thinking displayed by the likes of T28D, maybe YOU didnt see or think you needed any of the benefits afforded by ads-b, but there may have been benefits to others. For example- maybe the RPT s who go into some of the places mentioned (even though they didn't happen to be there on those particular occasions mentioned) might have received a better SA from your ads-b fitment. Maybe the controllers at those controlled airports you visited may have had an easier time had you been ads-b fitted (and by that, I mean provided a more efficient service to all customers- yourself included). Maybe the SAR people might be able to find you easier if it all goes wrong. THEY ARE ALL MIGHTS. They are certainly not essential. But if everyone (else) is moving to ADS-B anyway, and the part of the industry that is going to receive the biggest benefit is going to pay for your ADS-B, then it really does seem very short-sighted/blinkered to oppose it.
Couldn't agree more that if the subsidy somehow does not materialise, then go for your life. Your lawyers will have a field day- if exclusionary rules/fitment requirements appeared.