Mooring fees

[blackrose]

I've read and re-read the thread trying to understand the crux of the issue but does it actually make any diffrence who pays the levy? I might be getting the wrong end of the stick here but from what I can make out if you are moored on the off side then a levy has to paid regardless of who actually owns the boat.

 

It doesn't apply to me, I was just responding to your previous comment that if one is wealthy enough to own canalside property then one should be able to afford the additional mooring levy imposed by BW. I was trying to point out that if the property owner is letting their end of garden mooring (rather than using it themselves), then they may also expect the additional BW levy to be paid by the moorer who may not be wealthy at all. So in terms of your previous comment regarding property ownership, wealth and the ability to pay, it certainly does make a difference who pays.

Edited April 22, 2010 by blackrose

[magpie patrick]

Please explain your logic in making that comment. It is only recently that there has been a premium attached to canalside property.

 

I'd take issue with that, research by Newcastle University in the early nineties indicated anything up to a 20% premium, and as 20% premiums don't appear overnight I think it's safe to assume there had been some hike in the value long before. Probably from the early seventies although even in the 1960s developers were building houses that backed onto canals and were not putting fences up, so at the very least it was a selling point.

[bag 'o' bones]

It doesn't apply to me, I was just responding to your previous comment that if one is wealthy enough to own canalside property then one should be able to afford the additional mooring levy imposed by BW. I was trying to point out that if the property owner is letting their end of garden mooring (rather than using it themselves), then they may also expect the additional BW levy to be paid by the moorer who may not be wealthy at all. So in terms of your previous comment regarding property ownership, wealth and the ability to pay, it certainly does make a difference who pays.

 

If you moor in at a private facility then you pay a levy simple as that really. I don't think there is an argument somehow!!

[carlt]

I was told by the farmer who owns our mooring that BW effectively owns a strip off land - no idea how wide - on the off side rather then just to the waters edge. Hence the charge.

This is not true everywhere.

 

Anyway, as far i'm concerned if you can afford the extra premium of a house next to a canal then you should be able to afford the mooring levy!

What a ridiculous thing to say.

[bag 'o' bones]

What a ridiculous thing to say.

 

Hmm probably taken out of context. The thing is - going slightly off the at a tangent - i've come across a lot of folk who's incomes are far greater than mine and are the first to start bitching and moaning when in *their* opinion they are forced to put their hands in their pockets to pay for exclusivity, in this case a private mooring, or a service *they* don't think is worth what is asked.

 

Like it or lump it we live in a capitalist society in which if someone can make a few quid out of you legally they will. Rich or poor were all in the same situation!

[nb Innisfree]

Supply and demand.

[PhilR]

I'd take issue with that, research by Newcastle University in the early nineties indicated anything up to a 20% premium, and as 20% premiums don't appear overnight I think it's safe to assume there had been some hike in the value long before. Probably from the early seventies although even in the 1960s developers were building houses that backed onto canals and were not putting fences up, so at the very least it was a selling point.

 

I accept most of your facts, but in the 1970's, in my locality, family houses adjoining the canal were not selling at a premium. Many families with young children would not even consider buying property adjoining the canal. However, attitudes of the buying public have changed considerably since then and I agree that in today's market a 15-20% premium sounds about right.

 

BUT, I still disagree with this comment by bag 'o' bones:

 

QUOTE (bag 'o' bones @ Apr 21 2010, 07:53 PM)

Anyway, as far i'm concerned if you can afford the extra premium of a house next to a canal then you should be able to afford the mooring levy! UNQUOTE

Edited April 22, 2010 by PhilR

[magpie patrick]

I accept most of your facts, but in the 1970's, in my locality, family houses adjoining the canal were not selling at a premium. Many families with young children would not even consider buying property adjoining the canal. However, attitudes of the buying public have changed considerably since then and I agree that in today's market a 15-20% premium sounds about right.

 

BUT, I still disagree with this comment by bag 'o' bones:

 

QUOTE (bag 'o' bones @ Apr 21 2010, 07:53 PM)

Anyway, as far i'm concerned if you can afford the extra premium of a house next to a canal then you should be able to afford the mooring levy! UNQUOTE

 

Things have certainly changed, my first five years were spent at Booth Lane in Middlewich, with a view across the A533 to the Canal and the Royal Venton Sanitary Ware works. That was 66-71. Of those, the one thing I'd avoid like the plague with kids is the A533! But traffic was a fraction then of what it is now, and I would have kids on the B3111 in Bath where we live (it isn't signposted) but I'd watch them like a hawk near the front door. It's traffic is probably higher than the A533 was then

 

I don't think the politics of "yer can bluddy well afford it" is a good way of conducting business, however, unusually I have some sympathy with BW. I enjoyed some else's EOG mooring for 2 1/2 tears, and they charged me nothing, but BW still had a boat floating on their canal over their land, and so half the going rate seemed fair, after all BW couldn't grant access to the mooring, but they could decline to permit it (something many people miss. If your EOG is on a blind bend BW may say no!), and the owner is getting benefit out of BW maintaining the waterway. An end of garden mooring on the Somerset Coal Canal has, I suspect, limited appeal

[carlt]

i've come across a lot of folk who's incomes are far greater than mine and are the first to start bitching and moaning when in *their* opinion they are forced to put their hands in their pockets to pay for exclusivity, in this case a private mooring, or a service *they* don't think is worth what is asked.

You don't get rich by giving it away.

 

Having had an EOG mooring (rented, not owned) it was me who paid BW their half a tow path fee, not the robber baron landlord who rented it to me.

 

Neither myself nor my landlord were "rich", btw.

[magpie patrick]

You don't get rich by giving it away.

 

Ahhhh, that's where I'm going wrong

 

Two sponsored kids in Romania is far better than money in the bank though, believe me...

 

Having had an EOG mooring (rented, not owned) it was me who paid BW their half a tow path fee, not the robber baron landlord who rented it to me.

 

I had this but all my robber landlord asked was to borrow the boat once a year to take his grand daughters on holiday, and he didn't always take it up!

[carlt]

Two sponsored kids in Romania is far better than money in the bank though, believe me...

Can I send my two over there?

[magpie patrick]

Can I send my two over there?

 

You'll have to sponsor them...

[blackrose]

If you moor in at a private facility then you pay a levy simple as that really. I don't think there is an argument somehow!!

I wasn't necessarily arguing against paying the levy, I was questioning your assumption that the moorer and the property owner were the same person - i.e. that the moorer is wealthy.

 

I thought I'd already explained that, but since you apparently still don't understand let's leave it there.

Edited April 22, 2010 by blackrose