Should marina moorers need licences?

[MtB]

 

 

Yes, and I do. Next.

 

I think the freely bit might be a bit overstated.

 

 

Nobody is forcing you to live on a boat. You could always live in a caravan if you don't like the terms that come with living on a boat!

 

Or choose a different waterway under a different authority.

[Hawkmoth]

It will be interesting to find out how boat numbers have stood up when they do the count this year.

In the last couple of years, numbers have gone down, though Richard Parry and the trust have coughed and spluttered their excuses-reasons for the downward trend.

Strange then that Richard Parry stated last year, "he was happy to have a 4% licence evasion rate".

I suppose that's play off between the cost of enforcement vs returns.

Bob

[Guest]

Strange then that Richard Parry stated last year, "he was happy to have a 4% licence evasion rate".

 

I would say he has said that as a cost benefit analysis of licence enforcement.

 

He is never going to eliminate it 100% so he is 'happy' with only 4% evasion. I don't read it that he is happy that 4% of people evade having a licence.

[bassplayer]

Nobody is forcing you to live on a boat. You could always live in a caravan if you don't like the terms that come with living on a boat!

 

Or choose a different waterway under a different authority.

If everyone buried their head in the sand without questioning the authorities or organisations we'd end up with no alternatives. Is that what you want?

[NigelMoore]

I suppose that's play off between the cost of enforcement vs returns.

 

Part of the problem is that CaRT, as BW before them, do NOT enforce the purchase of licences – which would result in increased revenue; instead they choose to remove unlicensed boats altogether, at considerable cost to themselves, and even if costs are recovered, the licence income is lost.

[Hawkmoth]

 

Part of the problem is that CaRT, as BW before them, do NOT enforce the purchase of licences – which would result in increased revenue; instead they choose to remove unlicensed boats altogether, at considerable cost to themselves, and even if costs are recovered, the licence income is lost.

Understood. So they get the marina owners to enforce it for them. Good business plan.

Bob

[Sabcat]

 

 

Nobody is forcing you to live on a boat. You could always live in a caravan if you don't like the terms that come with living on a boat!

 

Or choose a different waterway under a different authority.

 

Is that your normal approach when you think you're being shafted, shrug your shoulders and walk away? Weak.

[jenlyn]

 

 

Nobody is forcing you to live on a boat. You could always live in a caravan if you don't like the terms that come with living on a boat!

 

Or choose a different waterway under a different authority.

For someone who has in the past condemned crt's t&c's, I find that post quite odd.

[Steilsteven]

There is no legislation stating marinas on the canal should only allow licenced boats within.

That's not what I said, to be clearer the case to which you are referring is on the Thames.

Marinas on the Thames don't pay connection fees or any other fees ( apart from rentals for placing structures in the main river ), as far as I know.

E.A. doesn't own the land ( most of it anyway ) where Thames waters flow, CaRT does own the land under their canals.

E.A. cannot insist that a marina owner has to have a rule that berth holders boats must be registered, because the marina owner has no need to enter into a contract with E.A. as the frontage of their land extends to halfway across the river.

 

Keith

[jenlyn]

That's not what I said, to be clearer the case to which you are referring is on the Thames.

Marinas on the Thames don't pay connection fees or any other fees ( apart from rentals for placing structures in the main river ), as far as I know.

E.A. doesn't own the land ( most of it anyway ) where Thames waters flow, CaRT does own the land under their canals.

E.A. cannot insist that a marina owner has to have a rule that berth holders boats must be registered, because the marina owner has no need to enter into a contract with E.A. as the frontage of their land extends to halfway across the river.

 

Keith

Ultimately, the thread is as per heading.

I don't begrudge CRT getting money from marinas, but I do find it unfair that marina boats pay more, by the contribution to naa, plus a licence.

No matter how people dress this up and present it, CRT in my eyes are taking the p!ss.

[MtB]

 

Is that your normal approach when you think you're being shafted, shrug your shoulders and walk away? Weak.

 

 

Not really. I was picking up Higgs' statement that he had no choice in the matter, and illustrating he does have a choice.

[Southern Star]

Just my two pennorth... if there are a significant number of people who moor in marinas and who never go out cruising, would there not be a business opportunity for somebody to provide out-of-water moorings, in a field for example?

[jenlyn]

What it really needs is CRT approaching the marinas with a business opportunity and partnership. Getting the marinas to be more involved, offering short term licences etc. The marina taking responsibility for boats leaving the confines of that marina by making sure they are licenced etc.

It may not be common around the system, but I have found some marinas dislike CRT as much as some boaters.

[cuthound]

Just my two pennorth... if there are a significant number of people who moor in marinas and who never go out cruising, would there not be a business opportunity for somebody to provide out-of-water moorings, in a field for example?

Perhaps that is what the guy on the Southern Oxford is doing, you know from little acorns...

[Wanderer Vagabond]

What it really needs is CRT approaching the marinas with a business opportunity and partnership. Getting the marinas to be more involved, offering short term licences etc. The marina taking responsibility for boats leaving the confines of that marina by making sure they are licenced etc.

It may not be common around the system, but I have found some marinas dislike CRT as much as some boaters.

Yes I understand Pilings Lock Marina no longer have CRT on their Christmas card list

[MtB]

Yes I understand Pilings Lock Marina no longer have CRT on their Christmas card list

 

But then they don't pay a NAA do they?

[Steilsteven]

Ultimately, the thread is as per heading.

I don't begrudge CRT getting money from marinas, but I do find it unfair that marina boats pay more, by the contribution to naa, plus a licence.

No matter how people dress this up and present it, CRT in my eyes are taking the p!ss.

I don't think it's unfair, marina boaters don't pay more for the same thing, they pay for a mooring and they pay for a licence, end of.

You don't begrudge CaRT getting money from marinas, so how does the marina owner recover his costs?

 

Keith

[Steilsteven]

I see that Aqueduct Marina are advertising ''A convenient way of storing & using your boat'' in the latest Towpath Talk and showing the savings that can be made by being able to purchase short term licenses. Job done!

 

 

Keith

[George94]

I don't think it's unfair, marina boaters don't pay more for the same thing, they pay for a mooring and they pay for a licence, end of.

You don't begrudge CaRT getting money from marinas, so how does the marina owner recover his costs?

 

Keith

 

I begrudge it, to the extent that the NAA charge massively exceeds any cost to CART. Boaters should pay for running the canals, not marinas, and the NAA subsidises continuous cruisers at the expense of marina dwellers.

 

What really bugs me is the stupidity of it.

 

Minutes of a CART meeting:

 

Chairman: "We need to get more people using the canals, and we need to move boats from offline online moorings into marinas. How do we go about it?"

 

Bright spark: "I know, let's raise the cost of mooring in a marina, by adding to marina-operators' costs."

 

Chairman: "By gum, lad, you've got it! Well done, that'll kill both birds with one stone. Take a £50k bonus."

 

Of course, common sense suggests that if you lower marina costs, you'll get more marina berths, and more people moving into them, and more people being able to afford to keep a boat. But when did common sense ever have any appeal to BW or CART or some of the posters in this thread?

 

ETA to change offline to online.

Edited January 30, 2016 by George94

[jenlyn]

 

I begrudge it, to the extent that the NAA charge massively exceeds any cost to CART. Boaters should pay for running the canals, not marinas, and the NAA subsidises continuous cruisers at the expense of marina dwellers.

 

What really bugs me is the stupidity of it.

 

Minutes of a CART meeting:

 

Chairman: "We need to get more people using the canals, and we need to move boats from offline moorings into marinas. How do we go about it?"

 

Bright spark: "I know, let's raise the cost of mooring in a marina, by adding to marina-operators' costs."

 

Chairman: "By gum, lad, you've got it! Well done, that'll kill both birds with one stone. Take a £50k bonus."

 

Of course, common sense suggests that if you lower marina costs, you'll get more marina berths, and more people moving into them, and more people being able to afford to keep a boat. But when did common sense ever have any appeal to BW or CART or some of the posters in this thread?

Do you know, that's possibly exactly what happened. I have seen them do similar on other things.

Some would be astonished at what happens in those meeting rooms, you have to be there to believe it.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

I begrudge it, to the extent that the NAA charge massively exceeds any cost to CART. Boaters should pay for running the canals, not marinas, and the NAA subsidises continuous cruisers at the expense of marina dwellers.

 

What really bugs me is the stupidity of it.

 

Minutes of a CART meeting:

 

Chairman: "We need to get more people using the canals, and we need to move boats from offline moorings into marinas. How do we go about it?"

 

Bright spark: "I know, let's raise the cost of mooring in a marina, by adding to marina-operators' costs."

 

Chairman: "By gum, lad, you've got it! Well done, that'll kill both birds with one stone. Take a £50k bonus."

 

Of course, common sense suggests that if you lower marina costs, you'll get more marina berths, and more people moving into them, and more people being able to afford to keep a boat. But when did common sense ever have any appeal to BW or CART or some of the posters in this thread?

Lost me a bit there, what is an offline mooring if it isn't a marina??

[George94]

Lost me a bit there, what is an offline mooring if it isn't a marina??

 

Quite so. Age and all that. But I am sure you would have guessed what I meant.

[magpie patrick]

 

You see the appeal of only purchasing that which you use? What a radical concept!

 

 

I also see the appeal of paying my share, which isn't necessarily less than what I'm paying now: the problem I have with most protagonists of any argument about mooring fees or licence fees, or both, is that the system proposed is fairer because it entails the protagonist paying less.

[George94]

 

I also see the appeal of paying my share, which isn't necessarily less than what I'm paying now: the problem I have with most protagonists of any argument about mooring fees or licence fees, or both, is that the system proposed is fairer because it entails the protagonist paying less.

 

That may be true in some cases, but not in mine.

[Higgs]

 

 

Nobody is forcing you to live on a boat. You could always live in a caravan if you don't like the terms that come with living on a boat!

 

Or choose a different waterway under a different authority.

 

 

I choose the way I react to something that is not on the level or devious. And I can't really help it if you don't agree. Having a boat, not having a boat, living in a caravan or up a tree, it would make no difference to my reaction to that paragraph.

 

Or, I could choose to try and change your mind and your choices. I think there is less chance of changing your mind than the choices. I'll go with trying to change the choices. Take it or leave it; familiar with that concept? You use it to justify your 'arguments'.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Higgs