Should the waterways provide for housing overspill?

[Dominic M]

Your post is another one sided typical moan from the typical boater. Your views are inconsequential compared to the pressure and demand for an increasing populace to be housed. Welcome to the waterways system of the 21st century run by people who want to hold onto old fashioned aspirations. If no-one had rescued the waterways, they'd have all been filled in and become linear housing estates by now with perhaps even more social problems than before.

 

At least the waterways are serving a purpose even if it is not for freight as many had hoped. Look at the waterways and how they began and how they soon changed to become the homes of hundreds of working boat families. That was a major shift that the original canal builders or sponsors had never envisaged. No-one complained about these working boat families but rather sought to accommodate them in the best ways possible. It was the economic situation that forced this upon the canals. There is a new economic and political climate that is forcing similar changes to all areas of society and no doubt the canals will get similarly affected as well.

But the rescuers, primarily the early IWA, saw the future of the canals as a leisure resource. They never envisaged them as floating housing estates.

 

You say that people will live anywhere. They can't simply do that in this country. They can't set up in the middle of a wood, or a field, or, as Starman says, a Tesco car park. They may try, but the law will move them on. So should the law not control living aboard on the waterways? Whilst it has been a great escape in the past when the numbers were fewer, now the numbers are so great in certain "honeypot" areas that perhaps some form of regulation is required. I offer that as food for thought, not a pitched battle

[sociable_hermit]

Your post is another one sided typical moan from the typical boater. Your views are inconsequential compared to the pressure and demand for an increasing populace to be housed. Welcome to the waterways system of the 21st century run by people who want to hold onto old fashioned aspirations. If no-one had rescued the waterways, they'd have all been filled in and become linear housing estates by now with perhaps even more social problems than before.

 

At least the waterways are serving a purpose even if it is not for freight as many had hoped. Look at the waterways and how they began and how they soon changed to become the homes of hundreds of working boat families. That was a major shift that the original canal builders or sponsors had never envisaged. No-one complained about these working boat families but rather sought to accommodate them in the best ways possible. It was the economic situation that forced this upon the canals. There is a new economic and political climate that is forcing similar changes to all areas of society and no doubt the canals will get similarly affected as well.

The demand is only there because it's currently an attractive proposition. Supply and demand are both relevant, not just demand (if we're talking of one sided conversations). Living aboard is relatively cheap and easy, at a time when choices are slim. So, make it less attractive to those who just want cheap housing (and are therefore much more easily dissuaded), very vocally support the provision of some half-decent cheap housing on dry land, and in the long run encourage the politicians to look at the wider picture in terms of population, employment, decentralisation etc. etc. That's not unreasonable, but it does require commitment in comparison to the lazy "nothing can be done" approach.

 

You say that the waterways quickly adapted to housing boating families, but in many cases that was a known factor from day one. And the people compromised a lot more than the canal companies ever did, I suspect. More pertinently, only those that really loved the lifestyle carried on working on the canals when better opportunities came up. And the industry died because better transport alternatives were found - the railways and then the roads. It's all about which choice is most attractive.

 

For those that love the waterways and genuinely wish to remain, extra options are irrelevant, because they're staying anyway. I have no problem with liveaboards in Marinas, or mooring online, or CCing, provided they act courteously and responsibly and "don't take the piss" (a recurring theme here) at everyone else's expense whilst simultaneously crying persecution. It's only a very small minority who do that - except maybe on the K&A? - and they ruin it for everyone else. Indeed I would really like to see better guidance for Planning Officers as the biggest problem for Marinas wanting to accomodate liveaboards generally seems to be planning permission, rather than anything 'real'.

 

As you say, a lot of canals were very nearly filled in and turned into housing estates. Keep populating them with people who only want a home, and don't care about the waterway, and soon enough they'll all come to the same conclusion. Why not fill it in, and get electricity and mains water and drainage permanently connected, and save yourself a load of hassle with blacking and replating?

 

Your views as a boater could indeed become inconsequential compared to the pressure and demand for an increasing populace to be housed.

[alan_fincher]

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

OK, but I would expect that a lot of people who claim to speak the same language as you might interpret.....

 

We probably cruise a total of 15 days a year

 

to mean that there are only 15 days in a year where you boat.

 

Probably not the case then it seems ?

[ymu]

I'm not criticising this practice, but in many people's view that is piss taking. Certainly in BW's view it is.

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.

 

OK, but I would expect that a lot of people who claim to speak the same language as you might interpret.....

 

 

 

to mean that there are only 15 days in a year where you boat.

 

Probably not the case then it seems ?

If you're talking about pressure put on the system, then hours of movement is the only sensible way to measure it (unless you insist on estimates based on lock passages.

 

You misread me, that's all. And in part it's because a lot of holiday boaters seem to think that CCers are gonna be hit and run types too, when of course, we have lives to live and time to stop and explore. One reason we move so slowly - with occasional bursts of longer distance cruising to get through areas with bad 3G/transport/shopping - is that it takes time to work out where the local shops are, so we'll tend to use the same main shopping centres for 6-8 weeks before we're moving into a new area that needs to be discovered and new services found.

 

It's a great life, but it's very different. And I think that's part of the problem here.

[cotswoldsman]

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.

 

 

If you're talking about pressure put on the system, then hours of movement is the only sensible way to measure it (unless you insist on estimates based on lock passages.

 

You misread me, that's all. And in part it's because a lot of holiday boaters seem to think that CCers are gonna be hit and run types too, when of course, we have lives to live and time to stop and explore. One reason we move so slowly - with occasional bursts of longer distance cruising to get through areas with bad 3G/transport/shopping - is that it takes time to work out where the local shops are, so we'll tend to use the same main shopping centres for 6-8 weeks before we're moving into a new area that needs to be discovered and new services found.

 

It's a great life, but it's very different. And I think that's part of the problem here.

 

I am really confused how does that fit in with

 

 

 

there would be very few canalside businesses. Perhaps 10,000 boaters needing facilities (diesel, rubbish, sewage, water) and supplies (village shops) on a regular basis, and BW facilities such as showers getting good use and therefore value for the money invested in them.

 

 

 

As a CCer who travels more than the limited distance you do, I do not have a car so yes I do support village shops all year and very rarely main shopping centres.

[blackrose]

I have no problem with anyone living on a boat provided they like boats and know what it's all about. By which I mean understanding the lifestyle, making room for people, taking your time, appreciating the environment. It is odd when people move onto boats and then try to change the way the canals work in order to meet their expectations, rather than changing their expectations to match the reality. These folk can be hard work.

 

I agree, but I was always led to believe it was me who was uptight and had a problem rather than them.

[ymu]

I am really confused how does that fit in with

 

 

 

As a CCer who travels more than the limited distance you do, I do not have a car so yes I do support village shops all year and very rarely main shopping centres.

We haven't had a village shop that sold fresh food, or coal-boat or boat-yard in sight, for most of the last 6 months. We'd have spent a fortune on van hire just to get fuel on board, although food shopping was easy by train.

 

We don't tend to moor near honeypot sites, and we only move on every fortnight because we have to earn a living to afford this. We have a different life from you.

[Lady Muck]

But the rescuers, primarily the early IWA, saw the future of the canals as a leisure resource. They never envisaged them as floating housing estates.

 

You say that people will live anywhere. They can't simply do that in this country. They can't set up in the middle of a wood, or a field, or, as Starman says, a Tesco car park. They may try, but the law will move them on. So should the law not control living aboard on the waterways? Whilst it has been a great escape in the past when the numbers were fewer, now the numbers are so great in certain "honeypot" areas that perhaps some form of regulation is required. I offer that as food for thought, not a pitched battle

 

Oh but they already are - you just haven't spotted them. Some friends of ours in their mid forties, after years of renting in the private sector (and having to move every six months to two years when the landlord decides they want to sell) have had enough and have lived, in London, for the past year in a long wheelbase transit. They said you'd be surprised how many others are doing the same, you just wouldn't know it or notice them until you are doing it too.

 

They plan to head to France soon, as one of them is French. They make their money playing covers in pubs, they have been in bands all their adult lives- two nights a week gigs are more than enough to live on. Good luck to them I say.

 

Lots of us in our forties are in the same position. We can't expect the pensions that those of you who retired in the Seventies, eighties and nineties are getting. We paid into pensions and they are next to worthless. We can't afford a property. We don't want to flog ourselves to death working now, because we know there's no pension fund to retire to. So, as ymu says, we've kind of retired now. We may still be working in our sixties and seventies, we may not have a choice, so we'd rather not be tied to 9-5 now, thankyouverymuch.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Lady Muck

[cotswoldsman]

Oh but they already are - you just haven't spotted them. Some friends of ours in their mid forties, after years of renting in the private sector (and having to move every six months to two years when the landlord decides they want to sell) have had enough and have lived, in London, for the past year in a long wheelbase transit. They said you'd be surprised how many others are doing the same, you just wouldn't know it or notice them until you are doing it too.

 

They plan to head to France soon, as one of them is French. They make their money playing covers in pubs, they have been in bands all their adult lives- two nights a week gigs are more than enough to live on. Good luck to them I say.

 

So say I

[ymu]

Oh but they already are - you just haven't spotted them. Some friends of ours in their mid forties, after years of renting in the private sector (and having to move every six months to two years when the landlord decides they want to sell) have had enough and have lived, in London, for the past year in a long wheelbase transit. They said you'd be surprised how many others are doing the same, you just wouldn't know it or notice them until you are doing it too.

 

They plan to head to France soon, as one of them is French. They make their money playing covers in pubs, they have been in bands all their adult lives- two nights a week gigs are more than enough to live on. Good luck to them I say.

 

Lots of us in our forties are in the same position. We can't expect the pensions that those of you who retired in the Seventies, eighties and nineties are getting. We paid into pensions and they are next to worthless. We can't afford a property. We don't want to flog ourselves to death working now, because we know there's no pension fund to retire to. So, as ymu says, we've kind of retired now. We may still be working in our sixties and seventies, we may not have a choice, so we'd rather not be tied to 9-5 now, thankyouverymuch.

 

Yeah. I used a station recently, late night and early morning, and there's a homeless guy they let into the station at night (he looks after them as much as they look after him, according to the lads I was chatting to). They wake him up before management arrive to make sure he doesn't get kicked out.

 

And I put the beds in sheds story on the other thread, but it belongs here. This is going to start happening all over suburbia, with low-paid workers no longer being able to claimj enough housing benefit to live in decent places anywhere near where they work, thanks to the prices affordable by the very well off.

[AlanH]

We haven't had a village shop that sold fresh food, or coal-boat or boat-yard in sight, for most of the last 6 months. We'd have spent a fortune on van hire just to get fuel on board, although food shopping was easy by train.

 

We don't tend to moor near honeypot sites, and we only move on every fortnight because we have to earn a living to afford this. We have a different life from you.

You can't move every fortnight if you only boat for 15 days a year. There is no doubt that this is what you posted.

[ymu]

You can't move every fortnight if you only boat for 15 days a year. There is no doubt that this is what you posted.

And no doubt that you can barely read.

[Lady Muck]

Yeah. I used a station recently, late night and early morning, and there's a homeless guy they let into the station at night (he looks after them as much as they look after him, according to the lads I was chatting to). They wake him up before management arrive to make sure he doesn't get kicked out.

 

This reminds me of a story my gran told me, about a man she knew, who lived in the barge horse stables that used to be next to Cow Lane Bridge (Aire and Calder in Knottingley). He left in the morning before the bargees came so he wouldn't get spotted. But the man who owned the stables knew about him and allowed him to keep a cooking pot, with a stew on the go, on a chain up the chimney so no one would see it either. A quaint story but I hope we're not headed back to similar situations to the 1930's depression.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Lady Muck

[ymu]

I know a Palestinian film-maker who had to get smuggled out in an ambulance to take up a UK film school scholarship. Security let him live at the school for years until he could get back on his feet.

 

I took the homeless guy off for a cigarette and a coffee when the lads were trying to shift him, and when I popped back in to get some more rizla, one of them stopped to chat about him. The guy was a refugee from Croatia 15 years ago, had a passport and NI number, but just wanted £160 to get back home now it's stable. The station guy was appalled - I reckon they'll have sorted out a whipround for him by now.

 

He asked me the kind of question you can't answer: "Why are you so nice?" I just said: "I've been there, or close to it." And he said. "Yeah, that's it, innit." He'd bought tickets for people or paid for their taxis, if someone in need had been stranded. And I bumped into him in the shop because he was buying burns cream for a girl in one of the shops who had burnt her hand on a hot tray. The retailer was too tight to buy them proper protective equipment for their safety.

 

People with nothing have to share it, or they wouldn't survive.

[carlt]

I have no problem with anyone living on a boat provided they like boats and know what it's all about.

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.

[sociable_hermit]

Ah, but do you park your car at the bus stop, and then claim you're being victimised if the bus driver complains?

 

P.S. That was a harrowing tale. I'm glad you still have a boat you can return to, for some normality.

[carlt]

But the rescuers, primarily the early IWA, saw the future of the canals as a leisure resource. They never envisaged them as floating housing estates.

 

Really?

 

Tom Rolt...lived on a boat, John Knill...lived on a boat, Sonia Smith...lived on a boat, John Gould...lived on a boat...and so on.

 

Ah, but do you park your car at the bus stop, and then claim you're being victimised if the bus driver complains?

 

No but a minority of house dwellers do.

 

They don't seem to tar everyone, who lives in a house with no real interest in it, with the same brush, though.

[ymu]

It's certainly true that the impetus to try living on a boat was financial for us. We moved from Brum to the commuter belt and the rents were a massive shock. But we rented initially, because we didn't need to be down there forever, and we just realised it suited us well. We have no frustrations that can't be relieved by offering someone a few day's free holiday whilst we go and relax in their bath and use their unlimited download capacity, and we're all recharged again. Blissful.

[sociable_hermit]

Carlt, I quite agree. It's only those who make life difficult for everyone else, and won't make the effort to adjust at all, that cause all the bother. And they are indeed a small minority, but naturally attract a lot of attention.

[alan_fincher]

We haven't had a village shop that sold fresh food, or coal-boat or boat-yard in sight, for most of the last 6 months. We'd have spent a fortune on van hire just to get fuel on board, although food shopping was easy by train.

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 ??

 

Or is this another case where we are not speaking the same language, and I have misunderstood you again ?

 

On other subjects your arguments seem to be well thought through, but in this thread I'm really struggling to see where you are coming from at at all - even different posts seem to say different things.

 

Taken to a logical conclusion, some of your arguments seem like they could be extended to saying that anybody who never moves their boat should get a discounted licence, because they are neither using lockage water, nor generally adding wear and tear to the canal infrastructure.

 

Really?

 

Tom Rolt...lived on a boat, John Knill...lived on a boat, Sonia Smith...lived on a boat, John Gould...lived on a boat...and so on.

They did tend to move them about an awful lot though, didn't they.

 

I doubt we would have all the waterways now saved for us that we have, if each of the major campaigners involved had had cruising patterns like 'ymu' is describing!

 

Come to think of it, how much cheaper would some of these restoration projects have been if we had simply left all the locks turned into weirs. If nobody moves, we don't need gates, we don't need sluices or paddles...

[carlt]

 

They did tend to move them about an awful lot though, didn't they.

 

Not always, no but that wasn't the point of my response, was it?

[Phoenix_V]

 

 

Tom Rolt...lived on a boat,

 

 

Not only lived on a boat but was the original "continuous moorer"

[Graham Davis]

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?

[NB Alnwick]

A suitably rapturous ditty for such a momentous day...

 

Are we still here or is this just happening in my imagination as the world disintegrates?

[carlt]

Are we still here or is this just happening in my imagination as the world disintegrates?

I'm floating above the clouds, looking down on all the "Christians" who thought the most important requirements, for approval, were to believe in god and go to church.