Steve et al.,
"Steve Haywood"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24/10/06, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "
>> Boatyards, pubs, and tourism sites are businesses. Why should they be
>> run otherwise?
>
>Because the canals are primarily a national heritage, not a business
>opportunity.
Anything that does not (cannot) support itself will always be at risk.
A profitable business is much less likely to be at risk than an
unprofitable endeavour.
So, my logic is that the more of the waterways that can be profitable,
the less they will be at risk. i.e. the less they will need the
government to subsidise them.
Fortunately, many elements of the waterways can be profitable. And
even those that cannot will likely be run most efficiently if they are
managed on business principles, again minimising the subsidy needed
and thus reducing the risk.
>And that is the problem with BW at the moment: they are
>treating the waterways solely as a business,
I disagree. I feel BW is very aware that part of its remit is
commercial, and part is heritage, and it does a reasonable job at
striking the difficult balance between these. However, of course, the
most appropriate balance point will always be debatable.
> and sadly, year on year, we see how this is destroying what we we value most
> about the cut.
Such as?
>When Holt Abbot and the other pioneers started their first hire firms, they
>did it not just
>to earn money, but to earn a living for themselves in a way that would
>preserve a way of life and evangelize an environment they valued. When Tony
>Matts first came across Foxton it was a derelict site; his concern for the
>fabric of what he found ensured that it would survive when other similar
>sites across the country fell into ruin. Commitment like that deserves
>respect.
Respect, sure. Subsidy? You haven't made the case IMHO.
>Do you have no feeling for the history of cut and the thousands of people
>like Tony that have ensured its survival?
Of course. That's one reason why I'm involved.
>Or is everything for you a souless
>matter of counting beans, reducible to a business plan and a bottom line?
See above. Those who pay the bills will *always* count the beans.
Best we give them as many to count as possible.
>Are people to be disposed of after they fulfilled their purpose?
Isn't that "retirement"?
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
