NBTA Press release: Distance not important in continuous cruising

[Naughty Cal]

Yes, there was a wonderful scheme for social housing that solved most of the country's housing issues at a time of far greater need than now.

 

They were called council houses. Revenue neutral, even turning enough profit for re-investment and upgrades.

 

But then some self-interested greedy bastards decided to sell them for personal and political profit.

Is that why so many of them fell into such disrepair in Sheffield that they had to be pulled down?

[jenlyn]

As for the press release by NBTA yesterday, and having now read through the whole set of notes, I would say the only real headline, is the fact that CRT were not overly keen to make the notes public. Even that is not a huge issue.

At the end of the day, a judge gave an opinion, in the next case, another judge will give an opinion, that will probably differ. In all honesty, it won't make any difference.

The only thing that will make any difference, is tackling the issues that are causing the problem, rather than trying to "manage" them.

[carlt]

Is that why so many of them fell into such disrepair in Sheffield that they had to be pulled down?

 

No they fell into disrepair owing to maintenance funds being diverted elsewhere and questionable construction techniques and materials in the 1960s.

 

Most of the council houses from between the wars and the 40s and 50s are still standing and in good repair, even the pre-fabs which were only supposed to have a life of 10 years.

[Wanted]

If you can't show that living on boats on the canals can have a significant effect on "the UK housing problem" you don't have an argument.

If you don't start with "hotspots", which demonstrate "local over-utilization" of the living space on canals, you don't have an argument.

Wrong way round. Whilst boats may not have an effect on housing, housing certainly has an effect on boating.

 

As a London boater its hard to deny that there isn't an issue, but that issue is in a very localised part of London. I look out of my window and see no boats on the tow path at all. You never struggle for a mooring out west and if people consider LV to be the problem then they have zero understanding of the problem.

 

Londons young people, the ones that can't get mortgages and can see through the near on criminal behaviour of landlords are considering alternatives. Warehouses and boats included. At the same time Jobs and bars and fun and stuff that attracts that demographic starts to appear in the areas where the bright young things live. It was Ladbroke Grove when I was younger, now it's more to the East.

There are a good many boaters who try to help the new livaboards but there is no denying that there are a many who don't have a clue, have never read the rules and don't see boating in the same way as an enthusiast.

 

I don't blame them at all. They are generally products of their environment and it's hard for people to make ends meet. I am fortunate that I happen to be an enthusiast who also needs cheaper London housing!

 

What isn't helpful is this second guessing about the issues in London, it's nowhere near the problem that some should have you believe.

[gaggle]

Is that why so many of them fell into such disrepair in Sheffield that they had to be pulled down?

 

Is that why so many of them fell into such disrepair in Sheffield that they had to be pulled down?

Or bought by people who wanted to join the greedy bastards and hope for a profit .

[Davids]

Wanted, not sure when you were last down here but the only part of the towpath between LV and Ladbroke Grove Sainsburys, and way past it, which does not have a boat moored on it are the parts where a boat cannot be moored, due to the curves of the canal or blocks of concrete preventing access to the towpath. Looking out of my window I can only see small bits of the towpath due to the number of boats, some of which are double moored, on it.. Even the No Mooring area directly oppposite me constantly has boats moored on it. Two of which have now been there for three weeks.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Or bought by people who wanted to join the greedy bastards and hope for a profit .

Or bought by people who just wanted to own their own home.

 

Or do you think all home owners are "greedy bastards" hoping for a profit?

[gaggle]

 

 

Or do you think all home owners are "greedy bastards" hoping for a profit?

 

No not all , just some , them council house dwelling noisy children grown up to be nice ?

Greedy bastards was not my description , it was my way to earn a living , surely you don't think I was alluding to yourself being a greedy bastard wannabee .

[Captain Zim]

 

It seems we agree after all.

 

You believe that the correct solution for meeting the demand for cheap housing in London is to build on subsidized housing on land, rather than using the canals.

 

Do you have any thoughts on who should provide the money to subsidize purchase of land, construction, and rents? How much housing would be needed? The possible time-frame?

No. No idea at all. I can't even say that people on boats would move if given the choice of a cheap house or flat. Once again, that wasn't the point.

 

The point is I was merely trying to explain bassplayers statement. Suggesting that it's my argument and therefore that I should justify it is pointless.

[Gordias]

No. No idea at all. I can't even say that people on boats would move if given the choice of a cheap house or flat. Once again, that wasn't the point.

 

The point is I was merely trying to explain bassplayers statement. Suggesting that it's my argument and therefore that I should justify it is pointless.

 

So you feel you've added nothing to the discussion?

[Gordias]

@Wanted:

 

It seems clear that London's canals are filling up with live-aboards starting at the nicer parts, and they'll presumably continue to radiate outwards until the cost/convenience of living on a boat balances exactly with the cost/convenience of buying or renting something on dry land. If it's following the usual pattern, a "floating shantytown" will form in the nicer parts of London, and the locals will become resentful.

 

To the extent it causes a significant problem it will be self-correcting - IMO there's not much to discuss until the "most annoyed civil authority" starts the correction process.

 

 

In the meantime I think the repeating claims on this site that someone's favoured policy is appropriate for narrow boats because of "the housing problem" derail any useful discussion.

[gaggle]

@Wanted:

 

It seems clear that London's canals are filling up with live-aboards starting at the nicer parts, and they'll presumably continue to radiate outwards until the cost/convenience of living on a boat balances exactly with the cost/convenience of buying or renting something on dry land. If it's following the usual pattern, a "floating shantytown" will form in the nicer parts of London, and the locals will become resentful.

 

To the extent it causes a significant problem it will be self-correcting - IMO there's not much to discuss until the "most annoyed civil authority" starts the correction process.

 

 

In the meantime I think the repeating claims on this site that someone's favoured policy is appropriate for narrow boats because of "the housing problem" derail any useful discussion.

 

So your not certain about much then.

[magnetman]

I don't understand why its all about 'a problem' or 'jealousy' ??

 

surely its what is called an 'opportunity'. People -seem to- want to live on boats in the centre of the capital and there seems a fairly good chance they would pay for this priviledge (how do you spell that) so in my view Canal River Trust would be idiotic not to do all they can to take the money !! They do apparently need it, after all. OK so its not simple but a partnership with local authorities could probably be arranged I would have thought.

 

forget housing, forget "them and us" just think money. CRT need it or things will change for the worse I'm sure.

 

This will not result in a 'playground for the rich' do we think rich people want to muck about in a tin box on a ditch full of carrier bags and dead foxes?

 

What it will result in is an authority running the canal network that is making the most of is assets which in turn leads to a higher probability that that network can survive in the long term.

[AndrewIC]

If it's following the usual pattern, a "floating shantytown" will form in the nicer parts

 

References for "the usual pattern"?

[Gordias]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

I assume you've never driven a car in a large city?

Edited December 9, 2014 by Gordias

[matty40s]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

I assume you've never driven a car in a large city?

watch out for cows and sheep if you do.....

Edited December 9, 2014 by matty40s

[Captain Zim]

 

So you feel you've added nothing to the discussion?

Seeing as it's still running, no...

[RichardN]

Sorry deleted. Don't want to get sucked into the nbta's parallel universe

Edited December 10, 2014 by RichardN

[bassplayer]

I don't understand why its all about 'a problem' or 'jealousy' ??

 

surely its what is called an 'opportunity'. People -seem to- want to live on boats in the centre of the capital and there seems a fairly good chance they would pay for this priviledge (how do you spell that) so in my view Canal River Trust would be idiotic not to do all they can to take the money !! They do apparently need it, after all. OK so its not simple but a partnership with local authorities could probably be arranged I would have thought.

 

forget housing, forget "them and us" just think money. CRT need it or things will change for the worse I'm sure.

 

This will not result in a 'playground for the rich' do we think rich people want to muck about in a tin box on a ditch full of carrier bags and dead foxes?

 

What it will result in is an authority running the canal network that is making the most of is assets which in turn leads to a higher probability that that network can survive in the long term.

My fear is people making false claims based on here say then lobbying CRT to change things which don't need changing. Time and time again I hear things here which don't relate to my experience and apparently others.

 

I also saw this in the Q&A's at the MK meeting with Mr Parry. One of the main 'complaints' is not finding a VM due to live aboards/CC'ers. As I have pointed out before, the vast majority of us don't take the P contrary to the belief of some.

 

Maybe I'm underestimating CRT's ability to view what's really happening but as you say, they seem to be mainly focused on revenue,. Life is not just about money though is it? Most big companies accept some ethical responsibility.

 

Yes, the housing spill over in some areas is a burden but could be releaved a bit if more affordable sociall housing is provided by the government. This could be paid for using a tiny percentage of the profit made in London's ivory towers. After all many of the people we are talking about are living there so they can serve those working in these ivory towers! Maybe akin to how the Quakers set up housing for their staff.

 

Sorry, this turned into a rant...

[peterboat]

Is that why so many of them fell into such disrepair in Sheffield that they had to be pulled down?

You are so Right Rachael the rest of the Manor could do with coming down I visited my Auntie recently she say its not a nice place to live even though half of it has gone.The Arborthorne isnt any better and huge parts around there were just thrown up and are crap housing which unfortunately a lot of council housing is. The real problem is we have to many people on this small island their has to be a balance

 

Peter

[Naughty Cal]

You are so Right Rachael the rest of the Manor could do with coming down I visited my Auntie recently she say its not a nice place to live even though half of it has gone.The Arborthorne isnt any better and huge parts around there were just thrown up and are crap housing which unfortunately a lot of council housing is. The real problem is we have to many people on this small island their has to be a balance

 

Peter

It isn't just the Manor and Arborthorne. Huge areas at the other side of the city in Parson Cross and Foxhill have been flattened to make way for new developments with higher density housing layouts and better build quality.

 

The old council estates really don't make good use of the land avaliable. The housing layouts are too loose and the gardens too big and the build quality of many (ours included) re questionable to say the least.

[peterboat]

It isn't just the Manor and Arborthorne. Huge areas at the other side of the city in Parson Cross and Foxhill have been flattened to make way for new developments with higher density housing layouts and better build quality.

 

The old council estates really don't make good use of the land avaliable. The housing layouts are too loose and the gardens too big and the build quality of many (ours included) re questionable to say the least.

Yes you are right but I do like big gardens what about the old flower estate gone completely now I hope but in its day it was a lovely place but turned to rack and ruin

 

Peter

[bassplayer]

Adding to my last post....Interesting that I saw only one serious post in the long London thread indicating lack of VM's in London (and they left back in April). Many more (who have actually been there!) suggest it's not difficult finding a VM.

 

I'm thinking of going that way early next year to do the K&A again. It will be interesting to see first hand.

[gaggle]

Yes you are right but I do like big gardens what about the old flower estate gone completely now I hope but in its day it was a lovely place but turned to rack and ruin

 

Peter

You could of course start a whole new thread elsewhere to discuss housing stock in certain towns , why do you think C&RT failed to publicise the courts comments ? Why so far off topic ?

[Naughty Cal]

Yes you are right but I do like big gardens what about the old flower estate gone completely now I hope but in its day it was a lovely place but turned to rack and ruin

 

Peter

That's gone and being replaced with a new Keepmoat Homes development.

 

http://www.keepmoat.com/development/amaranthus-sheffield

You could of course start a whole new thread elsewhere to discuss housing stock in certain towns , why do you think C&RT failed to publicise the courts comments ? Why so far off topic ?

The topic had in some part drifted to a lack of affordable housing pushing people into living on boats prior to his posts, to be fair.

You could of course start a whole new thread elsewhere to discuss housing stock in certain towns , why do you think C&RT failed to publicise the courts comments ? Why so far off topic ?

Did they though?

 

I'm fairly sure that snippets from that court case have been posted on here before now.