London 'Houseboats'

[twbm]

I suggest you read the thread again. Your question isn't remotely related.

 

It's not about the mechanics of boat movements or regulations, it's about the way the community works.

 

Ah, the 'community' - a word often used to give pseudo-credibility to a random group of people who allegedly share a common goal, usually one that goes against the established norm to the inconvenience of others. It's all about the mechanics of boat movements - if there's eventually no accessible moorings because your young vibrant 'community' are nose to tail for mile after mile how are people who actually want to cruise supposed to manage?

[phill]

 

Ah, the 'community' - a word often used to give pseudo-credibility to a random group of people who allegedly share a common goal, usually one that goes against the established norm to the inconvenience of others. It's all about the mechanics of boat movements - if there's eventually no accessible moorings because your young vibrant 'community' are nose to tail for mile after mile how are people who actually want to cruise supposed to manage?

Nice sneer geezer, I can see the twisted nostrils.

 

So community is an 'inconvenience to others'. It must be very lonely, your life.

[John V]

 

I wasn't suggesting the over representation of old people on the cut should be solved by removing them but getting more young people on the cut. It's massively white as well, not that this is in and of itself a problem but it's hardly representative of the general population as it stands. I was young when I first started to live aboard, I get less so every year.

Why do you see it as a problem that the makeup of the boating population is different to the general population ?

 

after all it is a free choice to become a boater and I have never seen discrimination against anyone taking it up.

 

So just because the makeup of the community does not fit with your idea of "right" why should it change?

[twbm]

Nice sneer geezer, I can see the twisted nostrils.

 

So community is an 'inconvenience to others'. It must be very lonely, your life.

 

If you should work out a reasoned response to the point I made please do get back to me.

[phill]

It is reasoned. That you have no answer is simply a reflection of the emptiness of your little sneer.

 

Community is not how you describe it fortunately, most of us live in communities, if you don't I understand your bitterness.

[b0atman]

Well said Sabcat as to the non white I cannot remember the programme name but a coloured person said that his parents and elder generations considered that it was a lower lifestyle that the poor fisher folk lived.

I have come across a few young live aboard's who have stayed static in marinas (no licence required)using the boat as a place to live together and a first step onto housing ladder.

[phill]

Why do you see it as a problem that the makeup of the boating population is different to the general population ?

 

after all it is a free choice to become a boater and I have never seen discrimination against anyone taking it up.

 

So just because the makeup of the community does not fit with your idea of "right" why should it change?

Because all communities need young to replace old over time otherwise the average age rises.

 

In truth I see no shortage of the young on the canals. I would say the distribution is about right.

 

Can't say the same for this forum. But then younger boaters are more likely found on Facebook.

[b0atman]

Looking at todays birthday list

youngest 43

average age over 50

[John V]

Because all communities need young to replace old over time otherwise the average age rises.

 

In truth I see no shortage of the young on the canals. I would say the distribution is about right.

 

Can't say the same for this forum. But then younger boaters are more likely found on Facebook.

 

A very fair and I believe accurate post......

I think that it is only a very small proportion of the population to whom this lifestyle truly appeals, warts and all.

Many people look at it from the view point of the holiday trip or through the rose tinted spectacles of "great canal Journeys" from the comfort of their armchair

but as most of us here know, it takes a lot of effort in many ways to be a full time boater.

If the age/ethnic background happens to vary one way or the other, so what.? As long as there is no discrimination that prevents or discourages anyone from taking up this lifestyle then at least we end up with a community of people with (comparatively) common goals with at least one major thing in common

 

 

blimey quick edit...."Great C..... had disappeared from the text....whoops

Edited September 27, 2014 by John V

[phill]

I think the process is naturally sifting, what tends to skew this is firstly if it's a trap because of bad housing policy or secondly if CRT make it too difficult for the sorts of boaters they should, if not encourage, at least not vilify and marginalise.

[John Williamson 1955]

I’m also struggling with the correct interpretation of the final quote – is Mr Ros demanding that houseboating should be the resort only of those who can afford it, and protected from the less financially privileged?

I read it as a plea to take the pressure off moorings by changing attitudes and trying to solve the (In my opinion insoluble without something like a Neutron Bomb to get rid of the people without harming the buildings) London housing problems so that a grotty boat without a home mooring isn't the only way someone on low pay can afford to work and live in London.

 

The way I see it, if you are reasonably well off, it's a great way to live. If you're forced into it because it's all you can't quite afford, then it can be a hellish way to live.

 

So what is the difference between travellers pitching up where they like and boats just mooring where they want long term

Travellers just pitching up and taking over some land are trespassing on someone's private property, and a boat mooring for the permitted period on the canal towpath where there is no prohibition is doing so with the permission of the Landowner, CRT. The Travellers may also be committing the crime of aggravated trespass. Overstaying on a canal mooring is a different matter, of course, and is a matter of contract law between CRT and the boater.

Edited September 27, 2014 by John Williamson 1955

[phill]

Of course there's a way, used to work very well, called the Fair Rent Act and social housing both removed by the representatives of the landowners who have gained billions as a result and directly caused the current crisis where we are now.

I read it as a plea to take the pressure off moorings by changing attitudes and trying to solve the (In my opinion insoluble without something like a Neutron Bomb to get rid of the people without harming the buildings) London housing problems so that a grotty boat without a home mooring isn't the only way someone on low pay can afford to work and live in London.

 

[John V]

Of course there's a way, used to work very well, called the Fair Rent Act and social housing both removed by the representatives of the landowners who have gained billions as a result and directly caused the current crisis where we are now.

 

The fair rent act had its good points but it also did depress the private build to let side of the industry, as the protected tenancy could be inherited there was a reluctance to tie up your capital for possibly 40 or 50 years

[Hawkmoth]

 

Depends on how you view his (and your motivations) for his desire for the public good of affordable housing - if it's to fulfil need or to protect his wonderful alternative lifestyle?

 

Personally I like the fact of the cut becoming a viable housing alternative, gets younger people on here. For far too long pensioners who've sold up, bought a boat come to the cut to die have been massively over represented.

So, are you talking a free for all here?

We're one of the "retired to the canals" mob. Not to die, just to get a few years of the dream we've had for a long time.

Should CRT being building more facilities for the "new boater" who just wants cheap accommodation in the capital.

Another way might be if people took jobs elsewhere and left the capital short of labour.

The real answer in my opinion is for the employers to pay living wages, and more houses to built, but that ain't gonna happen.

Why should the canal community and CRT be expected to cater for the short comings of London.

Bob

[phill]

Depends what you mean 'depress'. True there wasn't rampant growth but that's not necessarily a good thing in land ownership. Look where boom and bust has led. The housing market was sustainable, affordable and sufficient in the 50s, 60s and early 70s.

 

The fair rent act had its good points but it also did depress the private build to let side of the industry, as the protected tenancy could be inherited there was a reluctance to tie up your capital for possibly 40 or 50 years

[John Williamson 1955]

Of course there's a way, used to work very well, called the Fair Rent Act and social housing both removed by the representatives of the landowners who have gained billions as a result and directly caused the current crisis where we are now.

The basic problem in London is and was that too many people want to live within sight and sound of Big Ben. The fair rent act, protected tenancies and council housing all stifled movement and discouraged people from building private rented accommodation. Council housing was the last resort of the desperate in many places.

 

In the 1970s, when I applied for council accommodation in Richmond, I was given a list of B&B accommodation, and told that if I was lucky, I *might* get a council flat sometime after I retired. I was on my 20s at the time. If I wanted privately owned accommodation, I would have had to wait until someone died or accept a damp decaying hovel, as almost all tenancies were protected, and tenants could not be evicted short of them doing something along the lines of demolishing a structural internal wall or dying. Under the current rules, I would have stood a reasonable chance of getting housing benefit to help me pay the rent on a privately owned flat,if my wages had been low enough.

 

The London housing crisis is not new. It was commented on by writers like Dickens in the 19th Century, when three generations of a family often shared a single room, and when I was younger, it was common for my co-workers to be sharing 2 or 3 to a bedroom in a shared house owned by the Company we worked for.

[phill]

 

Why should the canal community and CRT be expected to cater for the short comings of London.

Bob

Because it's part of London, of course it has to adapt with it. You'd be making a big mistake of you thought all or even many London boaters only buy boats because they have to.

[John Williamson 1955]

Depends what you mean 'depress'. True there wasn't rampant growth but that's not necessarily a good thing in land ownership. Look where boom and bust has led. The housing market was sustainable, affordable and sufficient in the 50s, 60s and early 70s.

You obviously weren't living where I was. Dad bought a semi in 1963, and over the next couple of decades the cost of housing rose to the point where a house that had been affordable by someone on the national average income needed 2 people working full time to run it.

 

The London housing problem dates back to the 19th Century, if not earlier.

[John V]

Depends what you mean 'depress'. True there wasn't rampant growth but that's not necessarily a good thing in land ownership. Look where boom and bust has led. The housing market was sustainable, affordable and sufficient in the 50s, 60s and early 70s.

 

 

I can also remember when it was almost impossible to find unfurnished rentable property ( protected) but plenty of furnished (not protected)

[Hawkmoth]

Because it's part of London, of course it has to adapt with it. You'd be making a big mistake of you thought all or even many London boaters only buy boats because they have to.

I have to disagree with you on that. CRT should not be a housing association.

Bob

[phill]

I have to disagree with you on that. CRT should not be a housing association.

Bob

Again, you are completely missing the point. Unless you mean 'people shouldn't live on boats'

[John Williamson 1955]

Because it's part of London, of course it has to adapt with it. You'd be making a big mistake of you thought all or even many London boaters only buy boats because they have to.

I suggest you look at the London Boaters group on Facebook. A lot of the members there are admittedly CC'ing in East London solely because they can't afford a flat. Whilton Marina are currently reported to be selling at least one bottom end boat a week to optimistic youngsters who are heading to London to CC there because they can't afford the rents.

 

In a way, I could be considered as someone who lives on a boat because I can't afford London rents on my wages, though I my case I took a boat on a residential mooring as a much preferred alternative to renting a flat, to the extent that if I hadn't found a mooring, I'd still be living in my house.

[phill]

You obviously weren't living where I was. Dad bought a semi in 1963, and over the next couple of decades the cost of housing rose to the point where a house that had been affordable by someone on the national average income needed 2 people working full time to run it.

 

The London housing problem dates back to the 19th Century, if not earlier.

London is always going to be tricky but I agree not since Victorian times have we seen such housing poverty and for exactly the same reasons. That your father, and mine, was able to buy a good house in the early 60s is proof that it didn't have to be that way.

 

(I did think if I said 70s I was wandering into disfunctional times. )

 

Social housing policies and fair rents worked a factor better than the sordid free for all of now.

Edited September 27, 2014 by phill

[b0atman]

yes people should be able to live on boats but within rules of mooring and consideration for others.

[phill]

Removed

Edited September 27, 2014 by phill