Mooring charges for BW moorings
Bass player
sources....Private investments, DEFRA funding(or no funding!) and
Boaters through the two licence avenues.
BW have always stated in the past that boating pays a small percentage
compared to Government/ Private Investment income.
That is now changing....BW are reliant on Boating income as they have
hid behind the Government's policy of forcing BW to charge a 'market
price' for moorings. My assumption is that the Government is using that
to make BW independent of DEFRA funding, in fact forcing BW to become
privately funded.....
I have noticed that BW have re-designed their mooring sheets last year
so that Marina services and nearby shops are not featured as a
facility, therefore not enabling us to contest Price V facilities!
Moorings in the same village but at different distance from water
facilities will vary from a similar situation in another village...how
do they arrive at the prices?
And why penalise boaters that are the only waterways users that are
campaigning against Defra and Government??
Comments, please?
Mike Stevens
> If we start with the assumption that BW get money from three
> Boaters through the two licence avenues.
Then there are anglers, water abstracttion payments and commercial freight.
OK, all small totals, but part of the set-up. Also significant are
special-purpose grants from things like the Lottery, Local Authorities etc.
I assume by "private investments" you mean, predominantly BW's commercial
exploitation of its property portfolio.
> BW have always stated in the past that boating pays a small percentage
> compared to Government/ Private Investment income.
>
> That is now changing....
I don't think so. The property portfolio is contributing an increasing
proportion of BW's total income.
> BW are reliant on Boating income as they have
> hid behind the Government's policy of forcing BW to charge a 'market
> price' for moorings. My assumption is that the Government is using
> that to make BW independent of DEFRA funding, in fact forcing BW to
> become privately funded...
For many years successive Governments have tried to cut back on the
committment made in the 1968 Transport Act to fund BW. For many years IWA
and ithers have been campaigning against that view and support continued
public funding at a realistic level. Sometimes the pendulum has swi=ung one
way and sometimes the other. When John Prescott was the responsible
Minister, the waterways were funded quite well by Government.
What has changed in the last couple of years has been that BW management now
also want to get rid of the public finding, as they regard it as
"unreliable". They seem to think that income from property investment is
more reliable. Personally I think that's a highly dangerous approch that
can only work in the short term. (Cue Adrian to put the opposite point of
view!)
> I have noticed that BW have re-designed their mooring sheets last year
> so that Marina services and nearby shops are not featured as a
> facility, therefore not enabling us to contest Price V facilities!
Do you need BW to tell you how near the local shops are? And if you don;t
have the time personally to research how this compares with other locations,
that's exactly what the various user groups are well plaved to do.
> Moorings in the same village but at different distance from water
> facilities will vary from a similar situation in another village...how
> do they arrive at the prices?
It's several years now since BW abandoned its "moorings matrix" which was a
serious (if not always totally successful) attempt to relate prices to
facilities. They gave it up in favour of charging "the market price" -
i.e. whatever they can squeeze out of their customers. Some of us objected
pretty vociferously when they made this change as BW control (directly or
indirectly) so high a proportion of the moorings market that it's a
near-monoploy rather than a free market.
What's more, because it operates in various sectors, BW are in a position to
create a ratchet effect. Let's say that one year they put up the connection
charge to privately-owned marinas. These then need to put up their mooring
prices. So BWML cry "market value" and put up their prices. Then next
year, BW say, "Oh, look, all the marinas have put up their mooring prices.
So market forces dictate that we must put up mooring prices on our own
directly-run moorings." Meanwhile when boat clubs and commercial businesses
on BW-leased land have their leases due for renewal,their rents are jacked
up on the same spurious grounds. And,a couple of years after the beginning
of the cycle. BW notice that these people have increased their mooring fees
and so think it's about time they made another increase in the connection
charge for privately-owned marinas ....................
> And why penalise boaters that are the only waterways users that are
> campaigning against Defra and Government??
I actually don't think it's anything to do with the current campaign against
the DEFRA cuts, just the continuation of a line of development that's been
going on for some years. OK, the present DEFRA cuts may intensify the
effect if we can't stop them from continuing over the next few years, but I
doubt whether they've had time to do so yet.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
Mike H
They penalise boaters because we pay, or perhaps because we have paid up
in the past.
Our moorings are increasing by 13.5% next year, yet the facilities have
not improved, in fact they've got worse. This year the grass wasn't even
cut once, we had to do it ourselves.
Yes, we have written to contest the increases and so called facilities,
and so have several other boats on the mooring.
Pseudo-continuous cruising is fast becoming an option. We're sick to the
teeth of seeing the same boats year-in year-out who pay no moorings.
The other thing is they haven't a clue about keeping moorings full, even
though there's a waiting list, it's the moorers who tell people looking
for moorings who is the best person contact. If we don't renew our
mooring you can virtually guarantee that BW wont fill the slot, so
they'll just end up losing money.
I know we're all supposed to be together with SOW and not BW bashing,
but when it hurts the pocket like this I get annoyed.
Ah well, that's better. Merry bloody crimbo
Mike H
Adrian Stott
wrote:
>Moorings in the same village but at different distance from water
>facilities will vary from a similar situation in another village...how
>do they arrive at the prices?
Supply and demand.
BW is under a direction to get market prices for its moorings. So,
you should expect it to set a price at which about 5% of the moorings
are vacant. Some moorings will command a higher price than others,
because more boaters find them more attractive.
"Administered" prices set based on (e.g.) arbitrary lists of
"facilities" are very inefficient.
There are very few moorings vacancies at the moment. This implies
that prices, generally, are (much?) too low. Now that BW is under
even more financial pressure, we really should be expecting moorings
prices to go up. The good side of that is that once prices reach the
market-clearing level, we should *always* be able to find a mooring
where and when we want.
Old but true saying:
"You can have it soon; you can have it cheap; you can have it good.
Pick any two."
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@spam.co.uk
07956-299966
Mike H
> On 22 Dec 2006 01:12:09 -0800, "Bass player" <simo...@nhs.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Moorings in the same village but at different distance from water
>> facilities will vary from a similar situation in another village...how
>> do they arrive at the prices?
>
> Supply and demand.
>
> BW is under a direction to get market prices for its moorings. So,
> you should expect it to set a price at which about 5% of the moorings
> are vacant. Some moorings will command a higher price than others,
> because more boaters find them more attractive.
At this rate approx 75% of our mooring could be vacant by this time next
year, therefore the prices are too high. How much value can you put on
two mooring rings, when two piling hooks used just around the corner are
free ?
>
> "Administered" prices set based on (e.g.) arbitrary lists of
> "facilities" are very inefficient.
>
> There are very few moorings vacancies at the moment. This implies
> that prices, generally, are (much?) too low. Now that BW is under
> even more financial pressure, we really should be expecting moorings
> prices to go up. The good side of that is that once prices reach the
> market-clearing level, we should *always* be able to find a mooring
> where and when we want.
>
Call me cynical here, but wasn't an excellent opportunity lost last year
to get more revenue in from those who don't pay moorings ? i.e.
continuous cruisers, genuine or otherwise (it's the latter group I'm
aiming at). Instead of which those that faithfully fork out large sums
of cash every year are expected to find even more money for little extra
benefit. As I've said before it's getting to the point where if you
can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Mike H
Bass player
You wrote 'What has changed in the last couple of years has been that
BW management now also want to get rid of the public finding, as they
regard it as "unreliable".'
Why the bloody hell are we campaigning for Waterways as part of
SOW???!!!!!
Why do they pretend to support us??
Mike H,
I agree with you whole-heartedly and am also thinking seriously about
Pseudo Con. Cruising!! We also see lots of the same offenders doing the
same thing!
Not only that, but our moorings are not full and BW have no idea how
many are actually on our moorings, They reckon only 15 mtres
spare.....I say 'and the rest'(another two 70ft boats on top of that!!)
Regards All,
Merry Chrimbo!!
Mike Stevens
> Ok Mike S.
>
> You wrote 'What has changed in the last couple of years has been that
> BW management now also want to get rid of the public finding, as they
> regard it as "unreliable".'
>
> Why the bloody hell are we campaigning for Waterways as part of
> SOW???!!!!!
I think you've (possibly accidentally) put your finger on it. What I (and,
I hope, others) are campaigning for is what I believe to be proper financial
support for the waterways themselves, not just for BW. Some of us believe
that BW management is completely wrong to want to become totally independent
of Government Grant-in-Aid. We believe that the waterways can't support
themselves financially (because of things that happened far too long ago to
be put right now), but merit retention both as a vital part of the
historical underpinning of our society (that which nowadays gets labelled
"heritage") and also, as was the vision in Barbara Castle's 1968 Transport
Act, as a valuable leisure amenity for all sorts of uses, not just boating.
We believe that direct Government grant is the most effective and most
morally justified way of achieving this.
Subsidising the waterways from profits and income from a property portfolio
has a part to play, but it should not, in my view, be a dominant part. In
the long term it's bound to fall apart in the end, because the
ever-increasing spiral of property values and rents can't go on for ever.
It will either, in my view, slow gradually to a more stable condition or
crash dramatically. In either case I believe it would be a tragic mistake
to tie the future funding of the waterways entirely of mainly to a market
that won't live for ever.
Peter Stockdale
"Mike Stevens" <michael...@which.net> wrote in message
news:4v2ga0F...@mid.individual.net...
Well said - additionally the government - not BW - be getting more revenue
from inland boaters resulting from the demise of "pink" .
Should go someway to assist in the provision of the "Grant in Aid".
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Gibbo
>
> Supply and demand.
>
> BW is under a direction to get market prices for its moorings. So,
> you should expect it to set a price at which about 5% of the moorings
> are vacant. Some moorings will command a higher price than others,
> because more boaters find them more attractive.
>
This argument works in a free market. It does *not* work in this case
and the reason is two fold and simple: Moorings are not a free market.
Not by *any* stretch of the imagination.
BW control the level of mooring charges that they own obviously. But as
we all know they also control the level of mooring charges for privately
owned marinas.
Secondly, *having* to either have a mooring or *having* to continuously
move the boat is a deliberate ploy to put moorings in short supply. This
naturally puts the price up.
Most business would *love* to be in a position where they could say "it
is a legal requirement for you to buy our product. Everyone must, by
law, have one". How many such businesses would then put their prices up?
Especially if, at the end of the day, they were the *only* supplier of
said product. Because that is the position BW is in.
Mooring charges are deliberately held artificially high by charging
private marinas ridiculously high "connection charges" and forcing most
boats to have a mooring.
Imagine the situation if the rules changed. It was no longer a
requirement to "continuously cruise", it was perfectly acceptable to
leave a boat at the side of the canal indefinitely.
How many people do you think would have a mooring?
How much would marina owners and BW be able to charge for moorings then?
Probably about a fiver, their true worth.
--
Gibbo
This email address is neither read nor downloaded. Messages to it are
deleted at the server. I don't even get to see them.
Will Chapman
> Ok Mike S.
>
> You wrote 'What has changed in the last couple of years has been that
> BW management now also want to get rid of the public finding, as they
> regard it as "unreliable".'
>
> Why the bloody hell are we campaigning for Waterways as part of
> SOW???!!!!!
Because we need to Save the Waterways first from Government
incompetence. Then, once the future of the waterways is
relatively secure we can address these other issues. If you have
a flood in your house, isn't it a good idea to get rid of the
water before starting to dry the carpet?
With luck (and there is some evidence that this might actually
be being given some thought) we might end up with BW being
re-structured in a way that is better for all of us.
Just have some faith in what we are doing. We are having an
effect. We just need to be patient and resolute; this is no time
to start doubting whether we are doing the right thing. Just have
a little faith that we are giving each step thought. We already
have an awful lot of people with special skills and influence
supporting us (not the least nearly 200 cross-bench MPs that have
signed the main EDM).
As I've said before: Lets Save Our Waterways first, then we'll
discuss the details. And remember, we are not just a newsgroup of
people with diverse opinions; we have demonstrated that we can
mount a serious protest campaign if we are so charged.
--
Will Chapman
Save Our Waterways
www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
Adrian Stott
<michael...@which.net> wrote:
>> BW are reliant on Boating income as they have
>> hid behind the Government's policy of forcing BW to charge a 'market
>> price' for moorings. My assumption is that the Government is using
>> that to make BW independent of DEFRA funding, in fact forcing BW to
>> become privately funded...
It seems highly unlikely that any private investors would put their
money into BW, as it seems highly unlikely that BW can ever make a
profit. The grant and property income show that. So privatisation is
just a scare story.
>What has changed in the last couple of years has been that BW management now
>also want to get rid of the public finding, as they regard it as
>"unreliable".
Surely you don't believe it is *not* unreliable?
>They seem to think that income from property investment is
>more reliable. Personally I think that's a highly dangerous approch that
>can only work in the short term. (Cue Adrian to put the opposite point of
>view!)
<strides on to the stage> If BW has good enough property investment
expertise, it should be cashing out (i.e. selling its investment
holdings) when the market is peaking, and reinvesting when it has
fallen.
OTOH, with commercial leaves typically 25 years, the income is
actually quite secure and it can make sense to ride out the valuation
troughs.
>What's more, because it operates in various sectors, BW are in a position to
>create a ratchet effect. Let's say that one year they put up the connection
>charge to privately-owned marinas.
Let's says they (sic) don't. Most connection charges are governed by
long-term contracts, so BW does not have this capabilitiy.
> These then need to put up their mooring
>prices. So BWML cry "market value" and put up their prices.
Ah, the old "BW monopoly has caused unduly high mooring prices"
theory.
The difficulty with that theory is that there are almost no moorings
vacancies. This is strong evidence that the prices are being held
below the market-clearing level. Now, how could that be, and who
could be doing it? Why, it ' BW! It currently looks at non-BW
moorings in the vicinity, and tries to pitch its prices ever so
slightly below them. So, actually, BW has been *preventing* moorings
prices from rising to their market levels.
I maintain that this is bad for all of us. Not only does it deprive
BW of vital revenue, but I also believe that the absence of vacancies
is much worse for boating that higher moorings prices would be.
There's an old joke:
"A man goes into a shop to buy some eggs. The shopkeeper says, '
Certainly. Five pounds a dozen". The customer says 'But the shop
down the road is selling them for 50p'. The shopkeeper says 'You
should buy there, then?". The customer says "That shop is out of
them'. The shopkeeper says 'When I'm out of them, my price is 25p.'"
If I want a mooring, I usually want it now, or at least soon, and
probably in a specific vicinity. I may well be prepared to pay more
to get one. But if there are no vacancies, I don't have that
opportunity. So I sell (or don't buy) my boat instead.
Gibbo
> There are very few moorings vacancies at the moment. This implies
> that prices, generally, are (much?) too low.
Well that's one interpretation.
Other interpretations might be that there are very few moorings
available because....
1) BW "connection charges" are too high and therefore there is not
enough profit to be made in providing them. So not many people bother.
2) "by law" more or less everyone *has* to have a mooring. Even those
who don't want one. Thus *deliberately* messing up natural supply and
demand. For what purpose? Other than to inflate the price of same.
3) Is there any truth in the rumour that BW deliberately make it very
difficult to get planning permission (with various objections) to build
marinas? It may just be the "towpath telegraph", but I've heard it from
several land owners who looked into the idea.
Arthur Marshall
from Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> contains these words:
> The difficulty with that theory is that there are almost no moorings
> vacancies. This is strong evidence that the prices are being held
> below the market-clearing level. Now, how could that be, and who
> could be doing it? Why, it ' BW! It currently looks at non-BW
> moorings in the vicinity, and tries to pitch its prices ever so
> slightly below them. So, actually, BW has been *preventing* moorings
> prices from rising to their market levels.
i hate to say it, but that appears to be nonsense. BW have consistently
over the years charged me considerably more for my mooring fees than the
farms where I have moored - currently about three times more.
--
Arthur Marshall
Caller for Traditional Dances
nb Lord Byron's Maggot
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/barndancer
Mike Stevens
> 3) Is there any truth in the rumour that BW deliberately make it very
> difficult to get planning permission (with various objections) to
> build marinas? It may just be the "towpath telegraph", but I've heard
> it from several land owners who looked into the idea.
In my experience it's quite the other way round. BW are keen to have more
marinas and it's local planning authorities who take a lot of persuading.
Their opposition is often on pretty spurious grounds. Sometimes it's
because they simply see a proposed marina as "development" in a Green Belt
area.
The opposition is strongest if there are any residential moorings proposed.
Then many local authorities (at least London Boroughs which is the ones I've
had experience of) seem to assume simultaneously that every residential
boater is simply somebody who want to use living afloat as a lever to get on
the local authority's housing list, and that every residential boat will
generate huge amounts of road traffic and swamp the local roads. Actually,
of course, a marina full of holiday-and-weekend boats is likely to generate
much more road traffic than the same number of residential boats, since many
(most?) residential boaters don't run cars.
Neil Arlidge
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:08:13 -0000, "Mike Stevens"
> <michael...@which.net> wrote:
>
>>> BW are reliant on Boating income as they have
>>> hid behind the Government's policy of forcing BW to charge a 'market
>>> price' for moorings. My assumption is that the Government is using
>>> that to make BW independent of DEFRA funding, in fact forcing BW to
>>> become privately funded...
>
> It seems highly unlikely that any private investors would put their
> money into BW, as it seems highly unlikely that BW can ever make a
> profit. The grant and property income show that. So privatisation is
> just a scare story.
Obvoiusly no one would put money directly into BW, but private investors
have put money into Fibreway, ISIS and the pubco arm of BW.
I am sure even you would put money into a marina scheme catalysed by BW?
Once the funding "cow" is as good as run by private investors, how would you
stop it being "milked" by them and BW + users being at their mercy?
>
>> What has changed in the last couple of years has been that BW
>> management now also want to get rid of the public finding, as they
>> regard it as "unreliable".
>
> Surely you don't believe it is *not* unreliable?
One could easily say that the "govt" has made / is making public funding
"unreliable" to "force" BW to be self funded...thus saving them funding a
troublesome public owned company?
I think the majority of people "here" would NOT like to see BW compleatly
self funded. As Mike sayes the property income should not be relied on.
BW should have "balanced" funding....I think with a LOT more input from
communities. The govt will have to get communities more on board in all
walks of life to stop this country fragmenting.
<cues rants about govt foreign policy>
Do not put all your eggs in one basket!
Maybee BW should have made more of the flooding threat (like EA)....but then
again maybee they were frightened of being swallowed up by EA...especially
while they are in the same department.
This is why I think THE most important thing that comes out of the review is
that BW is taken out of DEFRA (I think where SOW has helped most is in
assisiting the demise of DEFRA) and put in DCLG or DMCS. I think it is very
dangerous for BW and EA to be in the same department.
TNC know, probably better than most boaters that EA do NOT do navigation,
they do flood control and have/will be making a LOT more of it in years to
come.
I would dearly like newsgroupies views on what govt Department BW would sit
best in, resaons/implications for your views.
--
Neil Arlidge - NB Earnest - The Wilderness years...
Follow the truly independent TNC at : http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk
Visit this site and help save our waterways from the DEFRA cuts
http://www.saveourwaterways.org.uk/
Neil Arlidge
> Gibbo wrote:
>
>> 3) Is there any truth in the rumour that BW deliberately make it very
>> difficult to get planning permission (with various objections) to
>> build marinas? It may just be the "towpath telegraph", but I've heard
>> it from several land owners who looked into the idea.
>
> In my experience it's quite the other way round. BW are keen to have
> more marinas and it's local planning authorities who take a lot of
> persuading.
Being married to a planner (now firmly back in Development Control) I get
the impression that the planners are normally on board for such social
projetcs, but it is more than often the council planning committee (ie the
councilors) that overturn their decisions.
Linda has just had two planning submissions (which she agreed) for the new
social inclusion "Link" cash machines overturned by her own planning
committe, due to NIMBYisim.
Midland Star
seems to fit the bill exactly. National heritage, museums, tourism.
Jeff NB Midland Star
"Neil Arlidge" <ne...@tuesdaynightclub.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5qdndy9zrV...@giganews.com...
Neil Arlidge
> Try the mission statement at
> http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1576.asp seems to fit the bill
> exactly. National heritage, museums, tourism.
...but could it include waterside property companies? ;-)
Adrian Stott
wrote:
>Adrian Stott wrote:
>> There are very few moorings vacancies at the moment. This implies
>> that prices, generally, are (much?) too low.
>
>Well that's one interpretation.
>
>Other interpretations might be that there are very few moorings
>available because....
>
>1) BW "connection charges" are too high and therefore there is not
>enough profit to be made in providing them. So not many people bother.
Nope.
There is a standard approach in real estate for dealing with the
situation where the owner of one piece of land needs access across
land owned by another. It is covered by a precedent case called
"Stokes vs Cambridge". In effect, this established that the
appropriate compensation for such access is one-third of the value of
the land needing the access.
This is not an extra cost to the owner needing the access, as if
access (e.g. to a public road) had been in place when he bought his
land, he would have had to pay more for it.
BW's connection charges are analogous.
>2) "by law" more or less everyone *has* to have a mooring. Even those
>who don't want one. Thus *deliberately* messing up natural supply and
>demand. For what purpose? Other than to inflate the price of same.
Everyone with a car has to have somewhere to park it. The law says it
may not be parked on someone else's property (without permission,
which usually involves a charge), and increasingly the local authority
is saying it may not be parked on the street (at all, or without a
charge).
Do you think this is merely a plot to inflate parking prices?
>3) Is there any truth in the rumour that BW deliberately make it very
>difficult to get planning permission (with various objections) to build
>marinas? It may just be the "towpath telegraph", but I've heard it from
>several land owners who looked into the idea.
No.
By my observation, BW has actually been expending major effort not
only to create more of its own moorings, but to assist private
developers in doing the same. I think your telegraph is broken.
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:06:42 -0000, "Neil Arlidge"
<ne...@tuesdaynightclub.co.uk> wrote:
>Adrian Stott wrote:
>> It seems highly unlikely that any private investors would put their
>> money into BW, as it seems highly unlikely that BW can ever make a
>> profit. The grant and property income show that. So privatisation is
>> just a scare story.
>
>Obvoiusly no one would put money directly into BW, but private investors
>have put money into Fibreway, ISIS and the pubco arm of BW.
>I am sure even you would put money into a marina scheme catalysed by BW?
>Once the funding "cow" is as good as run by private investors, how would you
>stop it being "milked" by them and BW + users being at their mercy?
IIRC Fibreway is/was a business which leases rights-of-way along
towpaths for its fibre. BW is in in effect its landlord. Hard to see
any milking going on there.
For its properties and property developments (pubs, marinas, etc.), BW
typically enters joint ventures in which it puts up the land and its
partner puts up the development money (and someties specialised
expertise). In other words, BW and the developer are partners,
usually in a corporate entity separate from either of them. They
share the profits. I can't see how this matches your cow description
in any way.
Whether a particular marina would be a good investment would depend on
many things: availability of approvals, location, competition,
availability of customers, cost of development, etc. etc. Whether it
were catalysed by BW (whatever that means) would probably not be a
major investment consideration IMHO.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Nick Atty
wrote:
>Everyone with a car has to have somewhere to park it. The law says it
>may not be parked on someone else's property (without permission,
>which usually involves a charge), and increasingly the local authority
>is saying it may not be parked on the street (at all, or without a
>charge).
>
>Do you think this is merely a plot to inflate parking prices?
If the DVLA owned a number of the existing large car parks and were
buying up others as fast as they could, charged me half as much for
having my car in my garage as they would to put it in one of their car
parks and charged all other car parking providers a huge sum simply for
having their car park attached to the roads then yes, I would think it
was a plot to inflate parking prices.
Every bit of that ridiculous situation has an exact analogy with the way
BW are behaving.
I'm not saying they shouldn't - they probably have no choice - but for a
champion of the free market such as yourself to try to defend an abuse
of position like this is just a little rich.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
Gibbo
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:35:01 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Adrian Stott wrote:
>>> There are very few moorings vacancies at the moment. This implies
>>> that prices, generally, are (much?) too low.
>> Well that's one interpretation.
>>
>> Other interpretations might be that there are very few moorings
>> available because....
>>
>> 1) BW "connection charges" are too high and therefore there is not
>> enough profit to be made in providing them. So not many people bother.
>
> Nope.
>
> There is a standard approach in real estate for dealing with the
> situation where the owner of one piece of land needs access across
> land owned by another. It is covered by a precedent case called
> "Stokes vs Cambridge". In effect, this established that the
> appropriate compensation for such access is one-third of the value of
> the land needing the access.
>
Firstly, that does not negate my argument that connection charges are
too high. If they weren't so high more landowners might build marinas.
As it is, they don't, because BW charge too much by way of connection
charges thus making the available profit margin too low. Split the canal
system into 20 separate companies (I know that isn't practical for other
reasons) and watch the connection charges plummet. It's a monopoly, and
BW are doing everything in their power to make the best use of it.
Secondly, the idea that a precendent case dictates appropriate
compensation is flawed in that the appropriate compensation is decided
by the landowners, they either agree or they don't. One cannot "force"
the other to accept a certain figure as a result of a previous court
case. Further, the fact that a precedent authorises a ransom does not
make it just.
> This is not an extra cost to the owner needing the access, as if
> access (e.g. to a public road) had been in place when he bought his
> land, he would have had to pay more for it.
>
> BW's connection charges are analogous.
>
BW's position would only be analgous if "all" land was owned by the same
body, which it isn't.
>> 2) "by law" more or less everyone *has* to have a mooring. Even those
>> who don't want one. Thus *deliberately* messing up natural supply and
>> demand. For what purpose? Other than to inflate the price of same.
>
> Everyone with a car has to have somewhere to park it. The law says it
> may not be parked on someone else's property (without permission,
> which usually involves a charge), and increasingly the local authority
> is saying it may not be parked on the street (at all, or without a
> charge).
>
Rubbish. Either you *can* park on the road in which case it is nothing
like BW's position, or you can't, at all, ever, anywhere, which isn't
the case.
> Do you think this is merely a plot to inflate parking prices?
>
Nick has eloquently answered this point.
Uncle Marvo
502hfvF...@mid.individual.net, I, Marvo, say :
> Adrian Stott wrote:
>> Everyone with a car has to have somewhere to park it. The law says
>> it may not be parked on someone else's property (without permission,
>> which usually involves a charge), and increasingly the local
>> authority is saying it may not be parked on the street (at all, or
>> without a charge).
>>
>
> Rubbish. Either you *can* park on the road in which case it is nothing
> like BW's position, or you can't, at all, ever, anywhere, which isn't
> the case.
>
Unless something has changed muchly since I last looked this up, you *can*
legally park a car on a road unless it causes an obstruction, but you have
no *right* to do so.
AFAIK you *can* park a boat on a river adjacent to land owned by someone who
allows you to do so, but you have no *right* to do so. I regularly moor up
adjacnt to farmers' fields overnight when cruising, they never mind unless
you behave like a lout and litter it up. Why should they? I prefer solitude
to mooring up with twenty other moany boaters who get the hump when I start
my engine at 9 a.m. and although I have no problem with telling such a MB to
Eff off, I'd rather not have to bother.
BTW people who park on lock stages to have picnics etc should be strung up
by the thumbs.
Adrian Stott
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 09:00:24 +0000, Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Everyone with a car has to have somewhere to park it. The law says it
>>may not be parked on someone else's property (without permission,
>>which usually involves a charge), and increasingly the local authority
>>is saying it may not be parked on the street (at all, or without a
>>charge).
>>
>>Do you think this is merely a plot to inflate parking prices?
>
>If the DVLA owned a number of the existing large car parks and were
>buying up others as fast as they could, charged me half as much for
>having my car in my garage as they would to put it in one of their car
>parks and charged all other car parking providers a huge sum simply for
>having their car park attached to the roads then yes, I would think it
>was a plot to inflate parking prices.
Fine. But your premise is false. BW is not buying up others as fast
as it can. In fact, it has hived all its marinas off to BWML. And I
think you will find that most recent new marinas have been developed
privately.
>I'm not saying they shouldn't - they probably have no choice - but for a
>champion of the free market such as yourself to try to defend an abuse
>of position like this is just a little rich.
It would be, if I were. They (sic) aren't.
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:20:09 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
wrote:
>Adrian Stott wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:35:01 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Adrian Stott wrote:
>> There is a standard approach in real estate for dealing with the
>> situation where the owner of one piece of land needs access across
>> land owned by another. It is covered by a precedent case called
>> "Stokes vs Cambridge". In effect, this established that the
>> appropriate compensation for such access is one-third of the value of
>> the land needing the access.
>
>Firstly, that does not negate my argument that connection charges are
>too high. If they weren't so high more landowners might build marinas.
Confusion, confusion. "Too high" is not the same as "so high".
I accept that if the price of something is lower then more of it will
be bought, and that this applies to access. However, assuming BW's
prices are in line with SvsC, and are in the end settled by
negotiation, you have presented no evidence that they are too high.
OTOH, I believe the reason most owners of possible marina sites don't
develop them is that they are unable to get permission to do so from
the local authority, EA, English Nature, etc. etc. In effect, those
bodies have made the cost infinite. And that, indeed, is "too high".
>As it is, they don't, because BW charge too much by way of connection
>charges thus making the available profit margin too low. Split the canal
>system into 20 separate companies (I know that isn't practical for other
>reasons) and watch the connection charges plummet.
It isn't only impractical, its illogical. You would still have only
one company owning any specific length of waterway, presumably any
region because it *really* would be senseless to divide the network
more finely than that. Moorings provision is a regional business.
> It's a monopoly, and BW are doing everything in their power to make the best use of it.
The evidence is against you. BW has even established a New Marinas
unit to *assist* private developers in getting approval for new
moorings.
>Secondly, the idea that a precendent case dictates appropriate
>compensation is flawed in that the appropriate compensation is decided
>by the landowners, they either agree or they don't. One cannot "force"
>the other to accept a certain figure as a result of a previous court
>case.
Large property owners almost always adhere to the principle, because
they have found that in the end it is most profitable to do so. To
try to get a higher price for access will (as you have pointed out)
reduce the number of deals. A missed deal mean zero profit. The
principle is the result of long experience in what is the fairest AND
most profitable percentage.
> Further, the fact that a precedent authorises a ransom does not
>make it just.
Emotional, but inaccurate. Is a shop charging you a ransom when it
won't let you walk out the door with its goods without paying?
>> This is not an extra cost to the owner needing the access, as if
>> access (e.g. to a public road) had been in place when he bought his
>> land, he would have had to pay more for it.
>BW's position would only be analgous if "all" land was owned by the same
>body, which it isn't.
I've read that three times, and still don't understand it.
>>> 2) "by law" more or less everyone *has* to have a mooring. Even those
>>> who don't want one. Thus *deliberately* messing up natural supply and
>>> demand. For what purpose? Other than to inflate the price of same.
>>
>> Everyone with a car has to have somewhere to park it. The law says it
>> may not be parked on someone else's property (without permission,
>> which usually involves a charge), and increasingly the local authority
>> is saying it may not be parked on the street (at all, or without a
>> charge).
>
>Rubbish. Either you *can* park on the road in which case it is nothing
>like BW's position, or you can't, at all, ever, anywhere, which isn't
>the case.
I'm having difficulty figuring out what you mean there, too. I assume
when you say "can" there, you actually mean "may"?
I've seen many roads where one is allowed to park only during non-peak
time.
I'm still having trouble understanding your point overall.
You seem to think BW is the bad guy, acting to prevent additional
moorings being created to profit itself.
I'm saying there is a market in moorings, but the supply is being
constrained by the approving officialdom. BW would like to provide
more moorings, because it can make money by doing so (and, in
particular, more money than preventing moorings being created), but
just like the private mooring developers it finds it inordinately
difficult to get the permissions to establish them. And I think the
evidence supports me.
So, IMHO you're simply shooting at the wrong target, I'm afraid.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Gibbo
>
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:20:09 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Adrian Stott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:35:01 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adrian Stott wrote:
>
>>> There is a standard approach in real estate for dealing with the
>>> situation where the owner of one piece of land needs access across
>>> land owned by another. It is covered by a precedent case called
>>> "Stokes vs Cambridge". In effect, this established that the
>>> appropriate compensation for such access is one-third of the value of
>>> the land needing the access.
>> Firstly, that does not negate my argument that connection charges are
>> too high. If they weren't so high more landowners might build marinas.
>
> Confusion, confusion. "Too high" is not the same as "so high".
"so high" as in "the level referred to in the previous paragraph"
>
> I accept that if the price of something is lower then more of it will
> be bought, and that this applies to access. However, assuming BW's
> prices are in line with SvsC, and are in the end settled by
> negotiation, you have presented no evidence that they are too high.
>
> OTOH, I believe the reason most owners of possible marina sites don't
> develop them is that they are unable to get permission to do so from
> the local authority, EA, English Nature, etc. etc. In effect, those
> bodies have made the cost infinite. And that, indeed, is "too high".
>
>> As it is, they don't, because BW charge too much by way of connection
>> charges thus making the available profit margin too low. Split the canal
>> system into 20 separate companies (I know that isn't practical for other
>> reasons) and watch the connection charges plummet.
>
> It isn't only impractical, its illogical. You would still have only
> one company owning any specific length of waterway, presumably any
> region because it *really* would be senseless to divide the network
> more finely than that. Moorings provision is a regional business.
>
>> It's a monopoly, and BW are doing everything in their power to make the best use of it.
>
> The evidence is against you. BW has even established a New Marinas
> unit to *assist* private developers in getting approval for new
> moorings.
>
And who owns it?
>> Secondly, the idea that a precendent case dictates appropriate
>> compensation is flawed in that the appropriate compensation is decided
>> by the landowners, they either agree or they don't. One cannot "force"
>> the other to accept a certain figure as a result of a previous court
>> case.
>
> Large property owners almost always adhere to the principle, because
> they have found that in the end it is most profitable to do so. To
> try to get a higher price for access will (as you have pointed out)
> reduce the number of deals. A missed deal mean zero profit. The
> principle is the result of long experience in what is the fairest AND
> most profitable percentage.
>
>> Further, the fact that a precedent authorises a ransom does not
>> make it just.
>
> Emotional, but inaccurate. Is a shop charging you a ransom when it
> won't let you walk out the door with its goods without paying?
>
They can't stop you walking out without buying its goods and going to
another shop to buy the same goods cheaper. Unless of course they are
the only supplier of said goods. Like BW are, effectively, the only
supplier of moorings.
>>> This is not an extra cost to the owner needing the access, as if
>>> access (e.g. to a public road) had been in place when he bought his
>>> land, he would have had to pay more for it.
>
>> BW's position would only be analgous if "all" land was owned by the same
>> body, which it isn't.
>
> I've read that three times, and still don't understand it.
>
I find that confusing. Firstly you snipped the paragraph it was in reply
to. Secondly, I wouldn't have thought it necessary to spell it out.
Imagine a landowner with 4 pieces of adjoining land. Each piece owned by
a different entity. He can negotiate access with each land owner and get
the best deal. If the same entity ownd all four adjoining pieces of land
then they dictate the price, without any competition. Just like BW.
>>>> 2) "by law" more or less everyone *has* to have a mooring. Even those
>>>> who don't want one. Thus *deliberately* messing up natural supply and
>>>> demand. For what purpose? Other than to inflate the price of same.
>>> Everyone with a car has to have somewhere to park it. The law says it
>>> may not be parked on someone else's property (without permission,
>>> which usually involves a charge), and increasingly the local authority
>>> is saying it may not be parked on the street (at all, or without a
>>> charge).
>> Rubbish. Either you *can* park on the road in which case it is nothing
>> like BW's position, or you can't, at all, ever, anywhere, which isn't
>> the case.
>
> I'm having difficulty figuring out what you mean there, too. I assume
> when you say "can" there, you actually mean "may"?
>
In the context of my sentence "can" and "may" mean exactly the same
thing. We *can* park on the road, we *may* park on the road. We do not
*have* to have a private driveway or garage to park a car. In your
context you may (!) have meant "might".
> I've seen many roads where one is allowed to park only during non-peak
> time.
>
But to make the analogy the same *all* roads (not just some of them)
would have to have either "no parking at any time" or a maximum parking
period of, say, "14 days with no return within 6 weeks", and one would
eventually have to park one's car 30 miles away in order to comply with
a "continuous driving" rule. Can you imagine how ridiculous that
situation would be? Yet it is no different than BW's rules.
If BW came out and said "Look, we admit it, we brought these rules in to
force people to have moorings, which we've made sure there aren't enough
of to push the price up, because we need more money" I think it would be
far more honest.
> I'm still having trouble understanding your point overall.
>
> You seem to think BW is the bad guy, acting to prevent additional
> moorings being created to profit itself.
>
Partly. BW charges a connection charge to marina/mooring owners. That
charge is based on a percentage of the final mooring fee. Why does it
have to keep increasing the percentage? That make no sense whatsoever.
> I'm saying there is a market in moorings,
That depends what you mean by "a market". If you mean "a monopoly" then
I agree.
> but the supply is being
> constrained by the approving officialdom. BW would like to provide
> more moorings, because it can make money by doing so
Only because they can *force* people to have moorings that they don't
really want.
>(and, in
> particular, more money than preventing moorings being created), but
> just like the private mooring developers it finds it inordinately
> difficult to get the permissions to establish them. And I think the
> evidence supports me.
>
Assume 50,000 moorings were built. The price of moorings would plummet.
Assume there was only one mooring, it would cost a fortune. In both
those cases BW would make less money. But keeping the balance of
available moorings as they are now ensures maximum income for BW. I
don't really see what is so hard to understand about this.
> So, IMHO you're simply shooting at the wrong target, I'm afraid.
>
Are you a landowner?
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>Assume 50,000 moorings were built. The price of moorings would plummet.
>Assume there was only one mooring, it would cost a fortune. In both
>those cases BW would make less money. But keeping the balance of
>available moorings as they are now ensures maximum income for BW. I
>don't really see what is so hard to understand about this.
The moon is made of green cheese.
There. That's easy to understand, isn't it?
It's not true, though.
bjg
Gibbo
I normally get better arguments from you than that!
David Long
<gi...@smartgauge.co.uk> writes
>Brian J Goggin wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:38:51 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Assume 50,000 moorings were built. The price of moorings would
>>>plummet. Assume there was only one mooring, it would cost a fortune.
>>>of available moorings as they are now ensures maximum income for BW.
>>>I don't really see what is so hard to understand about this.
>> The moon is made of green cheese.
>> There. That's easy to understand, isn't it?
>> It's not true, though.
>> bjg
>
>
>I normally get better arguments from you than that!
>
>
the higher fee or you'll have to settle for the 5 Euro ones.
--
David Long
Sankey Canal Restoration Society http://www.scars.org.uk/
St. Mary's http://www.geocities.com/andrew_fishburn/stmary1.html
http://www.scars.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/webcam/
Nick Atty
wrote:
>It would be, if I were. They (sic) aren't.
We've done this before. It's not something to mark with 'sic', it's
correct UK English. That it's not in the dialect you were brought up
with does not make it wrong (nor does it make your singular use wrong
either). Please stop, or take to alt.usage.english where it belongs.
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>Brian J Goggin wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:38:51 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Assume 50,000 moorings were built. The price of moorings would plummet.
>>> Assume there was only one mooring, it would cost a fortune. In both
>>> those cases BW would make less money. But keeping the balance of
>>> available moorings as they are now ensures maximum income for BW. I
>>> don't really see what is so hard to understand about this.
>>
>> The moon is made of green cheese.
>>
>> There. That's easy to understand, isn't it?
>>
>> It's not true, though.
>>
>> bjg
>
>
>I normally get better arguments from you than that!
You often make better arguments than the one I quoted above.
I'm commenting on the logic of your assertion. That something is easy
to understand does not make it true. I can think of two ways in which
it might look as if it were true:
(a) you might have evidence that BW is following the policy you
suggest. But if you have such evidence, you haven't provided it
(b) your suggested policy might make sense in the light of what we
know of pricing in either Marketing or Economics. As far as I can
tell, it doesn't make sense in either discipline (although it is some
years since I studied the subjects).
There is a brief discussion of the marketing aspects on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricing and of the economic on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand. I suggest
that, unless you know the price elasticity of demand for moorings, you
cannot have any idea how revenue will change with price. And that's
without getting into cross elasticity of demand, where we might
consider mooring and BW-approved mooring to be substitutes: it may be
that an increase in the proce of moorings will lead, not to an
increase in BW's revenue, but to an increase in the demand for
not-paying-BW.
bjg
Gibbo
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:07:46 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Brian J Goggin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:38:51 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Assume 50,000 moorings were built. The price of moorings would plummet.
>>>> Assume there was only one mooring, it would cost a fortune. In both
>>>> those cases BW would make less money. But keeping the balance of
>>>> available moorings as they are now ensures maximum income for BW. I
>>>> don't really see what is so hard to understand about this.
>>> The moon is made of green cheese.
>>>
>>> There. That's easy to understand, isn't it?
>>>
>>> It's not true, though.
>>>
>>> bjg
>>
>> I normally get better arguments from you than that!
>
> You often make better arguments than the one I quoted above.
>
> I'm commenting on the logic of your assertion. That something is easy
> to understand does not make it true. I can think of two ways in which
> it might look as if it were true:
>
Ahhh that's where the confusion lies. My point wasn't "it's easy to
understand therefore it must be correct". That isn't what I said. Adrian
didn't understand what my argument was. That's why I said "I don't
really see what is so hard to understand about this."
> (a) you might have evidence that BW is following the policy you
> suggest. But if you have such evidence, you haven't provided it
>
I haven't provided it because I haven't said I have it.
> (b) your suggested policy might make sense in the light of what we
> know of pricing in either Marketing or Economics. As far as I can
> tell, it doesn't make sense in either discipline (although it is some
> years since I studied the subjects).
>
My argument is simple. BW have close to a monopoly on moorings. The only
difference is that it isn't a direct monopoly. It is an indirect
monopoly. They can, and do, influence the price of moorings. The price
of moorings in dictated entirely by BW, nothing to do with a free
market. Can you prove otherwise?
> There is a brief discussion of the marketing aspects on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricing and of the economic on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand. I suggest
> that, unless you know the price elasticity of demand for moorings, you
> cannot have any idea how revenue will change with price. And that's
> without getting into cross elasticity of demand, where we might
> consider mooring and BW-approved mooring to be substitutes: it may be
> that an increase in the proce of moorings will lead, not to an
> increase in BW's revenue, but to an increase in the demand for
> not-paying-BW.
>
>
This "price elasticity" phrase makes me giggle. I think wiki made it up.
I never saw it anywhere until wiki wrote it. Is that where you got it
from? :)
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>Ahhh that's where the confusion lies. My point wasn't "it's easy to
>understand therefore it must be correct". That isn't what I said. Adrian
>didn't understand what my argument was. That's why I said "I don't
>really see what is so hard to understand about this."
I really see little point in Adrian's making even the feeblest attempt
to understand a mere unsupported assertion for which you have no
evidence.
>> (a) you might have evidence that BW is following the policy you
>> suggest. But if you have such evidence, you haven't provided it
>
>I haven't provided it because I haven't said I have it.
Let me suggest, then, that you have no such evidence: that you have
invented a little fairy-story for your own amusement.
>My argument is simple. BW have close to a monopoly on moorings. The only
>difference is that it isn't a direct monopoly. It is an indirect
>monopoly. They can, and do, influence the price of moorings. The price
>of moorings in dictated entirely by BW, nothing to do with a free
>market. Can you prove otherwise?
I admire the agility with which you shift your ground.
I did not comment on whether or not there is a free market in mooring
spaces; I commented on your assertion that "keeping the balance of
available moorings as they are now ensures maximum income for BW." You
have no evidence that BW pursues such a policy; furthermore, you seem
to be unaware that increasing the price of a good or service does not
necessarily increase revenue.
>This "price elasticity" phrase makes me giggle. I think wiki made it up.
>I never saw it anywhere until wiki wrote it.
No doubt there are technical terms of electricity with which I am
unfamiliar. Elasticity is a well-known concept in Economics.
>Is that where you got it from? :)
No: I read a book once.
I remind you of the words of John Maynard Keynes:
"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they
are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly
understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men,
who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual
influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
bjg
Gibbo
>
> I did not comment on whether or not there is a free market in mooring
> spaces; I commented on your assertion that "keeping the balance of
> available moorings as they are now ensures maximum income for BW." You
> have no evidence that BW pursues such a policy; furthermore, you seem
> to be unaware that increasing the price of a good or service does not
> necessarily increase revenue.
>
How does your statement that I "seem to be unaware that increasing the
price of a good or service does not necessarily increase revenue" tie in
with my statement that "keeping the balance of available moorings as
they are now ensures maximum income for BW"
Surely my latter statement proves exactly that I *do* understand that
"increasing the price of a good or service does not necessarily increase
revenue".
Which is why I wrote in an earlier post
<quote>
Assume 50,000 moorings were built. The price of moorings would plummet.
Assume there was only one mooring, it would cost a fortune. In both
those cases BW would make less money.
</quote>
Which you replied to about the "moon being made of green cheese". Which
is ridiculous, everyone knows it is made from silver cheese.
Phil
"Adrian Stott" <adr...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:r9rmp2d3jfkpeq39e...@4ax.com...
> There is a standard approach in real estate for dealing with the
> situation where the owner of one piece of land needs access across
> land owned by another. It is covered by a precedent case called
> "Stokes vs Cambridge". In effect, this established that the
> appropriate compensation for such access is one-third of the value of
> the land needing the access.
>
> This is not an extra cost to the owner needing the access, as if
> access (e.g. to a public road) had been in place when he bought his
> land, he would have had to pay more for it.
Stokes vs. Cambridge IS a leading case, BUT in valuation terms it
does NOT set a precedent as to the AMOUNT of value/compensation
attributable to ransom strips. To suggest it is a *standard approach*
is incorrect.
Phil
Nick Atty
wrote:
>My argument is simple. BW have close to a monopoly on moorings. The only
>difference is that it isn't a direct monopoly. It is an indirect
>monopoly. They can, and do, influence the price of moorings. The price
>of moorings in dictated entirely by BW, nothing to do with a free
>market. Can you prove otherwise?
Just to weigh in here, since we seem to have a rare coincidence of
views, I wouldn't go as far as to say that there is a virtual monopoly.
But I would say that given the various factors involved, the cost of
moorings almost certainly doesn't reflect the value of them in a free
market, which is what was originally being claimed.
There is almost no element of choice. As I don't live on it, I have to
have somewhere to moor my boat. BW require me to keep it on a formal
mooring. BW set the price of all the towpath moorings, and for mooring
on your own land. A significant proportion of what I pay a private
marina is set by BW.
I know that there are no truly free markets. But this isn't close.
All plural verb forms above deliberate and correct.
Uncle Marvo
3dqqp2p03l1250b82...@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
> There is a brief discussion of the marketing aspects on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricing and of the economic on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand. I suggest
> that, unless you know the price elasticity of demand for moorings, you
> cannot have any idea how revenue will change with price. And that's
> without getting into cross elasticity of demand, where we might
> consider mooring and BW-approved mooring to be substitutes: it may be
> that an increase in the proce of moorings will lead, not to an
> increase in BW's revenue, but to an increase in the demand for
> not-paying-BW.
>
Economics, like history, is bunk (sic).
And I would like to complain, while I'm in one, that there have been loads
of posts in the last day or so with words like b*ll*cks (sic) in, and nobody
has complained. I feel victimised.
:-)
Gibbo
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:53:00 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My argument is simple. BW have close to a monopoly on moorings. The only
>> difference is that it isn't a direct monopoly. It is an indirect
>> monopoly. They can, and do, influence the price of moorings. The price
>> of moorings in dictated entirely by BW, nothing to do with a free
>> market. Can you prove otherwise?
>
> Just to weigh in here, since we seem to have a rare coincidence of
> views, I wouldn't go as far as to say that there is a virtual monopoly.
> But I would say that given the various factors involved, the cost of
> moorings almost certainly doesn't reflect the value of them in a free
> market, which is what was originally being claimed.
>
Exactly. It's something that comes up often on this NG going back many
years. Adrian has always maintained that moorings are too cheap. I'm
*totally* confusd by this viewpoint when he talks so much sense on other
matters. One of us (me or Adrian) has missed something.
> There is almost no element of choice. As I don't live on it, I have to
> have somewhere to moor my boat. BW require me to keep it on a formal
> mooring. BW set the price of all the towpath moorings, and for mooring
> on your own land. A significant proportion of what I pay a private
> marina is set by BW.
>
> I know that there are no truly free markets. But this isn't close.
>
> All plural verb forms above deliberate and correct.
LOL
Brian J Goggin
<pau...@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>Economics, like history, is bunk (sic).
Some of its more elaborate manifestations may well be so, but some of
its simpler descriptions of human behaviour, and predictions of likely
future behaviour, are very useful.
bjg
Uncle Marvo
That's history. What about economics?
Dave Larrington
Uncle Marvo <pau...@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> tweaked the
Babbage-Engine to tell us:
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Next!
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once.
I haven't been able to leave the house since.
Nick Atty
wrote:
>Nick Atty wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:53:00 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My argument is simple. BW have close to a monopoly on moorings. The only
>>> difference is that it isn't a direct monopoly. It is an indirect
>>> monopoly. They can, and do, influence the price of moorings. The price
>>> of moorings in dictated entirely by BW, nothing to do with a free
>>> market. Can you prove otherwise?
>>
>> Just to weigh in here, since we seem to have a rare coincidence of
>> views, I wouldn't go as far as to say that there is a virtual monopoly.
>> But I would say that given the various factors involved, the cost of
>> moorings almost certainly doesn't reflect the value of them in a free
>> market, which is what was originally being claimed.
>>
>
>Exactly. It's something that comes up often on this NG going back many
>years. Adrian has always maintained that moorings are too cheap. I'm
>*totally* confusd by this viewpoint when he talks so much sense on other
>matters. One of us (me or Adrian) has missed something.
Particularly since moorings are so bloody dear that they make me wonder
if it's worth keeping the boat sometimes.
I would guess moorings are about 60% of our total running costs (so
ignoring the capital and lost opportunity costs), maintenance about 10%,
licence about 15%, and fuel (gas, diesel, electricity) the rest. Even
if we used the boat as much as we'd like, they'd still be well more than
50%.
Neil Arlidge
> Particularly since moorings are so bloody dear that they make me
> wonder
> if it's worth keeping the boat sometimes.
>
> I would guess moorings are about 60% of our total running costs (so
> ignoring the capital and lost opportunity costs), maintenance about
> 10%, licence about 15%, and fuel (gas, diesel, electricity) the rest.
> Even
> if we used the boat as much as we'd like, they'd still be well more
> than 50%.
I agree and this is one reason why Earnest is going somewhere else.
Harefield Marina will break the 2 grand a year mark next year, so I am
responding to market forces and bu&&ering off to Ireland...which will be
great as long as the quid+taxes airfare from Heathrow to Dublin lasts.
The WWW won't be keeping her Wilderness boat the water, it will only be put
in on an Explorers Licence when she fells the need to visit BW waters.
There is a downside to this...we take delivery of the KIA Sorento 4x4
tomorrow ==8^{o}
Adrian Stott
wrote:
>BW are, effectively, the only supplier of moorings.
No, it isn't.
It is only the largest supplier.
>In the context of my sentence "can" and "may" mean exactly the same
>thing.
No, they don't. "Can" means "is physically able to". "May" means "is
allowed to".
>Are you a landowner?
Not of moorings.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Adrian Stott
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>There is almost no element of choice.
Yes, and IMHO that is the real problem.
The reason for the absence of choice is the mismatch between supply
and demand for moorings. There are effectively no vacancies.
The way this normally resolved in markets is for the price to rise to
the market clearing level. That hasn't happened here, in fact because
BW has been holding rents *down* through its pricing approach to date.
I feel we would all be much better off with availability at higher
prices, than with none at (meaningless) lower ones.
("when I'm out of them, my price for eggs is 20p/dozen")
Increases in supply are very difficult to achieve, by BW as much as by
anyone else, because of over-regulation by local authorities, EA, etc.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Adrian Stott
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:45:14 +0000, Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It would be, if I were. They (sic) aren't.
>
>We've done this before. It's not something to mark with 'sic', it's
>correct UK English. That it's not in the dialect you were brought up
>with does not make it wrong (nor does it make your singular use wrong
>either). Please stop, or take to alt.usage.english where it belongs.
A wrong note spoils the music when it is played, not when it is
discussed.
Q1. Were we discussing BW as an entity, or as a collection of
individuals?
A1. Entity
Q2. How many corporations are there called "British Waterways"?
A2. One
Q3. What is the neutral pronoun used to stand for a a single item?
A3. One
(see "collective noun" and the discussion of metonymic shift in
Wikipedia).
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Nick Atty
wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 08:10:04 +0000, Nick Atty
><1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>There is almost no element of choice.
>
>Yes, and IMHO that is the real problem.
>
>The reason for the absence of choice is the mismatch between supply
>and demand for moorings. There are effectively no vacancies.
>
>The way this normally resolved in markets is for the price to rise to
>the market clearing level. That hasn't happened here, in fact because
>BW has been holding rents *down* through its pricing approach to date.
The problem here, of course, is that I - for one - don't want a
waterways system where we have got to a sensble number of boats by
pricing the others off the system.
Amoung other things, even with two well educated and employed people
paying for the upkeep of the boat, it's a flipping huge - nearly
unbearable - drain on our familes' finances.
I for one, didn't get upto my waist in filthy smelly ooze to help
restore a waterways system to then be deliberately priced off it.
>I feel we would all be much better off with availability at higher
>prices, than with none at (meaningless) lower ones.
And I don't. If we make it difficult but affordable, then those that
really deeply want to be on the waterways will take the trouble. If we
make it easy but expensive then those who have money to burn and fancy a
floating cottage, but don't give a fig for the waterways will have
moorings.
I didn't realise we were running "Save The Waterways For The Rich".
>Increases in supply are very difficult to achieve, by BW as much as by
>anyone else, because of over-regulation by local authorities, EA, etc.
That's probably true. But the solution is *not* to raise the prices
above their current, silly, levels.
Nick Atty
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:33:41 +0000, Nick Atty
><1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:45:14 +0000, Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>It would be, if I were. They (sic) aren't.
>>
>>We've done this before. It's not something to mark with 'sic', it's
>>correct UK English. That it's not in the dialect you were brought up
>>with does not make it wrong (nor does it make your singular use wrong
>>either). Please stop, or take to alt.usage.english where it belongs.
>
>A wrong note spoils the music when it is played, not when it is
>discussed.
>
>Q1. Were we discussing BW as an entity, or as a collection of
>individuals?
>
>A1. Entity
>
>Q2. How many corporations are there called "British Waterways"?
>
>A2. One
>
>Q3. What is the neutral pronoun used to stand for a a single item?
>
>A3. One
>
>(see "collective noun" and the discussion of metonymic shift in
>Wikipedia).
We've done this before. I quoted Fowler, Gowers and Burchfield. You
went away.
A year later you come back with Wikipedia.
Je reste ma valise.
Nicholas D. Richards
<dutto...@onetel.no.spam.com> writes
>
>*They* will always be 'The British Waterways Board' in my perception,
>and in fact still are behind all the corporate imagery.
>
Like the GPO are still behind the corporate imagery of the telephones?
:-)
I must say, as someone who experienced the waterways in the late sixties
and seventies and who has had a long break with no contact, I have been
pleasantly surprised at the improvements that have taken place. The
waterways do seem to be much better run and for the benefit of all its
users.
--
Nicholas David Richards -
"Oů sont les neiges d'antan?"
Arthur Marshall
My grumble about all this started when I commented here that BW are now
charging me three times what I pay the farmer for my EOG moorings, and
telling me that this is now half their rate for their own moorings.
While accepting that I have no facilities whatsoever apart from a
wobbly track to the boat covered in sheep droppings (which in my opinion
means that I am NOT directly comparable to moorings at, say Bosley on
the Macc), and that therefore their moorings are naturally higher
charged, can someone quote me a figure for an ordinary BW mooring, with
no additional facilities such as power, for a forty foot boat?
Then at least I will understand whether any of it makes any sense at
all, or I am just being lied to by everyone!
It certainly gets less and less likely that I will be able to keep the
boat for much longer. Which is a shame...
--
Arthur Marshall
Caller for Traditional Dances
nb Lord Byron's Maggot
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/barndancer
Martin Phillips
<art...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> can someone quote me a figure for an ordinary BW mooring, with
>no additional facilities such as power, for a forty foot boat?
>
About GBP100 / m /y for the use of a mooring ring every 4.5 m and a
small, muddy car park accessed with a BW key. Also a water point quite
close. Grass cut occasionally, and left up the sides of the boat.
For roughly the same annual fee at home, I get rather a lot of services
from the local council. I also have a frontage of slightly greater
length on which I could park cars if I wanted!
Wassail!
--
Martin E Phillips nb Boden, Splatt Bridge
http://www.g4cio.demon.co.uk martin/at/g4cio/dot/demon/dot/co/dot/uk
Homebrewing, black pudding, boats, morris dancing, ham radio and more!
The Gloucester-Sharpness canal page http://www.glos-sharpness.org.uk
Will Chapman
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:46:32 +0000, Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 08:10:04 +0000, Nick Atty
>> <1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>>
> And I don't. If we make it difficult but affordable, then those that
> really deeply want to be on the waterways will take the trouble. If we
> make it easy but expensive then those who have money to burn and fancy a
> floating cottage, but don't give a fig for the waterways will have
> moorings.
Good point Nick...
>
> I didn't realise we were running "Save The Waterways For The Rich".
>
Not a SOW I'm involved in. Being retired and on a fixed income I
too am deeply concerned about the rapidly increasing costs of
boating. When we had Quidditch diesel was rarely more than
25p a litre, often less than 20p. Pump outs were usually £8
they are now usually £12-15. The cost of our mooring has
increased by about 35%. There is a risk that the result of the
Defra cuts will result in BW increasing the annual license by
as much as 30%. In isolation each one of these can be absorbed
but together they add up. With a fixed income that is growing,
if we are lucky, at the rate of inflation all that increased
costs of boating mean is that we will spend less and less in
the non-essential businesses (pubs, restaurants, etc) that depend
on us for their livelihoods. Eventually (and some are already
doing it) we will find there we have lost so much of the pleasure
of boating in the UK that we will either sell-up or move elsewhere.
Part of my interest in SOW is that I believe that by fighting for
BW now, we will earn a greater say in the way that BW runs in the
future and I would be very unhappy if that future means that I
have to change the way that I enjoy my retirement.
>> Increases in supply are very difficult to achieve, by BW as much as by
>> anyone else, because of over-regulation by local authorities, EA, etc.
>
> That's probably true. But the solution is *not* to raise the prices
> above their current, silly, levels.
Agreed.
--
Will Chapman
Save Our Waterways
www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
Adrian Stott
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>We've done this before. I quoted Fowler, Gowers and Burchfield. You
>went away.
After concluding the discussion in a way I found satisfactory, as I
vaguely recall.
>A year later you come back with Wikipedia.
You reopened the topic.
>Je reste ma valise.
Well at least you have similar challenges in both languages. "Rester"
in French is an intransitive verb meaning "to remain".
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Adrian Stott
<art...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>can someone quote me a figure for an ordinary BW mooring, with
>no additional facilities such as power, for a forty foot boat?
How long is a piece of string?
Mooring prices are now set much more by the market than by fiat.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Arthur Marshall
from Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com> contains these words:
> >can someone quote me a figure for an ordinary BW mooring, with
> >no additional facilities such as power, for a forty foot boat?
> How long is a piece of string?
> Mooring prices are now set much more by the market than by fiat.
If I am stupid enough to ask "How long is a piece of string?" I would
expect an answer like that.
If I ask "How long is THIS piece of string?" I expect someone with a
tape measure to give me an answer, not a cretinous wisecrack.
I asked how much people out there, who own boats, pay for a BW forty
foot mooring. I even gave an example of the kind of area. I don't give a
flying asterisk for how the prices are set, I just would like to know
what we are talking about.
If people are paying a grand for a forty foot mooring a year, fine. BW
can halve it and charge me five hundred for EOG, which is logical by
their rules. If howver they are paying five hundred quid, that changes
BW's right to charge me the same amount and then tell me it's half their
standard cost.
This whole argument has been sidetracked into a discussion about market
forces, which as any economist knows, are a nightmare anyway, if the
economic concept of the market isn't a complete figment anyway - it at
at most a convenient fiction.
So let me reiterate. How much do people pay for a BW forty foot mooring
with basic or no facilities? And I would be interested to know what
marina charges are, too, although they aren't strictly relevant. I moor
on the Macc, but have spent many years on the Shropshire Union.
Nick Atty
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:47:47 +0000, Nick Atty
><1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>We've done this before. I quoted Fowler, Gowers and Burchfield. You
>>went away.
>
>After concluding the discussion in a way I found satisfactory, as I
>vaguely recall.
>
>>A year later you come back with Wikipedia.
>
>You reopened the topic.
No, you reopened it with a gratuitous "(sic)" applied to my correct
English.
Julian Tether
>with basic or no facilities? And I would be interested to know what
>marina charges are, too, although they aren't strictly relevant. I moor
>on the Macc, but have spent many years on the Shropshire Union.
The prices vary buy so much
You will see from this BW document
http://tinyurl.com/y48vdr
that it varies from £101pm to £33pm
so unless you state where specifically you are interested in the
question is meaningless.
You can now with the document above work out how much any mooring in the
county is.
If you want to know about EOG moorings the rates are here
http://tinyurl.com/y4g84j
Information is from waterscape.com
--
Julian Tether
Barge Parglena
e-mail: jul...@parglena.co.uk
Adrian Stott
wrote:
>Stokes vs. Cambridge IS a leading case, BUT in valuation terms it
>does NOT set a precedent as to the AMOUNT of value/compensation
>attributable to ransom strips. To suggest it is a *standard approach*
>is incorrect.
Agreed. I was simplifying in an attempt to keep the jargon down.
However, I hope it didn't make any significant difference with respect
to the points that were being made in the thread.
Adrian
PS Nice address. IIRC Hornblower boated in quite a few muddy
(inland) waters - Thames & Severn, Loire, etc.
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Adrian Stott
wrote:
>Adrian has always maintained that moorings are too cheap. I'm
>*totally* confusd by this viewpoint when he talks so much sense on other
>matters. One of us (me or Adrian) has missed something.
<ticks box A>
"Too cheap" to me means that there is insufficient supply to match the
demand at the price in question.
That is clearly what is happening at the moment with moorings. The
best evidence is possibly the existence of waiting lists, which you
can find everywhere.
>> (a) you might have evidence that BW is following the policy you
>> suggest. But if you have such evidence, you haven't provided it
>
>I haven't provided it because I haven't said I have it.
And you haven't said you have it, because you don't have it?
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:45:54 +0000, Nick Atty
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>The problem here, of course, is that I - for one - don't want a
>waterways system where we have got to a sensble number of boats by
>pricing the others off the system.
Hmm. Interesting. How instead do you want to get to a sensible
number of boats? Waiting lists ("Sorry, sir, we can't let you go
boating until 2015, as the waterways are full until then. Do you want
to book?")? Arbitrary characteristics (" Yes, sir, as you own a
Josher and have one leg, I can fit you in in August."? Whoyerknow ("A
friend of Robin? Certainly, sir, let me wind this paddle for you")?
I'd rather do it by price, thank you.
>Amoung other things, even with two well educated and employed people
>paying for the upkeep of the boat, it's a flipping huge - nearly
>unbearable - drain on our familes' finances.
That's how the pricing mechanism works. For some people, the price
will be unjustifiable and they will not buy.
>I for one, didn't get upto my waist in filthy smelly ooze to help
>restore a waterways system to then be deliberately priced off it.
What you do in your spare time ...
>>I feel we would all be much better off with availability at higher
>>prices, than with none at (meaningless) lower ones.
>
>And I don't. If we make it difficult but affordable, then those that
>really deeply want to be on the waterways will take the trouble. If we
>make it easy but expensive then those who have money to burn and fancy a
>floating cottage, but don't give a fig for the waterways will have
>moorings.
Some interesting assumptions there:
- Those who have (perhaps saved) money to buy a boat are wasteful
- Those who can afford boating at the market clearing price have bad
taste
- Those who don't want a struggle, but would rather just pay and go
boating, don't like the waterways
Not very persuasive to me.
>That's probably true. But the solution is *not* to raise the prices
>above their current, silly, levels.
So you want to keep them at their current silly levels? Of course,
using silliness always works so well.
Actually, the prices are silly, because they are being kept too low.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Adrian Stott
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>you reopened it with a gratuitous "(sic)" applied to my correct
>English.
Nope. You were correctly dealing with BW as an entity, but using the
plural number for it in a way that was consistent only with dealing
with it as individuals. So not gratuitous, just wishing to avoid
being seen to do the same.
>> All plural verb forms above deliberate and correct.
A - accepted as yes. B - no.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Gibbo
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:12:42 +0000, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Adrian has always maintained that moorings are too cheap. I'm
>> *totally* confusd by this viewpoint when he talks so much sense on other
>> matters. One of us (me or Adrian) has missed something.
>
> <ticks box A>
>
> "Too cheap" to me means that there is insufficient supply to match the
> demand at the price in question.
>
The point being that the demand isn't outstripping supply because people
*want* moorings. It's because BW have *made* people have moorings. Of
which I maintain BW ensure there aren't enough so that the demand *does*
outstrip supply. It's an artificially created demand because people
*have* to have them. Not because they want them.
I made this point before and you ignored it. How happy do you think any
other business would be if they could sit there an say "by law, you
*have* to buy one of these, you have no choice, you simply *have* to
have one. Oh by the way, we are the only supplier."
And what do you think would happen to the price?
> That is clearly what is happening at the moment with moorings. The
> best evidence is possibly the existence of waiting lists, which you
> can find everywhere.
>
There are X,000 boats on the canals. There are 0.7 * X,000 moorings.
Everyone *has* to have a mooring by law. No wonder there are waiting lists.
>>> (a) you might have evidence that BW is following the policy you
>>> suggest. But if you have such evidence, you haven't provided it
>> I haven't provided it because I haven't said I have it.
>
> And you haven't said you have it, because you don't have it?
>
Correct. I never said I did have it. Can you come up with a better
explanation of why moorings are too expensive?
Please don't use the argument that they are not too expensive. Because
you and about 1 other person believes that. Everyone else says they
*are* too expensive.
Nick Atty
wrote:
>Hmm. Interesting. How instead do you want to get to a sensible
>number of boats? Waiting lists ("Sorry, sir, we can't let you go
>boating until 2015, as the waterways are full until then. Do you want
>to book?")? Arbitrary characteristics (" Yes, sir, as you own a
>Josher and have one leg, I can fit you in in August."? Whoyerknow ("A
>friend of Robin? Certainly, sir, let me wind this paddle for you")?
>
>I'd rather do it by price, thank you.
If it's a choice, then waiting lists anyday. Because I'd be prepared to
wait, and I bet you and most of the other people on this list would as
well.
But people in the financial position my family was in when they got the
boat could never get a boat now.
>>Amoung other things, even with two well educated and employed people
>>paying for the upkeep of the boat, it's a flipping huge - nearly
>>unbearable - drain on our familes' finances.
>
>That's how the pricing mechanism works. For some people, the price
>will be unjustifiable and they will not buy.
But we've already bought. We have a boat that matters to us, is part of
our family almost, and which we can barely afford to run.
>>I for one, didn't get upto my waist in filthy smelly ooze to help
>>restore a waterways system to then be deliberately priced off it.
>
>What you do in your spare time ...
>
>>>I feel we would all be much better off with availability at higher
>>>prices, than with none at (meaningless) lower ones.
>>
>>And I don't. If we make it difficult but affordable, then those that
>>really deeply want to be on the waterways will take the trouble. If we
>>make it easy but expensive then those who have money to burn and fancy a
>>floating cottage, but don't give a fig for the waterways will have
>>moorings.
[I've left most of my stuff in here, because I don't believe it
justifies some of what I will be replying to below]
>Some interesting assumptions there:
>
>- Those who have (perhaps saved) money to buy a boat are wasteful
I can't see where wasteful comes from. And it's not getting the money
to buy that's a problem. It's getting the money to run, when that's
gone up, above inflation, year-on-year for the 20 years we've had the
boat.
>- Those who can afford boating at the market clearing price have bad
>taste
I can't see where taste comes from either. Clearly they've got good
taste if they want to go boating rather than do something else with
their money.
>- Those who don't want a struggle, but would rather just pay and go
>boating, don't like the waterways
Not "don't like", either. That's three out of three. As above, they
clearly like or they wouldn't have bought the boat. But they like it
the way people like having a nice car, or eating at decent restaurants.
They don't love the waterways the way we[1] do.
It was a sweeping assumption. But clearly buying boats has become
fashionable in recent years. Clearly people are buying boats for
something they fancy doing, with no previous interest or enthusiasm for
the waterways, and clearly a lot of those boats sit around from year to
year, never moving and pushing - by using the scare supply - the price
of moorings up.
>Not very persuasive to me.
[1] - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here - from the
cold-hearted way you insist on the market running everything, and the
position to those who suffer of "tough" you come across as someone
incapable of feeling anything either tender or passionate enough to
count as love. I'm sure that's not true, it's just how you project
yourself here for some strange reason.
>>That's probably true. But the solution is *not* to raise the prices
>>above their current, silly, levels.
>
>So you want to keep them at their current silly levels? Of course,
>using silliness always works so well.
Silly was a carefully chosen word. They are silly in the sense that
they are significantly above what they need to be and are damaging to
the waterways in the broader sense of the term "waterways".
>Actually, the prices are silly, because they are being kept too low.
I'm still not convinced that they are, but never mind.
So is your attitude "I can afford it, so sod the rest of you", or does
it concern you that many, far from destitute people, cannot afford to
boat any more. Not because of sympathy for them, but because if there
is to be anything about the waterways that means anything, some of the
people using them need to know about, care about and be prepared to
fight for them?
I know you believe in the free market. You come across here as someone
who believes in it to an unhealthy level, but I'm taking that as you
just arguing. Again, I find it impossible to believe there is anyone
quite so ruthlessly soulless outside poor fiction. But the question
I'd like an answer to is - would a further significant increase in the
cost of boating be a Good Thing for the waterways?
And if so why?
Nick Atty
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:29:22 +0000, Nick Atty
><1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>you reopened it with a gratuitous "(sic)" applied to my correct
>>English.
>
>Nope. You were correctly dealing with BW as an entity, but using the
>plural number for it in a way that was consistent only with dealing
>with it as individuals. So not gratuitous, just wishing to avoid
>being seen to do the same.
Exactly. You reopened the discussion, because you believe that your -
none native UK speaking - version of English is correct, and my - native
UK speaking - version isn't. On a UK waterways newsgroup.
As you weren't putting me in quotes you could cheerfully have replied
using your form, without the gratuitous "(sic)".
You said:
"It would be, if I were. They (sic) aren't."
I agree that saying "it" in there would be confusing. But "BW" would
have been clear and straightforward.
>>> All plural verb forms above deliberate and correct.
>
>A - accepted as yes. B - no.
By you. And - as far as I can see - only you. As I said before, you
cannot change the English language by executive fiat. Even if you were
the executive.
Uncle Marvo
50ds81F...@mid.individual.net, I, Marvo, say :
Mine isn't, it's a bargain. They are building 24 more (at least) even as we
type, and several are up for grabs, very reasonable rates. And, indeed, very
reasonable rats; they disappear at the drop of a bottle of Jeyes Fluid. We
are getting a clubhouse too, and already have a washing machine/tumble dryer
installed in the "club" bit. And we have some of the best scenery in the
whole of Britain, IMHO. And three pubs within staggering. Promble is that
they are EA not BW so the licence is going up more than BW's, IINVMM.
Some of these moorings are residential and incorporate a council tax (or
whatever it's called now) contribution which gets rubbish collected etc.,
and have electricity and water points. No mains gas yet, though :-) although
they sell bottles, and diesel and stuff.
The only think I fear is that parking will be bonkers in the summer months.
Do rivers count as "waterways"?
Mac
http://boards.fool.co.uk/Messages.asp?mid=10166262&bid=51332
Mac
Gibbo
>
> Mine isn't, it's a bargain.
How much do you pay?
Uncle Marvo
> Uncle Marvo wrote:
>>
>> Mine isn't, it's a bargain.
>
> How much do you pay?
Five hundred squid annually in advance. Inc Council Gubbins contribution.,
water etc
Cheaper than a house. But then I haven't got a house.
Gibbo
You see that doesn't compare. I take it you're not on BW waters?
I pay £2600 per year.
Uncle Marvo
> Uncle Marvo wrote:
>> In reply to Gibbo (gi...@smartgauge.co.uk) who wrote this in
>> 50f10rF...@mid.individual.net, I, Marvo, say :
>>
>>> Uncle Marvo wrote:
>>>> Mine isn't, it's a bargain.
>>> How much do you pay?
>>
>> Five hundred squid annually in advance. Inc Council Gubbins
>> contribution., water etc
>>
>> Cheaper than a house. But then I haven't got a house.
>>
>>
>
> You see that doesn't compare. I take it you're not on BW waters?
>
> I pay £2600 per year.
In which case BW are taking the absolute mickey.
Why are we fighting to get their grant reinstated when they're doing that,
then?
I'm on EA waters but my landlord is not EA, he is a chap. A
farmer-type-chap. EA charge me for my licence which has gone up a fair bit
and is now more than the rent.
And I lied, it's 800 squid. The licence is 500 squid. Still good value,
IMHO, but after the DEFRA cuts it's a good %age more, and will be more in
2008, 2009 etc.
Can BW justify this loony amount for mooring fees? I wouldn't have a boat if
they tried to charge me that.
David Long
>boat for much longer. Which is a shame...
>
> Caller for Traditional Dances
I suggest you tell them you'll not be doing any more traditional rain
dances if they don't reduce your mooring costs. They'll soon be out of
business once the rain stops.
--
David Long
Sankey Canal Restoration Society http://www.scars.org.uk/
St. Mary's http://www.geocities.com/andrew_fishburn/stmary1.html
http://www.scars.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/webcam/
Adrian Stott
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>As I said before, you
>cannot change the English language by executive fiat. Even if you were
>the executive.
And no matter how often you (and some of your friends) repeat it, you
cannot make a singular noun correctly match a plural pronoun.
If one person said the moon is made of rock, and 1,000 said it is made
of green cheese, would that make the cheesers correct?
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Uncle Marvo
s3q4q2t1r3ramnaab...@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:09:00 +0000, Nick Atty
> <1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> As I said before, you
>> cannot change the English language by executive fiat. Even if you
>> were the executive.
>
> And no matter how often you (and some of your friends) repeat it, you
> cannot make a singular noun correctly match a plural pronoun.
>
Their sheep.
> If one person said the moon is made of rock, and 1,000 said it is made
> of green cheese, would that make the cheesers correct?
It is made of cheese, as are most screws.
Unc
Julian
"Uncle Marvo" <pau...@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote in message
news:50f514F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> And I lied, it's 800 squid. The licence is 500 squid. Still good value,
> IMHO, but after the DEFRA cuts it's a good %age more, and will be more in
> 2008, 2009 etc.
Don't know if this applies to all EA waters but.
You can get a tranual licence ie 3 years but its at the first year rate.
So you would end up saving about £200 over the 3 years rather than buying
yearly ones.
The real feelgood factor is that EA have to spend all the income from one
year in that year so if everyone on EA did it they would be stuffed in year
2 and 3
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>And no matter how often you (and some of your friends) repeat it, you
>cannot make a singular noun correctly match a plural pronoun.
You see, it's not just Nick and some friends: it's pretty well every
reputable authority on the English language (European dialects). I
have cited several such authorities here before, but I have the
impression that you have consulted none of them.
The root of the problem seems to be that you don't understand the
workings of the English language very well.
I'd have given up commenting on this by now, but that I fear that
someone might mistake your certainty for knowledge, and might take
your views on these matters as carrying some sort of authority.
bjg
Mike Stevens
>
>> I pay £2600 per year.
>
> In which case BW are taking the absolute mickey.
A lot depends on where the mooring is. I know of one set of residential
moorings in Islington (noit sure whether they're run by BW or a property
firm) which charges £7,000 per year. They're always full and I believe
there's a waiting list. So there are people willing to pay such large sums
if the place is right.
Incidentally, BW are charging us about £100 per month for a winter mooring
at Cambrian Wharf - right in the city centre, pontton mooring, water &
rubbish point just across the basin, but no electicity hook-up. We think
that's quite reasonable.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
Arthur Marshall
from Julian Tether <Jul...@parglena.co.uk> contains these words:
> In message <3130303032353...@zetnet.co.uk>, Arthur Marshall
> <art...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> >So let me reiterate. How much do people pay for a BW forty foot mooring
> >with basic or no facilities? And I would be interested to know what
> >marina charges are, too, although they aren't strictly relevant. I moor
> >on the Macc, but have spent many years on the Shropshire Union.
> Its still not a good question
> The prices vary buy so much
> You will see from this BW document
> http://tinyurl.com/y48vdr
> that it varies from £101pm to £33pm
> so unless you state where specifically you are interested in the
> question is meaningless.
> You can now with the document above work out how much any mooring in the
> county is.
> If you want to know about EOG moorings the rates are here
> http://tinyurl.com/y4g84j
Now that's the first bit of useful information following my initial
query. Many thanks.
Arthur Marshall
from David Long <Da...@n0ne.c0m> contains these words:
> >It certainly gets less and less likely that I will be able to keep the
> >boat for much longer. Which is a shame...
> >
> > Arthur Marshall
> > Caller for Traditional Dances
> I suggest you tell them you'll not be doing any more traditional rain
> dances if they don't reduce your mooring costs. They'll soon be out of
> business once the rain stops.
Now that's an idea.
Stops. thinks. So the rain is all my fault as well now? It's no wonder
I'm paranoid.
--
Arthur Marshall
Caller for Traditional Dances
Arthur Marshall
from Brian J Goggin <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> contains these words:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:54:23 +0000, Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com>
> wrote:
> >And no matter how often you (and some of your friends) repeat it, you
> >cannot make a singular noun correctly match a plural pronoun.
> You see, it's not just Nick and some friends: it's pretty well every
> reputable authority on the English language (European dialects). I
> have cited several such authorities here before, but I have the
> impression that you have consulted none of them.
When I was young, and my beard was brown, I seem to recall that it was
considered against ng rules (guidelines, manners, call it what you will)
to criticise grammar or spelling, on the general grounds that this as a
quick and informal process, and it didn't matter a toss.
All that is happening is that we are reverting to the old pre-printing
rules, when you spelt your name, and virtually everything ele, as you
liked, and people understood it. And that was enough.
But then, there is anarchy in my genes.
Gibbo
>
>> You see that doesn't compare. I take it you're not on BW waters?
>>
>
> In which case BW are taking the absolute mickey.
>
> Why are we fighting to get their grant reinstated when they're doing that,
> then?
>
Because if BW don't get the grant reinstated they (it) will put licences
and mooring fees up even more. Oh wait, they (it) can't do that can they
(it), afterall it's a free market. B*ll*x. It's a monopoly, and they
(it) can do what they (it) want(s). And they (it) do(es).
> Can BW justify this loony amount for mooring fees?
They (it) don't (doesn't) have to. Afterall it's a free market.
There's something very wrong with this "free market".
And for the record I personally think BW can be referred to as "it" or
"they". "it" is technically correct according to old(e) English but
languages evolve and the correct form must surely be what most people use.
I clearly remember a rule to be broken from childhood...... "And is a
word that should never start a sentence".
Julian
news:hs15q2hbtgun5s8bg...@4ax.com...
>
> Are these rates + VAT?
> I assume £/m/year?
>
Inc I think
and £/M/Y
I was surprised to see the moorings either side of where I am vary in price
one up one down for what really the same thing.
J
Adrian Stott
wrote:
>Because if BW don't get the grant reinstated they (it) will put licences
>and mooring fees up even more.
Only up to a point, as BW has no reason to put its charges up to a
level higher than (literally) that which the traffic will bear. If it
passes the point of diminishing returns, it will (by definition)
reduce its income by doing so, through driving so many people and
boats off the water that their lost payments will be larger than the
increased payments being made by those remaining.
However, especially in the current funding climate, it is hard to see
a justification for BW's charging at less than that level.
>I clearly remember a rule to be broken from childhood...... "And is a
>word that should never start a sentence".
Er, that's:
'"And" is a word that should never start a sentence.'
And isn't a word. "And" is a word.
<g>
BTW, I agree that that rule is breakable. But better not to do it too
often.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Steve Atty
wrote:
>Uncle Marvo wrote:
>> In reply to Gibbo (gi...@smartgauge.co.uk) who wrote this in
>> 50f10rF...@mid.individual.net, I, Marvo, say :
>>
>>> Uncle Marvo wrote:
>>>> Mine isn't, it's a bargain.
>>> How much do you pay?
>>
>> Five hundred squid annually in advance. Inc Council Gubbins contribution.,
>> water etc
>>
>> Cheaper than a house. But then I haven't got a house.
>>
>>
>
>You see that doesn't compare. I take it you're not on BW waters?
>
>I pay Ł2600 per year.
We pay just over Ł3200 for a 52 foot mooring (well the pontoon is
about 35 foot!) in "secure" private marina with water. There are also
some nice maintained toilet blocks and a large car park (well its
about 80% full of large cruisers at the moment so only has bout 10 car
parking spaces), a bar and a "restaurant".. oh ad Upton (and its huge
number of pubs) is just 3 minutes away.
The email address is currently valid but goes to a spam bucket which doesn't get checked too often
Frivolous website: http://www.tty.org.uk/
Brian Holt
"Adrian Stott" <adr...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:s3q4q2t1r3ramnaab...@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:09:00 +0000, Nick Atty
: <1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
:
:
:
: If one person said the moon is made of rock, and 1,000 said it is made
: of green cheese, would that make the cheesers correct?
:
There was a good play on radio 4 just after lunch today about the world
being made of cheese and the Angels and God were worms.
--
Brian Ancient Order of Sewer Ants
Visit this site and help save our waterways
http://www.savethewaterways.org.uk/
Nick Atty
What bothers me is that people are telling me that Adrian has some good
ideas on funding for the waterways, but when he puts tosh like this
forward with absolute authority and refuses to countenance the
possibility that he might be wrong, it really does make we wonder about
just how much they can be trusted.
Adrian Stott
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 01:20:14 +0000, Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Hmm. Interesting. How instead do you want to get to a sensible
>>number of boats? Waiting lists ("Sorry, sir, we can't let you go
>>boating until 2015, as the waterways are full until then. Do you want
>>to book?")? Arbitrary characteristics (" Yes, sir, as you own a
>>Josher and have one leg, I can fit you in in August."? Whoyerknow ("A
>>friend of Robin? Certainly, sir, let me wind this paddle for you")?
>>
>>I'd rather do it by price, thank you.
>
>If it's a choice, then waiting lists anyday. Because I'd be prepared to
>wait, and I bet you and most of the other people on this list would as
>well.
OK, let's see who that excludes from the waterways, then. Obviously,
it is those who are unable to wait, such as those:
1. Who want to buy a first boat, but daren't because they will not
have anywhere to keep it until years after they buy (hey, that's cut
down on waterway crowding as the number of boaters declines, eh?)
2. Whose job has required them to move to the other end of the country
from their current moorings
3. Who have had a serious row with their mooring neighbours or
landlord
4. Whose mooring is on a waterway that is being stopped for an
extended period
Don't forget that with pricing you can always save your pennies or
deprive yourself of that week in Clacton to put the money into
boating. With waiting lists, some lucky bastard has got in ahead of
you, maybe even legitimately, and there is *nothing* ethical you can
do about it no matter how urgent your need is.
But that's alright, of course, as *you* are able to wait so waiting
lists is obviously a great approach. It's funny how people who
already have a mooring or are in no hurry to get one like the idea,
isn't it?
>But people in the financial position my family was in when they got the
>boat could never get a boat now.
Possibly. But I can't see why that should give them the right to
prevent someone else from having a chance by insisting on keeping a
mooring at a lower price that he would be willing to pay.
>>>>I feel we would all be much better off with availability at higher
>>>>prices, than with none at (meaningless) lower ones.
>>>
>>>And I don't. If we make it difficult but affordable, then those that
>>>really deeply want to be on the waterways will take the trouble. If we
>>>make it easy but expensive then those who have money to burn and fancy a
>>>floating cottage, but don't give a fig for the waterways will have
>>>moorings.
>
>[I've left most of my stuff in here, because I don't believe it
>justifies some of what I will be replying to below]
Actually, you cut the key stuff (easy to do inadvertently) and I don't
have a copy, so I'll simply ignore the former next bit. A relief for
other readers, I'm sure.
>It was a sweeping assumption. But clearly buying boats has become
>fashionable in recent years. Clearly people are buying boats for
>something they fancy doing, with no previous interest or enthusiasm for
>the waterways, and clearly a lot of those boats sit around from year to
>year, never moving and pushing - by using the scare supply - the price
>of moorings up.
Those evil people! They definitely should be strung up. Imagine -
not using their boats enough!
>
>[1] - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here - from the
>cold-hearted way you insist on the market running everything, and the
>position to those who suffer of "tough" you come across as someone
>incapable of feeling anything either tender or passionate enough to
>count as love. I'm sure that's not true, it's just how you project
>yourself here for some strange reason.
I actually think the market is the *kindest* (and the fairest) way to
operate. Everyone has some form of special pleading ready, but in the
end letting them decide their own priorities on where to put their
limited resources given the real price of things lets it work out
without cronyism, bias, or arbitrary rules. It also tends to maximise
the amount of the resource by giving the providers the biggest
incentive to increase the supply. And gives everyone a fair chance.
>
>Silly was a carefully chosen word. They [prices] are silly in the sense that
>they are significantly above what they need to be and are damaging to
>the waterways in the broader sense of the term "waterways".
"Need" on what definition? My definition says the price needs to be
at the market-clearing level, so there are always moorings available.
Yours seems to be that it needs to have nothing to do with demand, and
should be paid by the select or lucky few who happen to get or already
have moorings.
>So is your attitude "I can afford it, so sod the rest of you", or does
>it concern you that many, far from destitute people, cannot afford to
>boat any more. Not because of sympathy for them, but because if there
>is to be anything about the waterways that means anything, some of the
>people using them need to know about, care about and be prepared to
>fight for them?
It does concern me. But I think the only sensible (and sustainable)
answer to high mooring prices given a constant or increasing number of
boats is the creation of more moorings. And from long before I
started trying to create some myself I have been lobbying hard to make
that easier. I see the EFRA committee hearings as a good opportunity
to make the case again. It would be nice if someone else would say
the same thing.
>But the question I'd like an answer to is - would a further significant increase in the
>cost of boating be a Good Thing for the waterways?
I think that mooring prices should always be at the market-clearing
level. Today that would be above current levelsand most cases, and,
yes, that would be a good thing. However, if there were large
numbers of mooring vacancies everywhere, I would be pushing for the
rents to be *lowered* to the market-clearing level.
>And if so why?
Because availability for everyone is more important than an
artificially low price for the few.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Nick Atty
wrote:
>1. Who want to buy a first boat, but daren't because they will not
>have anywhere to keep it until years after they buy (hey, that's cut
>down on waterway crowding as the number of boaters declines, eh?)
You don't have a boat to go on the waiting list. Get on the list,
wait, get mooring offered, take up the mooring, get the boat.
>2. Whose job has required them to move to the other end of the country
>from their current moorings
>
>3. Who have had a serious row with their mooring neighbours or
>landlord
>
>4. Whose mooring is on a waterway that is being stopped for an
>extended period
Very unsatisfactory if you want to move, I agree. I'm not advocating
waiting lists - I'm suggesting that they might be preferable to pricing
to control things. These are good arguments against the waiting list,
but they don't convince me it's not the lesser of the two evils.
And, with luck, any waiting list would reduce the number of new boats
coming on the system (by putting off people who just fancy the idea,
rather than really want to) meaning that there were more moorings
Who knows, perhaps some sort of system to allow exchanges of moorings or
something could be worked out.
This isn't a system I'm actively pushing, or have worked out all the
details on. It's an argument that something other than raising the
already huge costs of moorings even further isn't the *only* way to
manage the problem of too many boats for the number of moorings.
>Don't forget that with pricing you can always save your pennies or
>deprive yourself of that week in Clacton to put the money into
>boating. With waiting lists, some lucky bastard has got in ahead of
>you, maybe even legitimately, and there is *nothing* ethical you can
>do about it no matter how urgent your need is.
>
>But that's alright, of course, as *you* are able to wait so waiting
>lists is obviously a great approach. It's funny how people who
>already have a mooring or are in no hurry to get one like the idea,
>isn't it?
That's unworthy of you.
>>But people in the financial position my family was in when they got the
>>boat could never get a boat now.
>
>Possibly. But I can't see why that should give them the right to
>prevent someone else from having a chance by insisting on keeping a
>mooring at a lower price that he would be willing to pay.
Well the same way that I can keep my house, even if you were willing to
pay the current market price for that - which I couldn't afford either!
>>It was a sweeping assumption. But clearly buying boats has become
>>fashionable in recent years. Clearly people are buying boats for
>>something they fancy doing, with no previous interest or enthusiasm for
>>the waterways, and clearly a lot of those boats sit around from year to
>>year, never moving and pushing - by using the scare supply - the price
>>of moorings up.
>
>Those evil people! They definitely should be strung up. Imagine -
>not using their boats enough!
I know I don't always express myself with total clarity. But in the bit
you cut I explicity refuted claims of "wasteful", "no taste" and "not
liking the waterways" that you had put into my mouth. I'll now add
"evil".
Clearly they are not evil. Clearly they want to have a boat, and
that's great. People with a high disposable income also have more to
spend in waterways related businesses, which is also great.
But we are talking about a situation of too many boats for the available
moorings. In *these* circumstances, I'm arguing that a system that
discriminates against people who aren't committed to the waterways is
better than one that discriminates against those earning less than a
significant amount more than the average wage, may be the better *for
the waterways*.
>It does concern me. But I think the only sensible (and sustainable)
>answer to high mooring prices given a constant or increasing number of
>boats is the creation of more moorings. And from long before I
>started trying to create some myself I have been lobbying hard to make
>that easier. I see the EFRA committee hearings as a good opportunity
>to make the case again. It would be nice if someone else would say
>the same thing.
Ah. We can agree here. The problem is not enough moorings. The
question is whether a short-term increase in the price would cause that
to happen. I worry that - since it appears that local nimbyism is the
main barrier in many cases (Braunston Marina anyone) - it wouldn't. So
you'd price a lot of the people you need off the waterways and a lot of
rich marina owners, and no change in the number of moorings.
>>But the question I'd like an answer to is - would a further significant increase in the
>>cost of boating be a Good Thing for the waterways?
>
>I think that mooring prices should always be at the market-clearing
>level. Today that would be above current levelsand most cases, and,
>yes, that would be a good thing. However, if there were large
>numbers of mooring vacancies everywhere, I would be pushing for the
>rents to be *lowered* to the market-clearing level.
>
>>And if so why?
>
>Because availability for everyone is more important than an
>artificially low price for the few.
So convince me (and sorry if you've made these arguments before, because
I've clearly missed them) that an increase in mooring rates would cause
an increase in moorings. And not just an increase to satisfy the
current demand, but an increase to provide enough surplus to allow
competition on prices to kick in.
Julian Tether
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes
>It was a sweeping assumption. But clearly buying boats has become
>fashionable in recent years. Clearly people are buying boats for
>something they fancy doing, with no previous interest or enthusiasm for
>the waterways, and clearly a lot of those boats sit around from year to
>year, never moving and pushing - by using the scare supply - the price
>of moorings up.
anything to do with boats or canals.
You only have to go and look at some of the Internet forums to see some
of the daft questions that they ask.
I was told of one boat that hit the pontoon as it left on its maiden
voyage the owner promptly had it put back on its moorings and just uses
it as a weekend cottage........
--
Julian Tether
Barge Parglena
e-mail: jul...@parglena.co.uk
Julian Tether
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes
>You don't have a boat to go on the waiting list. Get on the list,
>wait, get mooring offered, take up the mooring, get the boat.
You need to own a boat to get on the waiting list unless you lie.......
Steve Atty
The other summer coming down the Worcester and Birmingham I was with
my parents (both in their 70s and still enjoying the waterways) and we
met a boat that had come from the "factory" boatyard at the junction
with the Droitwich (by factory I mean a boatyard that churns out boats
with the individuality of the Honda production lines). They had NO
clue how to work a lock, had never been on a boat before and at one
point had the boat in 3/4 full forward exiting a lock with no crew on
board. These people had not bought a boat because it was something
they enjoyed doing but because it was something they thought they
might - seems a crazy idea to spend Ł50K+ on a whim (but thats just my
view).
Looking at moorings at Upton - the boats either side of us (Crow and
Crocodile) have not moved in the 3+ years we have been there.. in fact
I've never seen anyone on Crocodile at all (mind you neither of them
have been licenced for more time than that). A large proportion of the
boats at Upton Marina do NOT move at all... you go in there any
weekend at the summer and 80% of the mooring are occupied.
Of course BW and the Marina companies LOVE people like this (assuming
they have paid their various fees) as the have only a positive impact
on the bank balances.
Len
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:23:22 +0000, Brian J Goggin
> <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:54:23 +0000, Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>And no matter how often you (and some of your friends) repeat it, you
>>>cannot make a singular noun correctly match a plural pronoun.
>>
>>You see, it's not just Nick and some friends: it's pretty well every
>>reputable authority on the English language (European dialects). I
>>have cited several such authorities here before, but I have the
>>impression that you have consulted none of them.
>>
>>The root of the problem seems to be that you don't understand the
>>workings of the English language very well.
>>
>>I'd have given up commenting on this by now, but that I fear that
>>someone might mistake your certainty for knowledge, and might take
>>your views on these matters as carrying some sort of authority.
>
> What bothers me is that people are telling me that Adrian has some good
> ideas on funding for the waterways,
Personally I wouldn't touch them with his own barge pole - Alarm bells ring
every time I read one of his 'economic' soloutions. There's something far
too 'pat' and self-satisfied about them. I can see where they may be
welcome in some places (they certainly smack of that format and vocabulary
so beloved of consultants and spin merchants), but for your ordinary run of
the mill boater that I know and meet, if taken up, they foreshadow a
departure from the waterways.
I can't muster a good economic argument against, but something deep inside
sees these economic solutions as inherently corrupt - morally and
spiritually, that is.
As for his grasp of English and its usage, well it's a long, long time
since I took my English/Linquistics Degree, but I go with you guys......
>but when he puts tosh like this
> forward with absolute authority and refuses to countenance the
> possibility that he might be wrong,
Ah, well tht's when you really do begin to worry ;-)
>it really does make we wonder about
> just how much they can be trusted.
Anyone who suggests boaters should 'pay as you go' to travel the waterways
and appeared to mean it seriously, has imho already lost the plot, should
be smiled upon benignly and kept away from sharp objects.
Len
Canaldrifter
I smile inwardly........
Tony H
Uncle Marvo
And I do too.
On the river there is a lot of competition though, isn't that so of marinas
on canals? Are they not privately owned and thus have competitive rents? Or
am I from another planet again?
Uncle Marvo
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:09:00 +0000, Nick Atty
> <1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> As I said before, you
>> cannot change the English language by executive fiat. Even if you
>> were the executive.
>
> And no matter how often you (and some of your friends) repeat it, you
> cannot make a singular noun correctly match a plural pronoun.
>
And dredging canals to their original profile, come to that.
No, you're right. It doesn't sound right, therefore it isn't. That is the
only rule of grammar, QED.
Will Chapman
Personally, I think that one way forward is more cooperative
moorings. By 'cooperative' I mean moorings that are built and
owned by the users. By definition this would cut out much of the
element of profit that is clearly an key part of any commercial
investment.
A few of us looked at this a couple of years ago and the
economics looked promising but by the time I thought about taking
the idea forward the land we were looking at had been sold and
the idea died on the vine.
In the particular site that we were looking at, there was room
for around 30 boats and the investment per mooring (including
land purchase, digging and building a towpath bridge) was, I
think I recall correctly, in the order of £15-18k per mooring.
That would give the owner of the mooring much greater flexibility
than one has by paying for a mooring on someone else's site. For
example, if I owned my own mooring I could rent the space out
when I am on my long summer cruise or if I take a year off
to go continuous cruising.
Should my heirs decide they don't want to boat, they could recoup
much (if not more) of the original investment by selling to the
highest bidder.
I read somewhere that BW are considering making loans to 'groups'
wanting to invest in off-line moorings. Maybe we should be
looking at this again?
Cheers
--
Will Chapman
Save Our Waterways
www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
Gibbo
>
> On the river there is a lot of competition though, isn't that so of marinas
> on canals? Are they not privately owned and thus have competitive rents? Or
> am I from another planet again?
>
>
Many are privately owned, but there is a minimum anyone can charge for
any good or service and still make a profit. That minimum is dictated by
BW with their "connection charge". So BW can force the price of private
moorings up by increasing the "connection charge". Which they do with
monotonous regularity (my mate owns a marina).
Uncle Marvo
> Uncle Marvo wrote:
>>
>> On the river there is a lot of competition though, isn't that so of
>> marinas on canals? Are they not privately owned and thus have
>> competitive rents? Or am I from another planet again?
>>
>>
>
> Many are privately owned, but there is a minimum anyone can charge for
> any good or service and still make a profit. That minimum is dictated
> by BW with their "connection charge". So BW can force the price of
> private moorings up by increasing the "connection charge". Which they
> do with monotonous regularity (my mate owns a marina).
See, my "marina" isn't a real marina, it's a riverside, where the house (wot
the landlord bloke owns) is on a side channel that used to drive a mill
wheel, the house being an old mill. There's now a lock sluice there as well,
probably always was.
To me, it's the ideal place of all places, and where I'd most want to be,
instead of sitting here at this desk earning money :-)
Neil Arlidge
...I have heard that one lady has just bought a boat, with a set of wheels
and now intends to use it as a caravan for most of the year! ;-)
--
Neil Arlidge - NB Earnest - The Wilderness years...
Follow the truly independent TNC at : http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk
Visit this site and help save our waterways from the DEFRA cuts
http://www.saveourwaterways.org.uk/
Julian
"Neil Arlidge" <ne...@tuesdaynightclub.co.uk> wrote in message
news:14SdnYfsSIwONT7Y...@giganews.com...
> ...I have heard that one lady has just bought a boat, with a set of wheels
> and now intends to use it as a caravan for most of the year! ;-)
Could this be the one that had to buy a 4x4 to tow it as well :-)
J
Guy Morgan
<ne...@tuesdaynightclub.co.uk> writes
>Julian Tether wrote:
>> In message <i1t3q2p2j8nljmnfn...@4ax.com>, Nick Atty
>> <1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes
>>> It was a sweeping assumption. But clearly buying boats has become
>>> fashionable in recent years. Clearly people are buying boats for
>>> something they fancy doing, with no previous interest or enthusiasm
>>> for the waterways, and clearly a lot of those boats sit around from
>>> year to year, never moving and pushing - by using the scare supply -
>>> the price of moorings up.
>> The other problem is that many of these people have no knowledge of
>> anything to do with boats or canals.
>> You only have to go and look at some of the Internet forums to see
>> some of the daft questions that they ask.
>> I was told of one boat that hit the pontoon as it left on its maiden
>> voyage the owner promptly had it put back on its moorings and just
>> uses it as a weekend cottage........
>
>...I have heard that one lady has just bought a boat, with a set of wheels
>and now intends to use it as a caravan for most of the year! ;-)
>
husband to it when he posts "amusing" emails about her beaver :-)}
Guy
--
Guy Morgan
nb Virgo, WFB, Stockton GU