Not looking good for us

[IanD]

11 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I find the "when did you stop beating your mother" efforts quite amusing.

For the record (and for the forth time) my position is -
 

It is unfair that anyone who does not bring a boat onto CRT waterways should have to pay licence fee.

 

- and I have never suggested that this unfairness can or should be corrected.

I can't understand why anyone should get themselves so worked up about this.

 

 

The world is unfair. It's unfair that CART don't get enough money from the government. It's unfair that the ultra-rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.

 

In most cases, the people who make most noise about unfairness -- like, repeatedly posting about it on CWDF, for example -- think that it should be corrected.

 

Sometimes they even come up with suggestions about how this might be done, for example by making bigger differences between the license fees paid by different people on different boats in different places.

 

But according to your posts not you, it seems. Ho hum... 😉

Edited February 16, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

It seems obvious to charge a license fee for a boat which is floating on water directly connected to the canal system. I don't understand why this is viewed as odd. 

 

If the marina had a lock which you had to go up a few inches to get into the private basin that would be different but then where would the water come from? 

 

Has anyone tried just digging a hole and filling it with water then offering moorings to boats whose owners never want to move? There would be choices available as to where you could do this but where is the water going to come from? The sky?? 

 

 

[system 4-50]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

It seems obvious to charge a license fee for a boat which is floating on water directly connected to the canal system. I don't understand why this is viewed as odd. 

 

If the marina had a lock which you had to go up a few inches to get into the private basin that would be different but then where would the water come from? 

 

Has anyone tried just digging a hole and filling it with water then offering moorings to boats whose owners never want to move? There would be choices available as to where you could do this but where is the water going to come from? The sky?? 

 

 

The sinks and showers?

[MtB]

47 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Has anyone tried just digging a hole and filling it with water then offering moorings to boats whose owners never want to move? There would be choices available as to where you could do this but where is the water going to come from? The sky??

 

 

Yes actually. Well almost.

 

There are loads of gravel pits around that seem to fill with water spontaneously. And at least one has been turned into a marina and filled with boats that go nowhere.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

48 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It seems obvious to charge a license fee for a boat which is floating on water directly connected to the canal system. I don't understand why this is viewed as odd. 

 

If the marina had a lock which you had to go up a few inches to get into the private basin that would be different but then where would the water come from? 

 

Has anyone tried just digging a hole and filling it with water then offering moorings to boats whose owners never want to move? There would be choices available as to where you could do this but where is the water going to come from? The sky?? 

 

 

I believe Ashwood Marina is on a private waterway with its own source of water before it meets with the Staff and Worcester. 
There are other similar places but can’t think of any other at the moment. 
 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

52 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It seems obvious to charge a license fee for a boat which is floating on water directly connected to the canal system. I don't understand why this is viewed as odd. 

 

If the marina had a lock which you had to go up a few inches to get into the private basin that would be different but then where would the water come from? 

 

Has anyone tried just digging a hole and filling it with water then offering moorings to boats whose owners never want to move? There would be choices available as to where you could do this but where is the water going to come from? The sky?? 

 

 

And there was that one in a field by the Llangollen, though it wasn't there last time I went past.

[IanD]

"The Trust is asking boaters for their views on whether increases should apply evenly to all boaters using the current boat licence fee structure, or whether it is fairer to apply higher increases to certain boaters in a way that reflects how they use the waterways and the higher costs of meeting their needs."

 

Well that sounds familiar -- and it includes the word "fairer", should keep everybody happy... 😉

Edited February 16, 2023 by IanD

[Higgs]

Mercia Marina 2006, as it naturally was, and 2009, after construction.

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Higgs

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

"The Trust is asking boaters for their views on whether increases should apply evenly to all boaters using the current boat licence fee structure, or whether it is fairer to apply higher increases to certain boaters in a way that reflects how they use the waterways and the higher costs of meeting their needs."

 

Well that sounds familiar -- and it includes the word "fairer", should keep everybody happy... 😉

 

 

Yep they obviously mean extra loading up the licence fee rises for CCers in particular. Very fair that would be in my opinion. Let's balance it up a bit eh? Us home moorers get a raw deal in comparison to CCers.

 

 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

 

Yep they obviously mean extra loading up the licence fee rises for CCers in particular. Very fair that would be in my opinion. Let's balance it up a bit eh? Us home moorers get a raw deal in comparison to CCers.

 

 

 

And probably wideboats too. Cue screams of protest from anyone who'll end up paying more so that others can pay less (relatively speaking)... 😞

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

And probably wideboats too. Cue screams of protest from anyone who'll end up paying more so that others can pay less (relatively speaking)... 😞

 

So, you wouldn't have a problem with people who never use the canal paying nothing? Or, would you like those people to continue to pay, because "the world isn't fair" , and that is your way of saying - keep it that way?

 

 

 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And probably wideboats too. Cue screams of protest from anyone who'll end up paying more so that others can pay less (relatively speaking)... 😞

 

Older boats I reckon, because like old cars they must be more polluting. 

x5 for anything in service before 1965 would seem fair.

 

Second boats at x2, third boats at x3 ...

[MtB]

26 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Older boats I reckon, because like old cars they must be more polluting. 

x5 for anything in service before 1965 would seem fair.

 

Second boats at x2, third boats at x3 ...

 

Yep agreed. Butties too...

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

41 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Yep they obviously mean extra loading up the licence fee rises for CCers in particular. Very fair that would be in my opinion. Let's balance it up a bit eh? Us home moorers get a raw deal in comparison to CCers.

 

As I said,  CCers get their moorings free. When there were only a few, genuinely cruising all the time round the system (which is why they got the dispensation in the first place), it wasn't a problem. Now probably ninety percent of them are essentially freeloaders, CRT have finally realised they can do something about it.

I imagine this consultation is more to see what the response to the decision will be than to affect its outcome. Mind you,  that's all consultations ever are.

[TheBiscuits]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As I said,  CCers get their moorings free. When there were only a few, genuinely cruising all the time round the system (which is why they got the dispensation in the first place), it wasn't a problem. Now probably ninety percent of them are essentially freeloaders, CRT have finally realised they can do something about it.

I imagine this consultation is more to see what the response to the decision will be than to affect its outcome.

 

Just wait until the NBTA have "negotiated" with CRT on the topic ... worked well for the fuel payments!

[Momac]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Has anyone tried just digging a hole and filling it with water then offering moorings to boats whose owners never want to move? There would be choices available as to where you could do this but where is the water going to come from? The sky?? 

 

 

The ground water table may be sufficiently high at some locations .

There are former gravel pits like this but the boats are not narrowboats .

.

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by MartynG

[Momac]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As I said,  CCers get their moorings free. When there were only a few, genuinely cruising all the time round the system (which is why they got the dispensation in the first place), it wasn't a problem. Now probably ninety percent of them are essentially freeloaders, CRT have finally realised they can do something about it.

I imagine this consultation is more to see what the response to the decision will be than to affect its outcome. Mind you,  that's all consultations ever are.

So C&RT will ask the majority to comment on imposing extra charges on the minority. 

Does any of this sound familiar? 

 

[Higgs]

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As I said,  CCers get their moorings free.

 

And so they should. They have a licence. Why keep mentioning it?

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

So C&RT will ask the majority to comment on imposing extra charges on the minority. 

Does any of this sound familiar? 

 

 

I dunno why they are bothering. They need to do what needs doing and impose it on the boaters.

 

They will tie themselves in knots trying to govern the waterways by consensus. It's a very childish way to try to run a business or charity. 

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Now probably ninety percent of them are essentially freeloaders,

 

It's you who've got the chip on the shoulder. 

 

 

[frahkn]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Yep they obviously mean extra loading up the licence fee rises for CCers in particular. Very fair that would be in my opinion. Let's balance it up a bit eh? Us home moorers get a raw deal in comparison to CCers.

 

 

I have a marina mooring where I pay for twelve months although the boat is always out for about six of those months. This is a bit annoying but I don't feel it can be called "unfair" - it's what I agreed to in the contract.

 

I haven't thought about it much but I don't immediately see how I'm getting a "raw deal" compared to CCers. They don't pay £3,200 for a mooring but then again, they don't have a mooring.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, frahkn said:

I have a marina mooring where I pay for twelve months although the boat is always out for about six of those months. This is a bit annoying but I don't feel it can be called "unfair" - it's what I agreed to in the contract.

 

I haven't thought about it much but I don't immediately see how I'm getting a "raw deal" compared to CCers. They don't pay £3,200 for a mooring but then again, they don't have a mooring.

Some of the ones I see certainly seem to *think* they have one, going by the amount of semi-permanent stuff they have on the towpath next to their non-mooring...

Edited February 16, 2023 by IanD

[Momac]

I thought the idea was the C&RT use 'spotters' to determine  whether continuous cruisers are in fact doing what  it says on the tin.

Otherwise the next license application may be rejected .

The absence of spotters and other relevant C&RT staff may be part of the problem. 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I thought the idea was the C&RT use 'spotters' to determine  whether continuous cruisers are in fact doing what  it says on the tin.

Otherwise the next license application may be rejected .

The absence of spotters and other relevant C&RT staff may be part of the problem. 

 

 

 

C&RT repeatedly say that "every kilometre of the system is walked by licence checkers every 14 days"

[system 4-50]

There are those that think that payment should be in proportion to benefit available.  Obviously more benefit is being obtained when there are more people on a boat so the charge should be by person.  Others think payment should be levied whether or not a benefit is taken up, so clearly the charge should be by the number of persons a boat can take.  Dogs can benefit from the water-bourne experience so the charge should also include an element for the number of dogs that could be accomodated on the boat.  The benefit increases with the size of the boat so that should be taken into account as well.

This is a capitalist society so the charge should increase with demand, so the charge should be tapered, with London and similar 10 times that of Manchester, and a small payment should be made to people boating in, say, Leeds.

Assets should be sold off, and a friend of mine has made a lot of money selling 1sq metre plots in Scotland, so perhaps some canals could be sold off by the gallon?

The correct way to finance anything these days is to borrow big time, or get the funds from advertising.  Large billboards (and jillboards) along the most scenic canals, filmed from drones and played on Youtube should raise at least 4s 6d per annum.  Borrowing big time only works if you borrow too big to be allowed to fail and that is not available to C&RT.