Should the waterways provide for housing overspill?

[ymu]

For those who don't read/comprehend/retain every post, here's how we obey the CC rules and still only cruise 15 days a year.

 

Not that there need be any complex thought required to see how this would be standard with winter moorings. But we don't often take them. We're still conscientious types, and you have not understood the calculation:

 

Keep yer hair on!

 

A day's cruising is nine hours (on average, over the year). We rarely move more than 2-5 miles, because we keep a car with us and it saves a lot of cash if I can walk back. And there is nowhere on the cut that this is not in accordance with the guidelines.

 

So we do the equivalent of a day's cruising (excluding stops for water and rubbish, which are lengthy, another reason we don't often do long days), every 6-8 weeks. Or 15 days a year with visitors.

 

We bought our boat from Pelsall and we're moving slowly down to Keynsham, to spend next summer with my sister and her kids, and my mum. Then to London to see the in-laws and round the Fens for my brother and his two kidlets in Cambridge. Then maybe as close to Kendal as we can get to see my dad easily.

 

So that's ... <counts on fingers> ... a five to six year plan at the pace we move.

 

See what I mean about us just not speaking the same language? 'Continuous' is not meant literally.

 

My clients could be anywhere, but mainly the very expensive SE,and mostly via the internet, and he keeps my life chaos in order so we figured we didn't really need to live anywhere. Hence, permanent holiday and no mooring needed. We're lucky, I know.

[NB Alnwick]

It's not just boats and boaters.

 

For financial and family reasons I have had to move ashore and live in a house.

 

I hate it, can't get used to the different ways, of house enthusiasts, and don't appreciate the heritage and culture, surrounding the bricks and mortar way of life.

 

As a result I am vilified by my fellow house dwellers. They walk past my home sneering at me because they don't think that I appreciate how privileged I am, to be a part of such a vibrant and historic community.

 

Before I retired, and long before we bought our boat, I was an enthusiastic house dweller. There was considerable pressure on me to keep moving (my record was four times in twelve months) as I earned promotion or otherwise got moved to a different area by my employers. I guess that was the nearest house dwelling equivalent to continuous cruising!

 

However in reality, there is no real comparison and the canals were not built or intended for residential use. In the 19th Century the canals performed a function that might be compared to the motorways of today and boats were the equivalent of modern-day 'Juggernauts' - I do not think there are many people prepared to live on motorways!

 

It was the arrival of railways, providing viable competition, that forced boatmen (and their families) to live aboard in intolerably cramped conditions - in effect, this was an early example of cutting costs at the expense of employee comfort. In these days, it is easy to take a romantic view of the living conditions of the working boatmen, and I am sure they made the best of what they had, but there can be no denying that the conditions were far from ideal - especially for those trying to keep a family.

 

Although there are a few canal traders who maintain the traditions of the working boatmen of old, the vast majority of boats on the canals these days are used only for leisure purposes by those who can afford, what is now, a very expensive hobby. I am sure it will get very much more expensive during the next few years and I foresee a time, very soon, when it will be cheaper and more convenient to buy and maintain a house on the land than attempt to maintain a comfortable standard, living on a narrow boat, all the year round. So, in my view, living on a narrow boat is not viable solely as an inexpensive alternative to conventional housing. Having said that, for those with the financial resources and enthusiasm for a water-born lifestyle, living aboard and abiding by BWs bye-laws, regulations and guidelines is perfectly viable.

[Graham Davis]

By ymu;

""A day's cruising is nine hours (on average, over the year). We rarely move more than 2-5 miles, because we keep a car with us and it saves a lot of cash if I can walk back. And there is nowhere on the cut that this is not in accordance with the guidelines.

 

So we do the equivalent of a day's cruising (excluding stops for water and rubbish, which are lengthy, another reason we don't often do long days), every 6-8 weeks. Or 15 days a year with visitors.""

 

So if I understand this correctly, if you do say 5 miles a day then even at 3mph you actually only navigate for, at most 2 hours?

 

Who says a days cruising is 9 hours? When we have been out our day is more like 6 hours. I doubt even many hire boaters do 9 hours every day!

 

You seem to be implying that just because you do "short days" that are less than this so called average then you can moor with impunity.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Graham Davis

[ymu]

Well, if you want me to count in days that are defined as "any day the boat moved under power" then we cruise about 35 days a year.

 

But that's not what I meant when I said 15 days worth of AC Planner default cruising for a holiday-maker, which was the comparison.

[cotswoldsman]

ymu,

I'm confused.

You state that you move regularly and within all the time limits, but then state you have only navigated for 15 days in the last year. Those two facts don't add up. Can you please explain?

You state you have been moving around the system but have failed to find diesel outlets or village stores to support. Exactly where have you been that has been so remote?

You implied else where that all boat owners were elitist Daily Mail readers. Don't you own a boat?

 

I must say that part confuses me as I thought ymu was on The Oxford, but that can not be the case as I know Dusty and Ghosty serviced the Oxford right through the winter.

[Sir Nibble]

Leaving aside ymu's odd idea that migrant workers living in garages are sufficiently resourced to set themselves up with boat, insurance, licence etc, (perhaps hire fleets will set themseves up as housing associations instead) I thought I would give everyone a shock.

Liveaboards on CC licences on the western K&A are not a problem.

There, how's that for an about face.

The long, long rows of weekend boats on CC licences treating the towpath as if it were a paid for mooring are a pain, but not the liveaboards. Now that's completely contrary to what I have always said isn't it. So what happened? The mooring consultation, that's what happened. There were stretches of 48hr moorings that had been completely pre empted for residential use, there were boat names painted on pilings to reserve moorings whilst the resident was off fetching fuel and water, all in all only thames water took more piss. Then BW turned the spotlight on with their moorings consultation and a low profile was the order of the day and I have been able to use moorings that used to be effectively non existant for anyone bar the selfish few. Everthing Chris Pink has said about the unobtrusive use of the waterways is true, but it wasn't, only since the pressure has been on. So how do you think I feel about relaxing that pressure?

[Tam & Di]

Well, if you want me to count in days that are defined as "any day the boat moved under power" then we cruise about 35 days a year.

 

But that's not what I meant when I said 15 days worth of AC Planner default cruising for a holiday-maker, which was the comparison.

 

I don't want to be drawn into the rights and wrongs of it, but I couldn't understand your maths either. I've no idea what AC planner default cruising means, but with your further explanation I think you are saying you cruise 2-3 hours every fortnight, with sometimes an extra "day" or two over a weekend which pushes the total "movement days" up from 26 to 35. Is that right?

Edited May 22, 2011 by Tam & Di

[Graham Davis]

Well, if you want me to count in days that are defined as "any day the boat moved under power" then we cruise about 35 days a year.

 

But that's not what I meant when I said 15 days worth of AC Planner default cruising for a holiday-maker, which was the comparison.

 

So basically you've taken a non-specific, non-regulated outside website's timings to fit into your interpretation of the BW Regulations.

I think I will treat the rest of your comments and views with that thought in mind!!

[Dominic M]

No, it is not.

 

There's just no way it is sensible to argue that someone turning up back where there started a year or two after they left is taking the piss. It's not causing anyone any problems. And we keep the canalside traders going for when the holidaymakers need them. It really isn't in anyone's interest to stop people living on their boats. It's a non-problem that doesn't need time and energy wasted solving it.

You could of course support some of those canal side traders by renting a mooring from them.

[carlt]

So how do you think I feel about relaxing that pressure?

So I was right, when I said that BW need to enforce properly to keep the visitor/utility moorings fre?

 

Bridge hoppers aren't really a problem, if they moor away from facilities and tourist traps.

 

Though I don't share the opinion that we need some neo-spiritual affinity, with the waterways, in order to live on a boat, I don't see the harm in doing a bit of boating, from time to time, even if it is just to fill up with water, dump the poo or go shopping.

[Albert Smith]

Should the waterways provide for housing overspill?

 

Why not?

 

Not everyone is in a position to live where they wish, it's a case of what's available at the time and at a price an individual can afford.

 

Whilst it is easy to condemn those living in squalor, albeit a boat, a squat, a bus or even a tent. Anyone of us could find ourselves in such a position, illness, loss of a job, loss of a pension, the list goes on.

 

Absolutely nobody is immune from these events, and to condemn those that live afloat in such a position is not acceptable.

 

Albert.

[Lady Muck]

Nice one Albert - well said.

[romarni123]

Albert are you saying people on boats live in squalor if you add up the running costs of a boat even living a very basic life its not cheap with the cost of the boat, licence fuel coal maybe a mooring insurance, yearly it works out an expensive way to live now.I do agree with you though if people want to live on boats i dont see why they shouldnt if thats what they want to do.

Edited May 22, 2011 by romarni123

[tillergirl]

At one time I would have said that we can't afford both - a house and a boat - we still can't. The only difference is now we are on our own with 10 years left on the mortgage, both taken a drop in salaries we can't really afford the house now. All the money we have is tied up in the house which 2 weeks ago was probably worth about 110K. Two days ago it was announced that theres 1200 jobs going at the steel works here (mostly contractors I believe but nevertheless potoential house buyers), so now whats our house worth probably 100K? or less.

Ever since our first holiday in 2001 we've wanted our own boat, but kids and their education and other family commitments stopped us fullfilling our dream. And now with the ecomonic climate I see our dream slipping futher and further away. We're not all priviliged enough to be able to afford house, car (s) and boat. Nevertheless we are more determined than ever. (You don't need to get the violins out)

 

But with regards to the original question; No I don't think the waterways should provide for housing overspill but what I do beileve is that everyone should have the CHOICE of how and where they want to live providing they live within the law. And no one not even an elected government has the right to take away that choice.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lady Muck]

I think it's as cheap as you want it to be TBH, piece of string argument. It's cheaper for me, but then my situation isn't the same as everyone elses, no ones is. It tends to be cheaper in areas where property rentals are a rip-off.

[Nightwatch]

A number of posts have referred to the cost of living on a boat being as much or near to the cost of living ashore, I have to say that if you don't pay your way as should be expected, ie. license, BSC, a home mooring or(genuine) CC ing) all the above contribute to the upkeep of the waterways, + insurance and perhaps other costs, living on a boat is a bit cheaper.

 

I can't accept that the waterways are, can be, an alternative to shore side social housing. Perhaps...the only way this 'could' happen is with the DSS (if that is what they are still known as) paying all the above costs for their clients. If this became the situation then I may qualify for 'social' housing.

 

Second thoughts, bring it on. Where do I apply.

 

 

Martyn

[ymu]

I must say that part confuses me as I thought ymu was on The Oxford, but that can not be the case as I know Dusty and Ghosty serviced the Oxford right through the winter.

I'm a CCer. Why would you assume I was still on the Oxford?

 

BCN and Grand Union since last June, when we bought our own boat from Pelsall. Will get onto the Oxford once we've had the engine overhauled at Napton.

[romarni123]

I think it's as cheap as you want it to be TBH, piece of string argument. It's cheaper for me, but then my situation isn't the same as everyone else's, no ones is. It tends to be cheaper in areas where property rentals are a rip-off.

Were I live its working out cheaper to live in flat, .The average council rent by me is about £60 a week the private rental is about £90 my moorings cost £47 per week, so if i did not have to pay for coal licence etc it would work out cheaper on land.but the view is not as nice.I would imagine in london it would be very different.

[Albert Smith]

Albert are you saying people on boats live in squalor if you add up the running costs of a boat even living a very basic life its not cheap with the cost of the boat, licence fuel coal maybe a mooring insurance, yearly it works out an expensive way to live now.I do agree with you though if people want to live on boats i dont see why they shouldnt if thats what they want to do.

 

I'm not saying all people that live on boats live in squalor, no more than saying that all people living in houses live in squalor. Poverty can strike at any time irrespective if you live afloat or in a house.

 

Albert.

[ymu]

So despite your assertion that it is mostly only live-aboards that keep all these canal-side or on canal businesses going, what you have actually been supporting, (well for the last half year at least), is mostly businesses more like Tesco & Hertz ??

 

Holiday-boaters don't need us to keep shops selling food. They do need us to keep more boating facilities available (diesel, fuel, rubbish, elsan, water) than they would be if two-thirds of the demand for them collapsed.

 

You have to be really, really needing to pick a fight to say something that incredibly stupid in order to do so. Calm down, it's doing you no favours.

Edited May 22, 2011 by ymu

[romarni123]

I'm not saying all people that live on boats live in squalor, no more than saying that all people living in houses live in squalor. Poverty can strike at any time irrespective if you live afloat or in a house.

 

Albert.

I think most people are only a few wage packets from poverty as such, my age group have had it the best, i feel sorry for the younger people who will be ripped off by any government that now comes to power and with less of a safety net to help them.

[ymu]

You could of course support some of those canal side traders by renting a mooring from them.

I'm not going to buy something I neither need or want, am I? We don't need a fixed address, so we're not going to pay to restrict our cruising to one small area.

 

So basically you've taken a non-specific, non-regulated outside website's timings to fit into your interpretation of the BW Regulations.

I think I will treat the rest of your comments and views with that thought in mind!!

When the comparison is strain put on infrastructure compared to a holiday-maker, then yeah, you need to do it in comparablemeasurements. How else can you do it? Setting off and mooring up are not significant water-users - miles travelled, as a proxy mainly for lock passages, are.

 

What the hell is wrong with you people? Is the point being made so scary that you need to pick irrelevant holes in it rather than continue a sensible discussion? I refuse to believe that any of you are too thick to grasp what is being said.

 

[Graham Davis]

edit

Edited May 22, 2011 by Graham Davis

[ymu]

A number of posts have referred to the cost of living on a boat being as much or near to the cost of living ashore, I have to say that if you don't pay your way as should be expected, ie. license, BSC, a home mooring or(genuine) CC ing) all the above contribute to the upkeep of the waterways, + insurance and perhaps other costs, living on a boat is a bit cheaper.

 

I can't accept that the waterways are, can be, an alternative to shore side social housing. Perhaps...the only way this 'could' happen is with the DSS (if that is what they are still known as) paying all the above costs for their clients. If this became the situation then I may qualify for 'social' housing.

 

Second thoughts, bring it on. Where do I apply.

 

Martyn

 

You only need to 'pay your way' with a mooring if you need a mooring. If you don't, there is no need for you to pay extra for the exclusive use of it.

 

There's no way it is more expensive than living on land. The cheapest flat we could find within cycling distance of Oxford was £900/month bills included (including phone and internet). Even if we had a mortgage on a £30k boat, we'd be struggling to spend anything like that. It works out as about £500/month including maintenance and contingencies.

 

A little pricer than a two bed terrace in Brum (given that we bought it before prices went insane) and a lot cheaper than a one-bed flat in Oxford.

 

Of course, if you insist on wasting money on a shiny boat, your costs will be different.

 

 

You can claim housing benefit on boats. Housing benefit exists so that rich people can ghettoise themselves in rich areas and not pay all the costs of it. If they had to pay their employees and service workers enough to live where they worked, they wouldn't be any richer than anyone else. And London wouldn't exist in its current form.

Edited May 22, 2011 by ymu

[Graham Davis]

Holiday-boaters don't need us to keep shops selling food. They do need us to keep more boating facilities available (diesel, fuel, rubbish, elsan, water) than they would be if two-thirds of the demand for them collapsed.

 

You have to be really, really needing to pick a fight to say something that incredibly stupid in order to do so. Calm down, it's doing you no favours.

 

Many holiday boaters are hirers, so generally diesel supply and pump-out is done by the boat yard, and in the area you are currently "cruising" I haven't noticed BW closing rubbish points or water points. From observation and comments here a lot of owners who moor in marinas seem to use the in-house facilities.

 

And as for shopping, you have said in the past that you found shopping so difficult you had to use the likes of Tesco's, so how are you supporting waterside/village traders?

 

When the comparison is strain put on infrastructure compared to a holiday-maker, then yeah, you need to do it in comparablemeasurements. How else can you do it? Setting off and mooring up are not significant water-users - miles travelled, as a proxy mainly for lock passages, are.

 

Why is the comparison a strain on the infrastructure? The BW Regulations are quite clear about mooring time limits. They don't use a average, which by it's very nature is meaningless. They use the recognised time measurement of something everybody understands; DAYS and HOURS. It is only you who wants to complicate this, for your own purpose, by including averages.

 

What the hell is wrong with you people? Is the point being made so scary that you need to pick irrelevant holes in it rather than continue a sensible discussion? I refuse to believe that any of you are too thick to grasp what is being said.

 

 

I thought we were being sensible by pointing out, politely, some of the holes and inaccuracies in your arguement. It is you that has now included personal invectitudes.