On 29, Oct 2006, at 9:56, Adrian Stott wrote, yesterday
> 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.
While I was cutting the grass, yet again yesterday, I mulled about our
waterway challenges.
I thought how it might be more appropriate if "British Waterways" were
known as "Britain's Waterways". Give them the whole lot to manage as
part of the national heritage. Give EA special powers where flood
control and water supply are considerations.
Offer a kind of National (Waterways) Trust membership to everybody for
(say) £50 a year which includes family cycle permits, parking
concessions, discount on some admissions to something or other,
quarterly magazine, discounted merchandise.
Offer subtle sponsorship opportunities for real businesses - eg The
Midland Chandlery Braunston Turn. The Lee Sanitation Lock.
Offer special additional services to sub groups such as boaters and
fishers and perhaps run those aspects on a business like basis. A bit
dangerous I realise in terms of the allocations of funds to maintain
the navigability of the waterways.
Anyway . . . must get on. Time to prune the roses.
Beeky
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/
