March of the Widebeams

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

(Apart obviously, from Peter?) 

 

 

 

I have a new mooring when the old boat leaves and its off CRT waterways so does it really matter to me

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I think we should all pay the same % rise whatever the boat is, if they bring in a CC license so be it

Why should a narrowboat the same "size" as a wideboat should pay 70% more?

 

Go on, give a thought-out reason, other than "because that's how it is and I don't want to pay more"... 😉

Edited April 14, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

Love it - and, it could be the way forward .............................

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Love it - and, it could be the way forward .............................

 

 

 

 

Heck of a long rack on that one !

[peterboat]

Just now, IanD said:

Why do you think a narrowboat the same "size" as a wideboat should pay 70% more?

It doesnt, you can say what you want but CRT currently have a length and width based license, for the length a widebeam pays more job done! All the cobblers you come out with is a red herring, I use no more water up here on a proper waterway than a narrowboat

[IanD]

Just now, peterboat said:

It doesnt, you can say what you want but CRT currently have a length and width based license, for the length a widebeam pays more job done! All the cobblers you come out with is a red herring, I use no more water up here on a proper waterway than a narrowboat

<sigh> so not a reasoned response then, just one that ignores the (oft-posted) facts. Why am I not surprised? 😞

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'm not into fairness but it makes sense to charge by area.

 

Nor me particularly, but I use it a lot because widebeam owners use it as the basis for their arguments they should pay less than a narrowboat of the same displacement. 

 

I think it is 'fair' for the bigger boat to pay more than the smaller.

 

[magnetman]

I suppose if one could live in buses in London for a grand a year it would be quite popular and people would start moaning if it began to get more expensive.

 

The continuous cruising option is basically a ridiculous bargain. Nice while it remains a ridiculous bargain but there is no guarantee it will. 

 

To be fair, £10 a day to be able to live in a nice place inside your own unit which can disappear if needed is not exactly expensive is it. People pay three times this much just for a reasonable apartment which is paying someone else's mortgage. 

 

At least licence and certificate fees go to the CRT who are the body tasked with keeping water under the boat. 

 

It is not about gentrification and pricing people out it is about the end of an era of excessively cheap boat licences. 

 

 

[Rambling Boater]

Given that boat licence fees are such a small percentage of C&RT's income stream in the first place, it surprises me how much hot air has gone into this price hike for fat boats.

 

If the same amount of effort went into improving efficiency and maintenenance, all types of boater would be better off.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Rambling Boater

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Given that boat licence fees are such a small percentage of C&RT's income stream in the first place, it surprises me how much hot air has gone into this price hike for fat boats.

 

If the same amount of effort went into improving efficiency and maintenenance, all types of boater would be better off.

 

 

Indeed. 

 

This might not be all about raising money. It might also be about trying to stem the flow of new build wide boats. At the end of the day there is a finite amount of moorable space. OK it would take a lot more boats to completely fill it all but it could be worth making people think twice about whether a boat is the right choice for them and slow down the market a bit to save problems later on. 

 

 

 

[dogless]

17 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I suppose if one could live in buses in London for a grand a year it would be quite popular and people would start moaning if it began to get more expensive.

 

The continuous cruising option is basically a ridiculous bargain. Nice while it remains a ridiculous bargain but there is no guarantee it will. 

 

To be fair, £10 a day to be able to live in a nice place inside your own unit which can disappear if needed is not exactly expensive is it. People pay three times this much just for a reasonable apartment which is paying someone else's mortgage. 

 

At least licence and certificate fees go to the CRT who are the body tasked with keeping water under the boat. 

 

It is not about gentrification and pricing people out it is about the end of an era of excessively cheap boat licences. 

 

 

Whilst I generally agree with your point, I do get annoyed by the implication (not particularly from you) that continuous cruisers are getting boating on the cheap.

 

We have a C&RT mooring for the boat for three months a year, and then cruise the other nine months. However we frequently have to pay for moorings around the system when we choose to leave the boat for a few days.

 

Anyone with a C&RT licence is free to continuously cruise  ... the additional cost for mooring is only necessary where they're (for whatever reason) unable to do so.

 

Rog

Edited April 14, 2023 by dogless

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, dogless said:

Whilst I generally agree with your point, I do get annoyed by the implication (not particularly from you) that continuous cruisers are getting boating on the cheap.

 

We have a C&RT mooring for the boat for three months a year, and then cruise the other nine months. However we frequently have to pay for moorings around the system when we choose to leave the boat for a few days.

 

Anyone with a C&RT licence is free to continuously cruise  ... the additional cost for mooring us only necessary where they're (for whatever reason) unable to do so.

 

Rog

 

I'm saying they are getting cheap residential accomodation rather than cheap boating. It is primarily a residence thing. Usually housing attracts costs. Even in real dump areas one still generally pays a mortgage or rent to be housed, or claims from the state for assistance. 

 

Why should boats be an exception? There is no other way to live in popular and desirable areas such as the southeast of Englandland for a grand a year "rent". It is impossible to do this. 

 

This will cause an unnatural bias. I've seen this happening in 29 yarrrs of living on boats. More boats may be a good thing but it could go really mad and cause significant slums to develop which nobody wants. 

 

It has already happened in some areas. Piles of domestic and commercial waste then the boat just goes somewhere else. There is a word for this. 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by magnetman
Typo

[kris88]

43 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I suppose if one could live in buses in London for a grand a year it would be quite popular and people would start moaning if it began to get more expensive.

 

The continuous cruising option is basically a ridiculous bargain. Nice while it remains a ridiculous bargain but there is no guarantee it will. 

 

To be fair, £10 a day to be able to live in a nice place inside your own unit which can disappear if needed is not exactly expensive is it. People pay three times this much just for a reasonable apartment which is paying someone else's mortgage. 

 

At least licence and certificate fees go to the CRT who are the body tasked with keeping water under the boat. 

 

It is not about gentrification and pricing people out it is about the end of an era of excessively cheap boat licences. 

 

 

How much do crt pay you to post on here? 
It definitely is gentrification, crt have become a property development company. Gentrification is a “normal,” practice for a property development company. To maximize their profits from the investment. So why wouldn’t crt indulge in the same practice? 

[IanD]

49 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Given that boat licence fees are such a small percentage of C&RT's income stream in the first place, it surprises me how much hot air has gone into this price hike for fat boats.

 

If the same amount of effort went into improving efficiency and maintenenance, all types of boater would be better off.

 

 

Anyone who thinks that some magical improvements in "efficiency" can make a big difference has never tried to make them -- what this usually means is "reduce workforce and work the remainder harder".

 

The reason for the maintenance problem is very simple -- CART have too much work to do, and nowhere near enough money. No amount of "removing blue signs" or "reducing executive pay" or "improving efficiency" or "getting rid of the Friends scheme which loses money" is going to make any significant difference to this because these costs are tiny, at most a percent or two of the budget, and the shortfall is probably at least 50% especially to have any change of reducing the maintenance backlog.

 

I've no doubt they'll be trying to increase revenue from all their income sources, but license fees are an obvious target because boaters are a captive audience and -- as has been said above -- they're cheap compared to all the alternative ways of living. There are also obvious "bargains" for CART to target for increases (like CCers and wideboats) who the majority of boaters (with moorings or narrowboats) are likely to say in the survey should pay more rather than them -- yes this is self-interest, but since both CCers and wideboats are around 20% of boaters it's predictable what the other 80% will say...

 

There's no doubt that the CCers and wideboat owners will think this is unfair, because they'll end up paying a lot more. The opposing view is that they've been getting a bargain for a long time and that CART are now correcting this situation. There's no way the two camps are *ever* going to agree, for obvious reasons, but the majority view is likely to prevail -- and many will say it should do, that's how democracy works isn't it?... 😉

[dogless]

I understand your housing point @magnetman and accept in some areas (predominantly London) this is an issue that has been left to 'fester'.

 

But if the point of the licensing system is to regulate those on the water, and to finance maintenance and repairs then shouldn't rises in fees be applied equitably to ALL using the water ?

 

Rog

Edited April 14, 2023 by dogless

[MtB]

Just now, dogless said:

But if the point of the licensing system is to regulate those on the water, and to finance maintenance and repairs then shouldn't rises in fees be applied equitably to ALL using the water ?

 

Yes, how can anyone say no?! 

 

So you seem to agree the licence charging system should be re-jigged so bigger boats always pay more than smaller boats?

 

This would be fair and equitable to all.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, dogless said:

I understand your housing point, and accept in some areas (predominantly London) this is an issue that has been left to 'fester'.

 

But if the point of the licensing system is to regulate those on the water, and to finance maintenance and repairs then shouldn't rises in fees be applied equitably to ALL using the water ?

 

Rog

 

Not if some boaters (e.g. CCers and widebeams) are currently paying less than they ought to compared to others (e.g. home moorers and narrowboaters), this should be corrected by increasing their fees. The overall license fee take will go up, but the playing field will be leveller. This in nothing to do with being divisive, it's to do with being fair -- but there are two very different views of what "fair" means here.

 

Leastways, that seems to be what CART are planning, and almost certainly what most boaters will want if the fees have to go up. Let's see what the survey results say...

Edited April 14, 2023 by IanD

[David Mack]

5 minutes ago, dogless said:

But if the point of the licensing system is to regulate those on the water, and to finance maintenance and repairs then shouldn't rises in fees be applied equitably to ALL using the water ?

And therein lies the conundrum. What is "equitable"? One could argue that equal percentage rises for all is the equitable approach. Or one could view the current distribution of charges across different users as merely historical accident, and that a different distribution would be more equitable.

Edited April 14, 2023 by David Mack

[monkeyhanger]

16 hours ago, magnetman said:

Have you got a link to the advert? 

 

 

20230205_141507.jpg       Hope this works. Sorry it took a while. Not a good photo, but it's not easy to fit a boat of that size into a small phone!

[dogless]

Just for clarity my view of equitable is, for example, a 10% rise across the board.

 

One chooses what vessel to buy (wide or narrow)  and then choose how to use it (cc or mooring) and the options are available to all (ignoring personal issues) ... I see no valid reason to apply new licensing differentials.

 

We should all be financing maintenance costs surely ?

 

Rog

[MtB]

1 minute ago, dogless said:

Just for clarity my view of equitable is, for example, a 10% rise across the board.

 

That doesn't even cover inflation. 

 

Maybe you left a zero off as 100% rise across the board would be more likely to begin to make a dent in the maintenance backlog.

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, IanD said:

No amount of "removing blue signs" or "reducing executive pay" or "improving efficiency" or "getting rid of the Friends scheme which loses money" is going to make any significant difference to this because these costs are tiny

 

That rather goes against your own argument used in the electric vehicle / emissions thread.

Where you repeatedly state (something to the effect) that "the big changes are unlikely to happen quickly, but if everyone does a little bit it all adds up to a 'lot'"

 

If they can cut the expenditure of non-navigation spend (blue signs, executive bonusses,  improve efficiencies, and other loss making departments, and reduce the size of the empire that has been built (more Chiefs than Indians these days) to suit the business then all these little changes will add up to a worthwhile saving that can be spent where it is needed.

 

Reduce expenditure and improve the income (over the last year income from Utilities has increased by £1m, Investment and property income increased by £3.5m and boating activities increased by £4m)

 

Unfortunately all the good stuff has been eroded by the £7.7m LOSS in the last 12 months in getting charitable giving and donations.

 

And this year they spend even more building the 'charitable giving empire, more staff and a new (highly paid) Director. so the costs will be even higher for 2023/24.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[kris88]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

That doesn't even cover inflation. 

 

Maybe you left a zero off as 100% rise across the board would be more likely to begin to make a dent in the maintenance backlog.

So you think crt are going to spend any money raised by licence increases, on extra maintenance?

[dogless]

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

That doesn't even cover inflation. 

 

Maybe you left a zero off as 100% rise across the board would be more likely to begin to make a dent in the maintenance backlog.

I said for example 10%

 

We have no real input into what level the rise should be, I merely propose that all licence holders should contribute equally.

 

Rog

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, kris88 said:

So you think crt are going to spend any money raised by licence increases, on extra maintenance?

This is the claim from parry

 

 

 

Do you think it is false? 

 

It appears to imply that money gained in this way will be used to the benefit of the canal system which I would assume means maintenance. Maybe not.

 

(screenshot from the parry letter on the fb wbag page)

 

Of course my assumption from the start was that the CRT was simply a stepping stone between public and private ownership. A vessel designed to founder followed by breaking it up and redistributing the valuable parts among the vultures. 

 

Then it WILL get expensive !! 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by magnetman