Hackney CMers want to have a "CC Licence" and to remain in one place.

[mayalld]

 

The whole point of setting up community moorings as a social enterprise is to offer affordable moorings substantially below the going rate.

 

I'm sure it is.

 

We actually end up with a somewhat circular argument here, with people pleading that they can't CC because they need to be in one place and can't get a mooring because they are too expensive.

 

There is a logical conclusion to be drawn here, namely that they cannot afford the lifestyle that they desire where they want it. It is harsh, but true.

 

To then argue that they MUST have what they want, and a way MUST be found for them to afford it is nonsensical.

 

How do you decide who can have one of these moorings? Must I adhere to some kind of collective mindset? Perhaps I can get in on the personal recommendation of two others who are already in? Perhaps a cheap mooring is the reward for years of non-compliance, and vocal opposition.

[jenlyn]

Yes.

 

You seem quite happy to believe that they are wrong about other parts of the Acts, so why are you so convinced that they are right on this point.

Given the new "be nice forum", I will answer your post, but only to say I don't wish to get involved in another one of your little ditty's. Edited December 16, 2014 by jenlyn

[John V]

1. Its different if the people who are able to access the mooring have behaved in a certain way in order to gain access to said moorings. CRT online moorings should be available to all, at a market rate set by auction or whatever. They should not be obtainable only by a certain group who have (by choice) taken actions which have put them into an awkward position.

 

 

But if B0atman and I have interpreted what is being proposed correctly these would not be CRT on line moorings but in effect end of garden moorings....are you seriously proposing that these are in some way wrong?

[magnetman]

I don't object to more moorings at all but I have interpreted this story as being about a certain group of people who are potentially going to have exclusive access to a new online canalside mooring development.

 

I'd quite like an 'affordable' mooring but not sure what I have to do to get one - do I have to break some rules or something.

 

I probably got the wrong end of the stick, again

[magnetman]

Just realised the proposal is not for a residential mooring with electric, water, sewerage etc so I think my comments above have been a bit 'off' in the sense I thought the proposal was for a residential mooring site, with funding from CRT for service provision etc, not just an offside bit of land to tie up to.

 

Sorry for being a bore about it

[jenlyn]

I don't object to more moorings at all but I have interpreted this story as being about a certain group of people who are potentially going to have exclusive access to a new online canalside mooring development.

 

I'd quite like an 'affordable' mooring but not sure what I have to do to get one - do I have to break some rules or something.

 

I probably got the wrong end of the stick, again

 

It's quite difficult getting to the stage of doing something like this, and far from cheap. I discovered that with attempting to do it in Uxbridge. It's no different to forming a boat club, and only becomes controversial in my view when called community moorings.

After all, there are plenty of boat clubs with the same set up, one for example in Uxbridge. I don't see anyone complaining about their cheap moorings.

[magnetman]

Think I got it now Jenlyn

I was on some sort of 'online residential mooring' rant earlier and I hadn't quite gathered that this would in fact be entirely funded by the people running it without CRT spending a penny. That would be quite sensible in a way but its the thin end of a wedge a lot of people don't want to see driven into the system so I doubt it'd go anywhere. Who would the mooring fee payments go to? Would it be run by some sort of Committee

It's quite difficult getting to the stage of doing something like this, and far from cheap. I discovered that with attempting to do it in Uxbridge. It's no different to forming a boat club, and only becomes controversial in my view when called community moorings.
After all, there are plenty of boat clubs with the same set up, one for example in Uxbridge. I don't see anyone complaining about their cheap moorings.

 

Are they full time residential for all the boats?

Sorry but if you are sending your children to a local school you do live there

[Jambo]

 

I'm sure it is.

 

We actually end up with a somewhat circular argument here, with people pleading that they can't CC because they need to be in one place and can't get a mooring because they are too expensive.

 

There is a logical conclusion to be drawn here, namely that they cannot afford the lifestyle that they desire where they want it. It is harsh, but true.

 

To then argue that they MUST have what they want, and a way MUST be found for them to afford it is nonsensical.

 

How do you decide who can have one of these moorings? Must I adhere to some kind of collective mindset? Perhaps I can get in on the personal recommendation of two others who are already in? Perhaps a cheap mooring is the reward for years of non-compliance, and vocal opposition.

 

I don't know where you're getting the bit about how they MUST have what they want. They've simply got together and put in a proposal to turn a stretch of land into an affordable, not for profit mooring.

 

You could do that too if you wanted to.

 

I imagine that they will have some sort of agreement that applicants must adhere to and generally these things work by accepting applicants who can bring skills or other attributes that will further the aims of the community.

 

If these kinds of initiatives open up new moorings in areas where they are lacking and which would otherwise never be developed then they should be encouraged imo.

[jenlyn]

Think I got it now Jenlyn

I was on some sort of 'online residential mooring' rant earlier and I hadn't quite gathered that this would in fact be entirely funded by the people running it without CRT spending a penny. That would be quite sensible in a way but its the thin end of a wedge a lot of people don't want to see driven into the system so I doubt it'd go anywhere. Who would the mooring fee payments go to? Would it be run by some sort of Committee

 

Are they full time residential for all the boats? Sorry but if you are sending your children to a local school you do live there

Some are full time residential. To my knowledge, none have school children.

[Jambo]

Just realised the proposal is not for a residential mooring with electric, water, sewerage etc so I think my comments above have been a bit 'off' in the sense I thought the proposal was for a residential mooring site, with funding from CRT for service provision etc, not just an offside bit of land to tie up to.

 

Sorry for being a bore about it

 

Out of a matter of interest would you object to it if it was residential and had services but those services were funded by the residents? Or was it just the financial burden on CRT that you were concerned about?

[mayalld]

 

I don't know where you're getting the bit about how they MUST have what they want. They've simply got together and put in a proposal to turn a stretch of land into an affordable, not for profit mooring.

 

You could do that too if you wanted to.

 

I imagine that they will have some sort of agreement that applicants must adhere to and generally these things work by accepting applicants who can bring skills or other attributes that will further the aims of the community.

 

If these kinds of initiatives open up new moorings in areas where they are lacking and which would otherwise never be developed then they should be encouraged imo.

 

I haven't read THIS proposal in full, and it could be that it differs from other proposals for "community moorings", in which case what I have to say may not be applicable.

 

My experience of such proposals is that they usually involve either CRT or the landowner not charging the going rate.

 

If this proposal involves paying CRT the going rate for private mooring provision, and paying the landowner to either buy or lease the land, and the affordability comes from the not-for-profit not having the costs that a commercial provider would have, in terms of maintenance etc, because the moorers will be expected to maintain the mooring themselves, then I have not the slightest objection.

 

If however, any public body is taking a lesser sum of money than it would take from a commercial supplier I would find this objectionable.

[Machpoint005]

 

>> If however, any public body is taking a lesser sum of money than it would take from a commercial supplier I would find this objectionable.

 

That's reasonable given that we licence payers would effectively be subsidising the moorers and would have no democratic rights.

[Alf Roberts]

1. Its different if the people who are able to access the mooring have behaved in a certain way in order to gain access to said moorings. CRT online moorings should be available to all, at a market rate set by auction or whatever. They should not be obtainable only by a certain group who have (by choice) taken actions which have put them into an awkward position.

...that applies to all EOG or any mooring not a CRT online mooring.

 

nationalise all moorings?

[magnetman]

Jambo,

 

Mayalld put my thoughts across quite exactly.

 

If the residents fund all of the construction and maintenance of the mooring and there is no cost one off or ongoing to CRT and they receive 'end of garden' payments for it then its a win win but it's expensive (apparently) and I'm not quite sure this would in fact be the case.

 

But I don't know so commenting further would be a mistake I suspect.

...that applies to all EOG or any mooring not a CRT online mooring.

nationalise all moorings?

 

Alf, I thought we were talking about a CRT funded online mooring. As it seems to not be that I am on the wrong track. I did explain that earlier

Edited December 16, 2014 by magnetman

[Jambo]

 

I haven't read THIS proposal in full, and it could be that it differs from other proposals for "community moorings", in which case what I have to say may not be applicable.

 

My experience of such proposals is that they usually involve either CRT or the landowner not charging the going rate.

 

If this proposal involves paying CRT the going rate for private mooring provision, and paying the landowner to either buy or lease the land, and the affordability comes from the not-for-profit not having the costs that a commercial provider would have, in terms of maintenance etc, because the moorers will be expected to maintain the mooring themselves, then I have not the slightest objection.

 

If however, any public body is taking a lesser sum of money than it would take from a commercial supplier I would find this objectionable.

 

I have no idea what the financial arrangements are either but another of C&RT's stated aims for these community moorings is to bring into use spaces that a commercial supplier would never go for because they're too small.

 

So again it comes back to enabling the creation of a mooring that wouldn't exist otherwise. In my view it's fine for some sort of subsidy to be offered to enable this as long as it's not actively costing those public bodies.

 

While C&RT doesn't have a duty to provide affordable housing, LAs do and this seems like a very low risk and low cost way of contributing towards those duties.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I have read through the Hackney Citizen article and also through this thread and I have to say that I'm still not entirely sure what is being proposed. A perfectly reasonable proposal IMO would be for this group to approach the council to have use of the land required for the appropriate affordable rental and also for CRT to receive the EOG payment for the moorings. If that is what the proposal is then what is the issue (provided that the moorings are on the non-towpath side so no public mooring space is being lost). Effectively the group would be setting up a sort of marina in London.

 

If on the other hand the group are asking the council to subsidise their use of the land by letting them have it at a particularly cheap rate then I would say that is pretty unacceptable. The equivalent affordable rental that any land based resident would be expected to pay is reasonable. As discussed on another thread they don't contribute to the local Council so why would the council wish to give away their Council Taxpayers resources to non-contributors? Similarly if CRT aren't paid the EOG mooring fee then why should anyone else in the Country pay it?

 

The second paragraph here is a speculation on what posters here seem to be suggesting, but I can't actually find a detailed explanation of what is being proposed, is there one somewhere? If so can someone point me to it.

[Neil Smith]

As I understand it a cc is someone that should do just that and move every 14 days, but not just up and down the cut but in a one way direction so if you want to stay in one place for a long time as this group wants to do then they are not cc, simple as that really so I cant see there argument.

 

Neil

[John V]

Wanderer Vagabond.....I think that is the problem all we have to go on is a very badly written article and plenty of speculation. If it will be a true cooperative venture set up properly as a boat club etc then great (and as regards subsidies I believe , though very far from sure, that if it is a cooperative there are some grants available to aid set up) If on the other hand it is just an attempt to circumvent rules then obviously it will justifiably meet a lot of opposition.

 

eta spellnig

Edited December 16, 2014 by John V

[Delta9]

As I understand it a cc is someone that should do just that and move every 14 days, but not just up and down the cut but in a one way direction so if you want to stay in one place for a long time as this group wants to do then they are not cc, simple as that really so I cant see there argument.

 

Neil

The claim that they want to "keep their CC licences" once they have a mooring is most likely complete tosh made up by the author of the article and the OP of this post.

[magnetman]

Does seem an odd comment, rather baffling. Or maybe people do want to be continuous cruisers on paper but be able to stay in one place. perhaps as a way of avoiding council tax while being able to take advantage of state schooling due to being a 'traveler' or something..

 

Speculatio on my part.

[magnetman]

Not sure why but I have a funny feeling there is something going on with access to heavily oversubscribed state primary schools.

in my case getting a residential mooring didn't help at all, as we were unable to access the school we wanted. I do think remaining a cc.er would have been better as you can get priority on social grounds in some cases whereas if you have a residential address you are into catchment areas and proximity to schools..

(just rambling)

[Delta9]

Does seem an odd comment, rather baffling. Or maybe people do want to be continuous cruisers on paper but be able to stay in one place. perhaps as a way of avoiding council tax while being able to take advantage of state schooling due to being a 'traveler' or something..

 

Speculatio on my part.

They wouldn't need to be classed as CCers to avoid the council tax. People with leisure moorings don't need to pay it either.

[magnetman]

Thats true. As I said just rambling

I think a cc.er comes under traveler and there is something going on with travelers and schools, thats all. A LTM resident can not claim the same status I don't think.

[oarfish]

The going rate for moorings in Hackney would be pretty high nowadays wouldn't it? 8-10K at least? It's an up and coming area etc. Not sure why some people should be allocated cheap moorings leaving hundreds of other reluctant cruisers to be exploited by hipster canal side bar prices. If activism and knowing the right people will get you a cheap floaty home in East London then the river will be a housing estate full of socially skilled middle class kids.

Edited December 16, 2014 by oarfish

[b0atman]

In other posts it has been stated that we need to encourage a more diverse age range, instead of a load of old farts like me and many others on here.

To achieve that we have to accept that some will have children and these children will need to be educated .