Moorings at 3 locks

[Tonka]

Cotswaldman, who are you to have grave concerns. Obviously not just a boater but someoe else as well. Yet you have not declared it. At least Alan is open about his dual role

[Tuscan]

If that is in reply to my post I am not doubting anyone's integrity but the fact that these decisions are made behind closed doors or it now appears in pubs and boaters are excluded from being part of the process

No it was a wider comment.

[cotswoldsman]

Cotswaldman, who are you to have grave concerns. Obviously not just a boater but someoe else as well. Yet you have not declared it. At least Alan is open about his dual role

Just a boater with concerns on certain issues one being the number of 48 hour moorings that seem to be appearing

[bigcol]

Surely If CRT can, text,email customers news letters etc,

Why don't they set up a poll, ballot, in relation to maters that they would like a more customer feedback and a fair informed answer. Or has this been tried already?

 

I imagine it's a thankless task for the few to lobby on behalf of the many.

But of course if it's kept within CRT about many decisions, purposely bull dosing them ahead, no ones going to know anything till it's too late.Its left to Alan' and Steves to fight against bad proposals for the canal users all over the system.

We're a nation of moaners, and good at it when a law is brought in that affects us.

But most of us on boats don't want to get bogged down with the politics of it all.

surely CRT could Chanel more trials surveys,through emailing customers, along side their recent proposal to inform customers direct when they owe money, licence expiring or over stayers.

 

Or is it really that CRT are our lord and masters who blunder along and rule with enforcement and a big lump hamer.

 

And how come CRT, landlords and hire companies are able to meet and make such big decision, thin edge and all that about something that we all inherited now taking away these privileges

that waterway users always had in the first place.!!!!

 

If decisions keep being made like this, whatever they are, that may appear small, then indeed boating will certainly be a lot different in the future.

 

Pity, instead of employing welfare workers, at x amount, they don't carry out what all of us want them to do

Maintain the waterway, locks and paths! instead of seeking to raise more money from its customers,

try getting some value for money, stop wasting money and awarding million pound contracts to private companies that pay out huge dividends and have to make massive profits.

 

 

 

 

Col. Edited keep finding spelling mistakes apologies

Edited September 7, 2014 by bigcol

[phill]

This current move to more and more restrictions started as a reaction to the boaters incessant moaning about those who 'got something for nothing' - really meaning 'scruffy liveaboards'. That this has now become a bureaucratic monster is a fairly predictable outcome.

 

Ironic, no, that the people most affected are boaters with marina and online moorings who use their boats for leisure? Is it really surprising that vested interest should have jumped on the bandwagon.

 

(Completely OT; are Paul Griffin and James Griffin related?)

[LEO]

Hi,

 

Waiting and food preparation times are soooooooo long at the Globe that 48 hr moorings could be to the pub's detriment........

 

This fashion for short mooring periods out side pubs could spread - Barley Mow, Cosgrove next?.

 

The Grove Lock PH. had some odd 'home made' notices on the towpath section above the lock recently, mooring changes?.

 

L.

[bigcol]

Hi,

 

Waiting and food preparation times are soooooooo long at the Globe that 48 hr moorings could be to the pub's detriment........

 

L.

Lol Leo !

 

 

Only been there once and Why is it your inside, search for table and number, find menu, go to bar order meals and drinks, stick the card in machine to pay, and it asks to enter a gratuity tip amount.

 

We haven't even taken the drinks to the table or tasted the drinks yet!!! Let alone the meal order haven't even got to the blooming kitchen.

Just remembered had to hunt down the cuttery, salt and pepper as well

I thought-gratuity was for good service

 

Or am I getting old and miserable ?

Edited September 7, 2014 by bigcol

[alan_fincher]

Not sure where to start now!! Maybe best place would be at the beginning. Back in 2012 a number of us voiced grave concerns about the power being given to the Waterways Partnerships unfortunately as it was the early days of the WP this fell mainly on deaf ears. In 2013 it became apparent that the South East Waterways Partnership was not fit for purpose it was a Partnership that was spending to much time looking at boating issues that were not in the original remit of the Partnerships. This became very clear during and after the SE Visitor Mooring Consultation the Partnership lacked boaters input. We then campaigned to get more boaters on the Partnership as it became apparent that it was dominated by 2 people John Best and Jeff Whyatt I personally (as did others) exchanged many heated emails with Best and Whyatt. Their solution was to set up a boaters sub group by doing this they missed completly the main points . First one being the Partnership needed more boaters and the second being it was not in their remit to be so active in boating issues, but by having a boaters sub group it actually increased their power to get involved in boating issues. I and others warned at the time that the sub group would be used as a rubber stamping group, I am tempted to say "I told you so" and I just have!!

 

I'm not convinced it is fair to lay the whole blame for what is now going on at the door of the Partnerships.

 

What became the South East Visitor Moorings project was borne out of particularly Jeff Whyatt's obsession that this was one of the most major problems on his patch, and minutes of local user group meetings, trade group meetings, and the general materials that eventually emerged as part of FOI requests establish very clearly that this was top of his agenda long long before there was either CRT or Partnerships.

 

I would agree there is ambiguity now both about the role of the Partnership itself, the Boater's Sub-Group, and, indeed, bodies like the Navigation Advisory Group (NAG). I have repeatedly tried to raise questions that clarify the position of such bodies in decisions that affect boaters, including with Roger Hanbury, (CRT Head of Governance Services). Before her departure Sally Ash was having various attempts at writing terms of reference. When I asked Richard Parry recently what had happened now on this point, he indicated that with Sally's departure, he did not necessarily expect such definitions to appear in the short term, and that we would have to expect things to remain at times ambiguous as things move forward. I do not find that a particularly satisfactory answer.

 

In my mind, what should happen in terms of visitor mooring policies and rules, is that initially a national group like NAG should advise on giving a framework. This might include:-

What actually constitutes a VM, and where do we need them versus just a bit of maintained moorable towpath.

What standards should a VM to comply to, (depth, rings, bollards, quality of bank, accessibility).

How do you fairly determine stay times .

Are non return rules acceptable / enforcible ,

Are overstaying charges acceptable /enforcible.

Monitoring / enforcement generally.

Etc, etc.

 

Only when you have some kind of national framework to work against, do I think it is ideal to then involve local groups in working out how it maps on to their situation. I think we could all agree that, for example, what might be deemed necessary on the more congested bits of the Grand Union or Oxford would be total overkill on the Rochdale or the Wryley and Essington, so in my mind it makes sense that a national policy is applied in a way that reflects actual use of the canals involved.

 

However, even if anyone agrees with me that such an approach is sensible, we simply do not currently have this clarity, and things remain muddled. I don't find this acceptable, but we can only actually try and influence through whatever ways CRT are actually prepared to listen to us. The fact that CRT don't yet have the right governance structures or frameworks in place, (or on occasions seem happy to completely ignore those they think they do have), doesn't in my view justify boycotting those avenues of communication that do exists, (however flawed). Boycotts just make "rubber stamping" exercises more likely to happen, not less, in my view.

 

The problem is that whilst we either criticise how things currently are, or speculate what might be a better way of handling them, they just forge ahead and do something that many of us consider should not have happened - and I'm not just talking about the South East - the Atherstone fiasco is actually probably far dafter than Three Locks, and we are talking about a different region, and a different Partnership, (which doesn't have a separate Boating Sub-Group).

 

So does anybody have any ideas as to how we stop this, because despite all the different way we are trying to influence CRT at the moment we are not always succeeding. (Although I don't think we should beat ourselves up too much, as sometimes we do actually score some successes....)

[phill]

I could walk you the so-called 'problem' area of the Kennet and Avon, Bradford-on-Avon to Bath and show you eight areas that are restricted or no mooring at the behest of residents, a local councillor or pubs and 2 miles of long term mooring with swingeing penalties if anyone moors there and roughly 10% occupancy - that's all in 9.5 miles of apparently 'congested' canal with 100+ hire boats.

 

Then there's the major visitor mooring in Bath that has been declared no mooring because liveaboards dared to moor there in the winter when no-one else wanted to. Resulting in CRT restricting the only remaining 14 day mooring in Bath to 48 hours.

 

Complete and utter inconsistent chaos.

 

That it's now spreading to the GU makes it a problem for the more vociferous and political but on the western K and A it's been day to day for years.

[cotswoldsman]

I'm not convinced it is fair to lay the whole blame for what is now going on at the door of the Partnerships.

 

What became the South East Visitor Moorings project was borne out of particularly Jeff Whyatt's obsession that this was one of the most major problems on his patch, and minutes of local user group meetings, trade group meetings, and the general materials that eventually emerged as part of FOI requests establish very clearly that this was top of his agenda long long before there was either CRT or Partnerships.

 

I would agree there is ambiguity now both about the role of the Partnership itself, the Boater's Sub-Group, and, indeed, bodies like the Navigation Advisory Group (NAG). I have repeatedly tried to raise questions that clarify the position of such bodies in decisions that affect boaters, including with Roger Hanbury, (CRT Head of Governance Services). Before her departure Sally Ash was having various attempts at writing terms of reference. When I asked Richard Parry recently what had happened now on this point, he indicated that with Sally's departure, he did not necessarily expect such definitions to appear in the short term, and that we would have to expect things to remain at times ambiguous as things move forward. I do not find that a particularly satisfactory answer.

 

In my mind, what should happen in terms of visitor mooring policies and rules, is that initially a national group like NAG should advise on giving a framework. This might include:-

What actually constitutes a VM, and where do we need them versus just a bit of maintained moorable towpath.

What standards should a VM to comply to, (depth, rings, bollards, quality of bank, accessibility).

How do you fairly determine stay times .

Are non return rules acceptable / enforcible ,

Are overstaying charges acceptable /enforcible.

Monitoring / enforcement generally.

Etc, etc.

 

Only when you have some kind of national framework to work against, do I think it is ideal to then involve local groups in working out how it maps on to their situation. I think we could all agree that, for example, what might be deemed necessary on the more congested bits of the Grand Union or Oxford would be total overkill on the Rochdale or the Wryley and Essington, so in my mind it makes sense that a national policy is applied in a way that reflects actual use of the canals involved.

 

However, even if anyone agrees with me that such an approach is sensible, we simply do not currently have this clarity, and things remain muddled. I don't find this acceptable, but we can only actually try and influence through whatever ways CRT are actually prepared to listen to us. The fact that CRT don't yet have the right governance structures or frameworks in place, (or on occasions seem happy to completely ignore those they think they do have), doesn't in my view justify boycotting those avenues of communication that do exists, (however flawed). Boycotts just make "rubber stamping" exercises more likely to happen, not less, in my view.

 

The problem is that whilst we either criticise how things currently are, or speculate what might be a better way of handling them, they just forge ahead and do something that many of us consider should not have happened - and I'm not just talking about the South East - the Atherstone fiasco is actually probably far dafter than Three Locks, and we are talking about a different region, and a different Partnership, (which doesn't have a separate Boating Sub-Group).

 

So does anybody have any ideas as to how we stop this, because despite all the different way we are trying to influence CRT at the moment we are not always succeeding. (Although I don't think we should beat ourselves up too much, as sometimes we do actually score some successes....)

Alan you raise some good points and I am not laying all the blame on the Partnerships they are simply part of a system that is not fit for purpose. My experience tells me that any organisation run by a commitee is doomed to failure, what we have within CRT now is approximately 20 different committees so 20 times doomed to failure and results in no one keeping their eye on the ball. Richard Parry has a hard job trying to keep all these groups happy that have now been joined by Landlords. Another problem is people within CRT with their own agenda and apparently having the power to do so.

Like you I have no solution and I fear for the future, every week seems to bring another change that seems to have no justification

Unlike you I struggle to think of any successes but I am sure you will correct me

[MoominPapa]

Iconoclasm alert. I like short-term visitor moorings. The purpose of visitor moorings is to allow boaters to plan in advance to stop at a particular place (rather than, say, somewhere in the next five miles) They should therefore be sized and time-limited such that they are never (or almost never) full. Given that VMs are not generally easily made bigger, that usually involves tweaking the time limits to ensure that there's nearly always some space, and visiting boaters can work on that assumption.

 

Why do you need 14-day moorings outside a pub anyway? If you're going to be staying a week, why not find a nice mooring half a mile down the towpath and walk to the pub. You've got plenty of time.

 

MP.

[bigcol]

Boats coming past, lovely day,

but still were the only boat here !

I'm going to over stay,have Sunday lunch, as had a word yesterday with the landlord Matt

 

All the best

 

Col

[alan_fincher]

Unlike you I struggle to think of any successes but I am sure you will correct me

 

I think we have probably laid any changes of mooring restrictions in Berkhamsted to bed for the foreseeable future.

 

Jeff Whyatt initially told us that of the 1 mile of so of good mooring in the town, 0.8 miles all needed to be made 2 day, and the remaining 0.2 miles actually no mooring. They now appear to be happy that it will all remain 14 days, apart from possibly a small length of "stop and shop" mooring as at Leighton Buzzard, which I can actually see as being worth doing, particularly if proper bollards got installed on a length that is currently only moorable on stakes, and where the bank is mushy.

 

I also hope that nothing very dramatic will now happen at either Marsworth or Batchworth, although I'm not convinced they have been "put to bed" as thoroughly as Berkhamsted, so would not seek to be complacent. We need to be vigilant, (but if someone just strikes a deal with a local landlord, then presents it as a "done deal" I can't see how we can win!)

 

You may well think that the Partnership was not the way to settle it, but two of us were asked to get involved in the new pontoons that have recently gone in at the newly redeveloped Aylesbury basin. The design and layout of pontoons originally presented to us was completely unworkable, and we convinced them to go for a much simplified layout that actually made them practical. I am fairly convinced had we, (or someone like us) not been involved, large amounts of money would have been spent on a useless facility.

 

Sadly I am alone in my objecting to eventually introducing a charge for the use of these pontoons, although that is not imminent, I think. I would urge anybody who thinks it should not happen to write to John Best and Neil Owen to say so. That's one we could equally well win or lose, I feel.

 

Two of us have also been asked to attend a meeting in Jericho specifically to ensure that plans for the redevelopments there do not adversely affect boaters. We were able to point out things like why a combination of winding hole with the position of a proposed moveable bridge would make a very unusable arrangement. I can't guarantee we succeeded, because planning is still ongoing, but at least they are asking boaters, not just allowing construction of impossible arrangements.

 

Maybe not within the stated remit of a Partnership, but anything that allows us to give input to avoid stupid money wasting decisions can only be a good result, in my view, however it is achieved.

[phill]

Iconoclasm alert. I like short-term visitor moorings. The purpose of visitor moorings is to allow boaters to plan in advance to stop at a particular place (rather than, say, somewhere in the next five miles) They should therefore be sized and time-limited such that they are never (or almost never) full. Given that VMs are not generally easily made bigger, that usually involves tweaking the time limits to ensure that there's nearly always some space, and visiting boaters can work on that assumption.

 

Why do you need 14-day moorings outside a pub anyway? If you're going to be staying a week, why not find a nice mooring half a mile down the towpath and walk to the pub. You've got plenty of time.

 

MP.

 

I like visitor moorings too.

 

I don't like them where there's no call for them.

I don't like them where their main reason is to make live difficult for liveaboards.

 

But I agree completely, at waypoints where a quick (1 to 2 days) stop is likely and that probably includes these two pubs, I think there should be a reasonable expectation of a mooring - except of course at peak times.

[alan_fincher]

Iconoclasm alert. I like short-term visitor moorings. The purpose of visitor moorings is to allow boaters to plan in advance to stop at a particular place (rather than, say, somewhere in the next five miles) They should therefore be sized and time-limited such that they are never (or almost never) full. Given that VMs are not generally easily made bigger, that usually involves tweaking the time limits to ensure that there's nearly always some space, and visiting boaters can work on that assumption.

 

Why do you need 14-day moorings outside a pub anyway? If you're going to be staying a week, why not find a nice mooring half a mile down the towpath and walk to the pub. You've got plenty of time.

 

MP.

To be clear, I don't think any of us, (except probably the National Bargee Travellers Assosciation, and similar), are universally opposing VMs with stay times of under 14 days. I certainly am not, and appreciate that shorter stay times can often be justified.

 

What we are saying is that the introduction of shorter stay times should always be evidence based in future.

 

Also that shorter stay times should not be a draconian alternative to trying to enforce the default 14 day stay times.

 

The location is almost irrelevant to me, whether principally in a town centre, or near a remote pub like "Three Locks". If there is generally enough space to tie up there, then it doesn't need to have shorter stay times imposed.

 

If, on the other hand, a popular location has times when there is not enough space, then CRT need to look at whether existing 14 day rules are being flouted. If they are, and 14 days is not being enforced, then why should we imagine that 2 days will be?

 

What on earth has been achieved by turning very acceptable moorings at Atherstone into 2 days? They were never full, and it was a good place for people "week-ending" boats to leave them. The length involved is far enough from the town that few people will choose to use it to visit the town. Those who want to visit the town will moor closer to it.

 

What has been done at Atherstone is bonkers, and clearly fails the "evidence based" test.

[Tuscan]

Partnerships are here to stay I suspect , there has been a whole raft of initiates ranging from changes to visitor moorings, navigation pilots on the K&A to maps. Lots of attempt at consultation from surveys to Facebook chats. Huge reorganisations internally within CRT whilst the infrastructure continues to creak or break under the strain

 

Meanwhile in my view two types of boaters have emerged ,

 

1.those who have replaced land based accommodation with a boat and wish to continue with a land based lifestyle (work, schools, social life etc) and wish to remain within a fairly confined location and

2. the leisure boater or continuous cruiser who wishes to travel more widely and has more of an interest in the canals generally.

 

CRT have a real challenge in recognising and managing the different needs of these two groups of boaters. All I see at the moment is tinkering.

 

If partnerships have a role , then surely it should be to interface between councils, boat dwellers and CRT in the case of 1 to ensure more service facilities, moorings, movement etc

 

Where partnerships have a role in 2 it's the same interface but linked more to improving facilities for all canal users not just boaters. Perhaps there are good examples of where the SE Partnership has facilitated or arranged funding for something that benefits all canal users can anyone give us an example as we seem to have got hung up on a small sub group .

 

There must be more to the Partnership than operational issues like visitor moorings which were not even mentioned in the big presentation on the SE Partnerships strategic aims.

 

Edited to add that it's key that Partnerships should have good boating representation to ensure that boaters needs are understood

Edited September 7, 2014 by Tuscan

[phill]

Meanwhile in my view two types of boaters have emerged ,

 

1.those who have replaced land based accommodation with a boat and wish to continue with a land based lifestyle (work, schools, social life etc) and wish to remain within a fairly confined location and

2. the leisure boater or continuous cruiser who wishes to travel more widely and has more of an interest in the canals generally.

 

 

Such simplistic labelling from a representative of NABO is extremely disturbing.

 

Why would you think the boaters in your first group would not "have an interest in the canals generally"? In my experience they generally do. Their interests may not have GU livery stamped on them as yours does but then there are leisure boaters who have no interest in the history of canals too.

 

There are also boaters in your second group who have no interests in the canals and just want a holiday home to move to the pub and back on weekends or even just go to the mooring or marina and would be just as happy with a waterside static caravan.

[MoominPapa]

1.those who have replaced land based accommodation with a boat and wish to continue with a land based lifestyle (work, schools, social life etc) and wish to remain within a fairly confined location and

... and these boaters, as a class, are potentially really, really, dangerous for the canals. For the simple reason that the train-wreck that is UK housing policy means there's an almost infinite supply of people who might join their ranks. If CRT doesn't have managing those potential boaters as top priority, it's doing it all wrong. The only way I can see to manage them is to make sure the vast majority of them are on their own moorings, paid for to provide an incentive to create them in the first place.

 

There are two ways to make sure that they take up those moorings. One is by administrative means that make it difficult for them to exist on the towpath. The other is to wait until the towpath is full. See London now for why this second option is the worse of these two evils.

 

 

MP.

[phill]

There are two ways to make sure that they take up those moorings. One is by administrative means that make it difficult for them to exist on the towpath. The other is to wait until the towpath is full. See London now for why this second option is the worse of these two evils.

 

 

MP.

 

Why would you deman that people in London who have moved onto boats for, for example, reasons of community, should be denied access to this publically owned resource just because you don't think they fit your model of proper boat use?

[matty40s]

... and these boaters, as a class, are potentially really, really, dangerous for the canals

 

Now that is taking it almost to Jeff Whyatt/S Ash levels of hysteria.

 

Most of the canals will not even notice, most boaters will not even notice.

A few hotspots ie London may see a problem due to the lack of facilities for such a large population that has sprung up in the last 5 years, however, across the network the effect will be minimal.

The London problem does need clear thinking and solutions, however, these solutions don't/shouldn't apply across the board.

[cotswoldsman]

Now that is taking it almost to Jeff Whyatt/S Ash levels of hysteria.

 

Most of the canals will not even notice, most boaters will not even notice.

A few hotspots ie London may see a problem due to the lack of facilities for such a large population that has sprung up in the last 5 years, however, across the network the effect will be minimal.

The London problem does need clear thinking and solutions, however, these solutions don't/shouldn't apply across the board.

Ah so maybe best I do not say anything to the landlord of the pub here outside Wigan about how new 48 hour moorings are allocated? Anyway Stan doing a good job of keeping his takings up so guess he can stay as long as he wants under new system and I will have to move on, but then we are the only 2 boats here still room for another 20 odd boats before the lock Edited September 7, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[MoominPapa]

Why would you deman that people in London who have moved onto boats for, for example, reasons of community, should be denied access to this publically owned resource just because you don't think they fit your model of proper boat use?

You're confusing a publicly owned resource with a common resource. The army's tanks are publicly owned, but I can't sign up up to go have a drive on "my" tank. The railway network is publicly owned, by there's still a £1000 fine if you trespass on it, and you have to buy a ticket to use a train. the canals are publicly owned, and one of CRTs roles is to control access to them. They are not commons.

 

I'm not demeaning anyone, and I think people to who move onto boats in London for reasons of community are probably mostly Good People, that's why I said "these boaters as a class" It must be obvious that the people already living on boats have the most to lose from uncontrolled expansion of their numbers. (I live on a boat, BTW). Look up "Tragedy of the commons"

 

MP.

[MoominPapa]

Now that is taking it almost to Jeff Whyatt/S Ash levels of hysteria.

 

Most of the canals will not even notice, most boaters will not even notice.

A few hotspots ie London may see a problem due to the lack of facilities for such a large population that has sprung up in the last 5 years, however, across the network the effect will be minimal.

The London problem does need clear thinking and solutions, however, these solutions don't/shouldn't apply across the board.

London, the K&A, the GU from London to Milton Keynes. The important facts here are not how much of the canal network is not currently affected, it's the number of people in their twenties who can't afford more conventional accommodation (millions) and the ease with which they can access a boat as an alternative. That gets easier with every mate or friend-of-friend that's already done it, and every book and blog that's published describing it. There are estate agents selling boats now, doesn't that worry you?

 

 

MP.

[phill]

You're confusing a publicly owned resource with a common resource. The army's tanks are publicly owned, but I can't sign up up to go have a drive on "my" tank. The railway network is publicly owned, by there's still a £1000 fine if you trespass on it, and you have to buy a ticket to use a train. the canals are publicly owned, and one of CRTs roles is to control access to them. They are not commons.

 

I'm not demeaning anyone, and I think people to who move onto boats in London for reasons of community are probably mostly Good People, that's why I said "these boaters as a class" It must be obvious that the people already living on boats have the most to lose from uncontrolled expansion of their numbers. (I live on a boat, BTW). Look up "Tragedy of the commons"

 

MP.

Your tank example is disingenuous and not worthy of comment. The rail network is controlled by primary legislation and not by an unaccountable body trying to discriminate against people according to arbitrary judgements and is open, like the canals, to anyone who pays the fees and obeys the law. You say you liveaboard. There is nothing that stops you doing this in London. You would be the first to moan if someone tried. And what if someone came along to your residence and made judgements on you like you are making about others? Edited September 7, 2014 by phill

[MoominPapa]

Your tank example is disingenuous and not worthy of comment. The rail network is controlled by primary legislation and not by an unaccountable body trying to discriminate against people according to arbitrary judgements and is open, like the canals, to anyone who pays the fees and obeys the law. You say you liveaboard. There is nothing that stops you doing this in London. You would be the first to moan if someone tried. And what if someone came along to your residence and made judgements on you like you are making about others?

Believe me, I'm not making judgments on anybody. I'm happy sharing the canals with everyone there. No one would be happier than me if the situation we've had in past, when there was enough room for anyone who wanted to to be on the canals for any reason, was going to continue. My argument is that those days are gone: I don't like it any more than you do, but it's true and it has to be faced up to. There's an awful lot of people who want their own home and don't have the resources to play in the housing market as it currently exists. If all of those people who could possibly fit in were allowed to take to the canals, it would make very little difference to the housing crisis, but it would change the canals forever, in a bad way, and for everyone who's there now.

 

Yes, the canal should be open to anyone who pays the fees and obeys the law and rules, but the rules might have to change. If you have 1000 boats on a canal system, and they spend 90% of nights in a marina, you need 100 public moorings. While everyone is happy to spend 90% of the time in a marina, you don't need any other rules. If the world changes, and now, on average, boats spend 50% of nights in a marina, you can either increase the number of public moorings to 500 (and put up the license fee to pay for them) or you make a rule that says public moorings are only available for a boat with a standard license for one at total of month a year. Or you do what we're doing now, which is to introduce arbitrary rules (14 days in one place) and hope that they discourage the people who are using lots of nights on public moorings from having a boat, because they can't obey the rules and also hold down a job. Since you can't enforce those arbitrary rules, that doesn't solve the problem, and it pisses a lot of people off whose lives are made difficult by the arbitrary rules.

 

There's no good way to ration this scarce resource, and any way will lead to injustice. But if you want to get angry about injustice, get angry about the housing market and the people who made it the way it is. That's a much bigger injustice. When you've done that, get angry about difference in wealth between the top and bottom of the income distribution. That's a bigger injustice still.

 

 

MP.