Not looking good for us

[MtB]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

depriving CART of the online mooring fee which I guess (does anyone know?) might average £1000 per boat today.

 

You're kidding! Closer to £2.5k I'd have thought. Down here in the south a CRT on-line mooring is typically £4k so once the northern £1500 ones are mixed in.... 

[Higgs]

You can't justify what is wrong, by its usefulness to add money to the coffers. It only leads to tolerating the unethical.   

 

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

You're kidding! Closer to £2.5k I'd have thought. Down here in the south a CRT on-line mooring is typically £4k so once the northern £1500 ones are mixed in.... 

I did say I didn't have the figures -- but if they're more expensive than I said then the loss to CART from having to lower the cost and lose people to marinas is even bigger. To stop the rot (and keep people online) they'd have to drop the average cost by the same amount as the license fee, so they'd lose £3.6M, which would add about £150 to the license fee of those who still pay it -- which together with the lower license fee numbers from marina exemptions gives maybe a 50% increase for those who still use the canals, as I suggested... 😞

 

Now waiting for -- but not expecting -- a justification for doing this so that boats who never leave marinas don't have to unfairly pay the license fee... 😉

Edited February 15, 2023 by IanD

[Higgs]

There is another way of looking at it - CRT would have to do some work, to attract people onto the canal and requiring a licence. CRT would have to listen to boaters. What a shock.

 

Let's face it - paying towards the canal seems like paying for old rope, as it gradually falls into disrepair. 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Higgs

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

There is another way of looking at it - CRT would have to do some work, to attract people onto the canal and requiring a licence. CRT would have to listen to boaters. What a shock.

 

Let's face it - paying towards the canal seems like paying for old rope, as it gradually falls into disrepair. 

 

 

 

Let me guess. You have a boat in a marina and you claim never to go out....

 

 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Residential mooring in a marina makes a marina more than an attachment of the canal. They become providers of permanent places to live. People who take on residential moorings have that as the mooring's primary use, and the canal may be of some use, but not necessarily. Paying for access to the canal is something every moorer pays towards, whether they intend to use the canal or not; it is levied at 9% of their mooring fee. 

 

 

And how does that impact the point I was making?

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

If they use the canal, they would require a licence. Somewhere like Mercia marina has in excess of 300 residential moorings, and a dry dock within the confines of the marina. 

 

 

If a developer had a business case for entirely residential non-canal boats then it is quite possible to create one with no connection to the canal (or even near it!) and not incur NAA. (There may be other costs I suppose from other regulators)

 

As it happens, developers so far have chosen a mixed use and taken the hit for the NAA (clue is in the full title). As it is a business cost (not a charge on the boater - boaters do not pay it) it is passed on by the marina, like any other cost. They choose to offer moorings that include the right to access the canal, not to use it. That comes with paying a licence. If CaRT allowed boats to moor in a marina without a licence my guess is that it would end up on the NAA rates or on the licence. Either way, it means that boaters who use the canal would end up paying moor for the privilege of a few to choose not to navigate.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

If a developer had a business case for entirely residential non-canal boats then it is quite possible to create one with no connection to the canal (or even near it!) and not incur NAA. (There may be other costs I suppose from other regulators)

 

As it happens, developers so far have chosen a mixed use and taken the hit for the NAA (clue is in the full title). As it is a business cost (not a charge on the boater - boaters do not pay it) it is passed on by the marina, like any other cost. They choose to offer moorings that include the right to access the canal, not to use it. That comes with paying a licence. If CaRT allowed boats to moor in a marina without a licence my guess is that it would end up on the NAA rates or on the licence. Either way, it means that boaters who use the canal would end up paying moor for the privilege of a few to choose not to navigate.

 

Quite a lot more, if the numbers I posted are right -- 50% was my guesstimate (see TL;DR post above...), could be lower (or higher!) depending on the exact numbers... 😉

Edited February 15, 2023 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Like I said, if you want to be "fair" and change things, you need to own the consequences not pretend they won't happen -- just like Brexit... 😉

 

The position at the moment is that most boats in marinas pay the license fee, and the marinas pay the NAA -- there are a few exceptions but not many.

 

I don't know how many of the 35000 boats are in marinas but I bet it's a large number (does anyone know?) -- for the sake of argument, let's say it's 50%.

 

I don't know how many boats never leave the marina but I also bet it's a large number (does anyone know?) -- for the sake of argument, lets say it's 50%, meaning 25% of all boats.

 

If these boats are exempt from the license fee then the number of licenses will drop by 25%, so to keep the same income to CART the license fee to the other 75% will have to go up by 33%.

 

On top of this, being moored online (and paying the license fee) suddenly becomes £1000 more expensive compared to staying in a marina, which will have two effects -- one is that more people will move into marinas, depriving CART of the online mooring fee which I guess (does anyone know?) might average £1000 per boat today. This will also drive down the amount that CART can charge for online moorings; to make them price-competitive with marinas they'd have to make then free which is obviously not going to happen, but the going rate is bound to drop otherwise they'll mostly be empty. Put these two factors together and CART could easily see their income from online moorings halve -- and the only way to make this back up will be to put the license fee up. Which then makes marinas even more attractive than online moorings to non-movers so more will move, which will push the online prices down further, which means CART income will drop, which means putting the license fee up further...

 

CART have 3600 online moorings, so if we assume the income today averages £1000 each that's an annual income of £3.6M. If this drops by half -- and it could well drop by more -- they need to make up £1.8M by rasing the license fee to the boats who still pay it.

 

Put all this together and being "fair" -- as you and Higgs suggest -- and allowing boats who never leave the marina to not pay the license fee would cause the fee charged to those who actually use the canals to move around on -- even occasionally -- to increase by a lot, probably something like 50%. Which is the same amount I suggested might be needed to help fix the maintenance problem, which so many people say is unaffordable and will drive people off the canals -- and in this case, it would drive the people off who actually use the system at the expense of those who sit permanently in marinas.

 

So do you still think this is a good idea, however "fair" it is?

 

Don't forget that this would be on top of the 50% needed for better maintenance, and multiplying the two together would give a 125% increase in the average license fee. Even using graduation as I proposed this would probably make it impossible to keep the fee anywhere near its current level for less well-off boaters -- instead of an affordable zero rise (x1) for them, 100% (x2) for the well-off, and maybe 200% (x3) for new wideboats, we'd be looking at 50% (x1.5) rise for them, 200% (x3) for the well-off, and maybe 350% (x4.5) for new wideboats.

 

Which would certainly drive a considerable number of people -- especially the less well-off -- off the canals, and many of the rest into marinas. Net result, a lot fewer "proper" boaters on the system -- meaning, those who use if for travelling around to any extent, even if only a few weeks per year. And I guess almost everyone with a boat on CWDF would fall into this category... 😞

 

Still think it's a good idea?

 

I'm sure you'll come back and say these numbers are all made-up guesstimates -- which they are, but I think they're reasonable ones. If you disagree with them, I suggest you come up with your own.

 

But whatever they are, I'm confident they'll show that your and Higg's idea would cause massive damage to the canal community, especially those who either live online or cruise around the system... 😞

 

P.S. Responding with "TL;DR" will just show that you don't actually have a properly thought-through case for your idea... 😉

My idear, as you call it, is -

 

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

 

I am not sure this needs to be properly thought through. 

 

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

 

... and please correct your arithmetic.

 

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

My idear, as you call it, is -

 

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

 

I am not sure this needs to be properly thought through. 

 

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

 

... and please correct your arithmetic.

 

 

 

I think it does.

 

Is it fair that a boat taking any sort of advantage of or gaining any sort of benefit from the existence of a CRT waterway, should pay a fee?

[Guest]

I wonder where most marinas get their water from??

 

Could it be a CRT waterway I wonder??

[Allan(nb Albert)]

38 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I think it does.

 

Is it fair that a boat taking any sort of advantage of or gaining any sort of benefit from the existence of a CRT waterway, should pay a fee?

fee or licence fee?

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

fee or licence fee?

 

Nit-picking to avoid the question.

 

You can choose which! 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

fee or licence fee?

 

I think you are hinting at should a smaller fee be charged to take account of the fact that the boat is afloat by virtue of CRT suplying the water it floats on?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Nit-picking to avoid the question.

 

You can choose which! 

 

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Nit-picking to avoid the question.

 

You can choose which! 

Just trying to clarify what you meant.

 

... and perhaps you can give some examples of how a boat might gain advantage or benefit.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

7 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I think you are hinting at should a smaller fee be charged to take account of the fact that the boat is afloat by virtue of CRT suplying the water it floats on?

A whatever floats your boat charge?

 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

My idear, as you call it, is -

 

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

 

I am not sure this needs to be properly thought through. 

 

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

 

... and please correct your arithmetic.

 

What would you like me to correct?

 

I note that you haven't come up with any figures of your own, so I'll ask you again:

 

Starting from where we are now, where everyone pays the same license fee and plans their finances on that basis, do you think it's fair to increase the license fee (by perhaps 50%) for all those boaters who actually use the canals for boating, in order to reduce living costs for those who don't and just stay in a marina?

 

Yes or no will do... 😉

Edited February 15, 2023 by IanD

[Orwellian]

In terms of the NAA the boat licence issue is a secondary one. The primary requirement for one is based on ownership of property and whether the canal enabling acts allow adjoining owners to connect their property to the adjacent canal. Most if not all enabling acts do not give that right so CRT are legally entitled to require anyone wishing to connect a mooring basin to their canal to have an agreement to do so subject to a fee and terms & conditions. One of those conditions requires that all boats in the mooring basin be licenced. Some may consider this to be unreasonable others not. The fact remains that the majority of mooring basins connected to CRT canals have a NAA or an earlier 'connection agreement'. Those without have, in the main, been there for sufficient time that gives them a 'prescriptive right' and therefore CRT are legally barred from requiring one. This situation is well settled and has not prevented scores of marinas being built since 2005 and most have filled to capacity and have thrived. Many operators have built several. Purists like Higgs & Alan (nb Albert) might not like it but they do seem to have an anti CRT bias which may colour their opinion on this. To undo those legitimate agreements would deprive CRT of significant revenue which is the one thing they and their users do not need right now.

[Bee]

Fairness is a difficult thing to agree about. Is it fair that we usually pay for 12 months in a marina but spend 3 months a year out cruising?  (Not complaining just pointing out the difficulty of defining fairness) I think the real enemy is the government annual grant not being sufficient to support CRT because of its ideology that demands the user paying. This is sort of OK until it leads to a situation where CRT can't afford to maintain the canals and boaters struggling to pay the bills. 

[IanD]

Just now, Bee said:

Fairness is a difficult thing to agree about. Is it fair that we usually pay for 12 months in a marina but spend 3 months a year out cruising?  (Not complaining just pointing out the difficulty of defining fairness) I think the real enemy is the government annual grant not being sufficient to support CRT because of its ideology that demands the user paying. This is sort of OK until it leads to a situation where CRT can't afford to maintain the canals and boaters struggling to pay the bills. 

Indeed, and it's the same broken ideology that they apply to railways and the NHS and many other things -- leave it to market forces and everything will sort itself out, cut down nasty socialist central government spending (and taxes) and make the users pay more of the cost.

 

Except that it doesn't work... 😞

[Ronaldo47]

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

When I was 'in work' we had a big problem with that happening.

We used a lot of contract labour in the packing department and many of them were 'not of English descent'. Many were from North Africa and / or Arabic.

Apparently their religious beliefs meant they could not use a toilet so they would either just squat alongside the toilet, or in the showers.

As you can imagine, our cleaners were not best pleased.

 

Also - Watching a documentary on the Gypsy way of life, and apparently they will not use the toilets in their caravans as it is 'dirty' to defecate in your 'living space' so they just use the local hedgerows or woods.

 

Everyone has different beliefs.

 

Edit : Just thought I'd check out the Gypsy toilet situation on Google :

 

 

Why do Gypsies not use toilets?

So you will find no sinks in Gypsy caravans because these could be for mixed use – for washing the body and for washing crockery. Similarly Gypsies will not have toilets inside their caravans- which they call trailers- because the trailer must be kept pure like the body’s inside.

 

Do Travellers use toilets?

“A traveller would never use the toilet where they live. That’s unhygienic.” Instead, the loo is in a nearby neat brick outhouse, and they use a washing machine and oven in a caravan parked outside.

 

What is the difference between a Gypsy and a Traveller?

Gypsies and Travellers are two distinct societies. While both are nomadic peoples, the two societies have totally different origins, culture, language, and physical profile. The Gypsies are generally found in Eastern Europe while the Travellers usually walk inside the territories of Ireland, UK, and the Americas.

 

Do Travellers shower?

A PROUD Romany gypsy has revealed that they would NEVER use the toilet or shower in their own trailers – and would rather go outside. “It is cold, sometimes, nice hot shower, but it’s cold when you are going out in the winter.

A docker once told me that the Royal Docks in London used to have toilets signed "European" and "Asian". Not a form of apartheid, but an indication of the type of WC. The asian ones were the type you often used to find in transport cafes and public conveniences in France in the 1970's  where you put your feet on two raised islands and steadied yourself with a hand grip to drop  your No. 2's into a shallow bowl built into the tiled floor.  In one I used, pulling the chain sent a tidal wave of water across where you had been standing to flush everything down the trap, and washed your shoes if you didn't get out of the way fast enough!

 

At college in the 1960's we had quite a few Arab  students from Iraq and Iran. Some of them must have done their business standing precariously  on the seats, as occasionally their heads could be seen above the tops of the cubicle doors. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typos

[MtB]

55 minutes ago, Bee said:

Fairness is a difficult thing to agree about.

 

True.

 

Is it fair a boat twice the width of mine pays only 20% more licence than me?

 

I don't think so but a lot on here think it is perfectly reasonable. 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

The asian ones were the type you often used to find in transport cafes and public conveniences in France in the 1970's 

 

That takes me back I was early visiting a customer in Rural France so stopped at a 'transport cafe' for a cup of tea and a bun.

Went to use the toilet but couldn't find it, all I could find was a huge shower room with a couple of gymnasts rings hanging from the ceiling, and a hole beneath them.

Just as I was wondering what the big stick in the corner was for someone came in and I got a full demonstation of French Toilets.

 

I saw what the stick was for - if you mised the hole the stick was used to slide it along and poke it down - I now know where the saying 'be careful you dont' get the shi$$y end  of the stick comes from.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

In terms of the NAA the boat licence issue is a secondary one. The primary requirement for one is based on ownership of property and whether the canal enabling acts allow adjoining owners to connect their property to the adjacent canal. Most if not all enabling acts do not give that right so CRT are legally entitled to require anyone wishing to connect a mooring basin to their canal to have an agreement to do so subject to a fee and terms & conditions. One of those conditions requires that all boats in the mooring basin be licenced. Some may consider this to be unreasonable others not. The fact remains that the majority of mooring basins connected to CRT canals have a NAA or an earlier 'connection agreement'. Those without have, in the main, been there for sufficient time that gives them a 'prescriptive right' and therefore CRT are legally barred from requiring one. This situation is well settled and has not prevented scores of marinas being built since 2005 and most have filled to capacity and have thrived. Many operators have built several. Purists like Higgs & Alan (nb Albert) might not like it but they do seem to have an anti CRT bias which may colour their opinion on this. To undo those legitimate agreements would deprive CRT of significant revenue which is the one thing they and their users do not need right now.

At the risk of repeating myself - 

 

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

 

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

 

... and yet, again, it seems that defence of this unfairness is based on CRT losing revenue should the unfairness be removed.

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[IanD]

19 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

True.

 

Is it fair a boat twice the width of mine pays only 20% more licence than me?

 

I don't think so but a lot on here think it is perfectly reasonable. 

 

 

As pointed out earlier, for houses and flats and land and boats and marinas and harbours all over the world taxes/fees -- and rent/selling price -- are set by area, because living space is what you're buying. This is generally agreed to be "fair", you get more space in exchange for more money, and the shape of the space doesn't matter -- long and thin or short and fat, in the case of boats.

 

The CART license fee is an exception to this, for no obvious reason I can see...

10 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

At the risk of repeating myself - 

 

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

 

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

 

... and yet, again, it seems that defence of this unfairness is based on CRT losing revenue should the unfairness be removed.

 

Are you going to answer the question, yes or no?

 

"Starting from where we are now, where everyone pays the same license fee and plans their finances on that basis, do you think it's fair to increase the license fee (by perhaps 50%) for all those boaters who actually use the canals for boating, in order to reduce living costs for those who don't and just stay in a marina?"

 

Because this is the status quo -- the real world that we live in today -- not some idealised utopia where everything can magically be "fair", like nurses getting paid more than hedge fund managers... 😉

Edited February 15, 2023 by IanD