NBTA - Which Planet Are They On ?

[Athy]

 

I was honestly bewildered to find that Athy hadn't written this. You're not his doppelganger are you?

I'm bewildered by this comment.

[Alan de Enfield]

Given this I see no reason at all for your rudeness and I think you should apologise.

 

I do not see any 'rudeness' in my post, so we will just have to differ, as an 'apology' will not be forthcoming.

 

Maybe if you read FtS posts on the subject you will understand a little more about the background. Check out the 'author' of the piece quoted.

It could almost be a re-run of 1984 where some are perceived to be 'more equal than others'.

 

The 'Bargee Travellers Association' whole ethos seems to be supporting 'Bargee Non-Travellers' - look at the history.

[Richard10002]

 

Most 'bits of paper' are not legally binding whatever they say.

 

Which 'act of law' is this you speak of?

Exactly! Everyone was shown a bus with complete lies plastered all over it!

 

"We didn't mean it. It was just something which might be possible "

 

or

 

"Nothing to do with me guv' "

[pipistrelle]

Enforcing their existing agreements and contracts isn't controversial. We've been trying to work with the council for years on this, of finding ways for people to prove to the council they live aboard without being placed under surveillance - a receipt for 20 bags of coal, for example, means someone's quite likely to live aboard.

 

Allocating moorings as social housing is very unpopular. Quite a few single men for example have moorings - who'd be either removed, or more wouldn't have the chance to get one. And prioritising families wouldn't be fair either. There are plenty of people who're either holding off on having children, or who are in same sex partnerships or marriages- not very fair on them... A simple, chronological waiting list is the fairest way, as long as it is administered correctly- and, in Cambridge, it hasn't always been.

People in same sex relationships can and often do have children too, but I agree with you otherwise. As a single person who doesn't have kids and has no interest in having children, I'm rather appalled at the suggestion that I've less right to a home than people who've chosen to reproduce!

 

I do know from posts on here that it's possible to be on that waiting list (which is now closed) without having a boat, and I feel that removing people from residential moorings who are renting their boats out or dropping people from the list who don't own a boat would be simple ways to work with residential boaters on this. Personally I'd not be against mooring fees being linked to income in some way - I earn a decent salary and would be happy to pay more than someone who earns less than me.

As someone who's just moved to the area, and was involved in fighting the proposed waterways PSPO in Oxford, I'm seriously worried that the approach taken by this representative of the NBTA is unhelpful and likely to generate the exact opposite of their desired result. I don't think their views are representative of the NBTA as an organisation.

[Athy]

People in same sex relationships can have children too,

No wonder I failed my O level science. I thought it took one of each.

[MtB]

No wonder I failed my O level science. I thought it took one of each.

 

I occasionally quip that I have four children, one of each...

[MtB]

.

People in same sex relationships can and often do have children too, but I agree with you otherwise. As a single person who doesn't have kids and has no interest in having children, I'm rather appalled at the suggestion that I've less right to a home than people who've chosen to reproduce!

 

 

Yes me too. It's one of my (many) hobby horses how so many people see to regard 'having children' as a passport to preferential treatment. EG we need to CM here because the kids are in skool.

 

I get people calling me in busy periods telling me I need to mend their broken boilers first ahead of all my other customers because 'we have young children'. Well no actually, elderly and/or ill people get priority from me.

Clearly on the same planet as the NBTA!

[magictime]

Allocating moorings as social housing is very unpopular. Quite a few single men for example have moorings - who'd be either removed, or more wouldn't have the chance to get one. And prioritising families wouldn't be fair either. There are plenty of people who're either holding off on having children, or who are in same sex partnerships or marriages- not very fair on them... A simple, chronological waiting list is the fairest way, as long as it is administered correctly- and, in Cambridge, it hasn't always been.

 

Well, people will have different views on whether it's 'fair' or otherwise desirable for the council to prioritise the allocation of housing on the basis of social need, but that's what they do in the case of bricks-and-mortar properties - and it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to argue that the same principle should be applied when allocating residential moorings.

[Dave_P]

 

 

I'd say building more homes is helpful but never the answer. Housing demand is very elastic and if you make it cheaper by increasing supply, people will just consume more of it.

 

For example the four person nuclear family with a three bed house will find they can now afford a four bed house and have a guest room. The single bloke living in a studio flat will upgrade to the one bed flat he can now afford, etc etc.

 

All new housing is by definition 'affordable', because new houses never remain unsold. The builder reduces the price of any houses 'sticking' until someone decides it looks value for money and buys it.

It doesn't work like this. If you depress house prices through increasing supply, people won't trade up since their current property will be worth less too. What does happen though is that first time buyers are better able to get a foot on the ladder and get away from being done over by unscrupulous landlords. Also, house building can be targeted on the specific type of property where a shortage exists.

 

The term affordable housing has a specific definition. And sometimes new houses do stay unsold for many years. Sometimes the only way a house can be sold is by reducing the price until the developer makes a loss too.

I thought that if you owned a property or did not live in a council property that you were renting, then you had to surrender the property back to the council, could be wrong of cause.

Yes. That's my point.

[Dave_P]

Maggie was ousted in 1989, almost 30 years ago. There has been lots of time, and 13 years of Left Wing government, to do something about social housing, so it's probably a bit much to be blaming what Maggie did, for what is happening now.

I'm pretty sure we haven't had a left wing government since 1979.

[carlt]

I'm pretty sure we haven't had a left wing government since 1979.

 

Oi!

 

That's my line!

[MtB]

It doesn't work like this. If you depress house prices through increasing supply, people won't trade up since their current property will be worth less too. What does happen though is that first time buyers are better able to get a foot on the ladder and get away from being done over by unscrupulous landlords. Also, house building can be targeted on the specific type of property where a shortage exists.

 

 

Actually you're right. Reduce house prices and falling values lead people into negative equity, meaning they can't move, I think.

 

People stuck in negative equity and unable to move leads to lack of supply at the entry level into the market. So even though prices have fallen, no-one is selling because to do so, involves stumping up a wedge of cash they don't have to pay off the mortgage negative equity.

 

Falling house prices help very few people due to this effect.

[Murflynn]

It doesn't work like this. If you depress house prices through increasing supply, people won't trade up since their current property will be worth less too.

eh? how does that work then?

 

it is immaterial what the general level of prices is, trading up is trading up.

 

 

 

edit - just seen MtB's post and of course negative equity can be a factor preventing peeps from moving.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Murflynn

[MtB]

And why the snidy pop at landlords? Not all are 'unscrupulous'. Some in my experience are extremely scrupulous and look after their tenants assiduously. I have loads as customers. (The unscrupulous ones won't pay my prices!)

[Athy]

And why the snidy pop at landlords? Not all are 'unscrupulous'. Some in my experience are extremely scrupulous and look after their tenants assiduously. I have loads as customers. (The unscrupulous ones won't pay my prices!)

I don't think he was having a pop at landlords. He was having a pop only at those who are unscrupulous, and I'm sure there are some of those about who deserve to be popped at. Me, I'm scrupulously scrupulous.

[FadeToScarlet]

 

Well, people will have different views on whether it's 'fair' or otherwise desirable for the council to prioritise the allocation of housing on the basis of social need, but that's what they do in the case of bricks-and-mortar properties - and it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to argue that the same principle should be applied when allocating residential moorings.

Yes, it wouldn't be a stretch- if they saw the moorings as social housing.

 

The Council are at great pains to frequently point out that their residential moorings are not social housing- this is one of their arguments for trying to raise the fees of everyone on those moorings. They're administered by the same people who administrate the local parks, who haven't got a clue how to deal with housing issues, like couples with joint licences separating, or that people might need more than 24 hours notice if they are required to move their boat for an event- and need somewhere to move to.

 

They can either change how they administrate them, giving them to the housing department, keeping fees affordable etc, or they keep them in the current administrative grey area but attempt to make a greater profit.

[MtB]

I don't think he was having a pop at landlords. He was having a pop only at those who are unscrupulous, and I'm sure there are some of those about who deserve to be popped at. Me, I'm scrupulously scrupulous.

 

You might be right. It initially read to me as though Dave was classing landlords collectively as 'unscrupulous'. As in he is a lndlord therefore he is unscrupulous. Clearly not the case in at least one landlord out there!

[Athy]

 

You might be right. It initially read to me as though Dave was classing landlords collectively as 'unscrupulous'. As in he is a lndlord therefore he is unscrupulous. Clearly not the case in at least one landlord out there!

I can see the ambiguity - a sort of "horses have four legs; this animal has four legs; therefore it is a horse" argument, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Paul C]

So, is NBTA's view that

 

1) Supply exceeds demand - they've simply misallocated moorings which are available and unused, in areas others deem not suitable as mooring places; or

2) Demand exceeds supply - thus, they should allocate based on need, which coincidentally aligns with their members (who are their members anyway?) situation, or possibly a handful of people who have tagged themselves as NBTA reps.

 

They appear to have hedged their bets by using both of the above arguments. And in doing so, diluted each.

 

I suspect their "need" in 2 is more of a "want", which is fair enough. But unlikely to gain widespead support further than their close group.

[magictime]

Yes, it wouldn't be a stretch- if they saw the moorings as social housing.

 

The Council are at great pains to frequently point out that their residential moorings are not social housing- this is one of their arguments for trying to raise the fees of everyone on those moorings. They're administered by the same people who administrate the local parks, who haven't got a clue how to deal with housing issues, like couples with joint licences separating, or that people might need more than 24 hours notice if they are required to move their boat for an event- and need somewhere to move to.

 

They can either change how they administrate them, giving them to the housing department, keeping fees affordable etc, or they keep them in the current administrative grey area but attempt to make a greater profit.

 

Fair enough. It's obviously a complex issue and I'm not saying the NBTA are obviously right and the council obviously wrong - just that you'd hardly have to be 'on another planet' to think that the council should be approaching the allocation of residential moorings in something closer to the way they approach the allocation of bricks-and-mortar housing.

[Alan de Enfield]

So, is NBTA's view that

 

1) Supply exceeds demand - they've simply misallocated moorings which are available and unused, in areas others deem not suitable as mooring places; or

2) Demand exceeds supply - thus, they should allocate based on need, which coincidentally aligns with their members (who are their members anyway?) situation, or possibly a handful of people who have tagged themselves as NBTA reps.

 

They appear to have hedged their bets by using both of the above arguments. And in doing so, diluted each.

 

I suspect their "need" in 2 is more of a "want", which is fair enough. But unlikely to gain widespead support further than their close group.

 

From their website :

 

There are two types of membership:

Ordinary membership is open to itinerant liveaboard boat dwellers

Associate membership is open to any individual or organisation who supports the aims of the NBTA

 

1.2 “Bargee Traveller” means itinerant boat dweller, boat dweller without a home or permanent mooring, travelling boat dweller, live-aboard continuous cruiser or itinerant live-aboard boater and includes anyone whose home is a boat and who does not have a permanent mooring for their boat with planning permission for year-round residential use.

 

Presumably then, they are not campaigning on behalf of their 'members', as these moorings are for 'permanent' use, so who are they campaigning for ?

Edited November 5, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[magictime]

a sort of "horses have four legs; this animal has four legs; therefore it is a horse" argument

 

A logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent", if anyone's interested.

[Paul C]

 

From their website :

 

There are two types of membership:

Ordinary membership is open to itinerant liveaboard boat dwellers

Associate membership is open to any individual or organisation who supports the aims of the NBTA

 

1.2 “Bargee Traveller” means itinerant boat dweller, boat dweller without a home or permanent mooring, travelling boat dweller, live-aboard continuous cruiser or itinerant live-aboard boater and includes anyone whose home is a boat and who does not have a permanent mooring for their boat with planning permission for year-round residential use.

 

Presumably then, they are not campaigning on behalf of their 'members', as these moorings are for 'permanent' use, so who are they campaigning for ?

 

 

Highlighted "they" in bigger/bolder red. I suspect the "they" here is a limited number of individuals in this instance, who have some association (maybe associate membership, maybe friend-of-a-friend-of-an-important-person with) with NBTA. As such the campaign may not be one where the entire NBTA is unified behind it, or even aware their organisation is promoting it, but a much lesser scale campaign by a few individuals more-or-less-directly affected here. It makes more sense, given its asking for an imaginitive interpretation/invention of some rules, to get a particularly specific group of people some moorings.

 

Which is fair enough - but possibly dilutes NBTAs overall objectives as the definitive group that supports CCers.

 

I believe there are a number of other active boating organisations, it would be interesting what their position is on the situation.

[ditchcrawler]

And why the snidy pop at landlords? Not all are 'unscrupulous'. Some in my experience are extremely scrupulous and look after their tenants assiduously. I have loads as customers. (The unscrupulous ones won't pay my prices!)

I like to think I am one, but then I am not earning a good return on my property but I do have happy tenants.

[Sir Nibble]

If boat moorings became social housing, how many boats would find themselves in a position of statutory overcrowding?