On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:43:24 +0000, Steve Wood wrote: >Roger Millin wrote: >>> If you're never going to sell it why the interest in whether it is >>> managed on that basis? Adrian are you around to clarify? >> >> I read that particular statement as saying that you keep a close eye >> on property values and wheel and deal with your portfolio, just as >> you would if they were shares or building society accounts, to >> ensure that the capital value increases or is maintained while >> getting the income from it. That, surely, is prudent financial >> management and if it means selling one bit to fund buying an even >> better bit (or a bit with more future potential) then so be it, IMO. > >I guess that's where I part views from many on this list. I do think BW >should retain the parts of its property portfolio that define the >waterside environment, but for heritage not commercial reasons. By that >I mean the physical infrastructure of the canal, plus related (listed) >buildings, ancient monuments etc. They would still be free to derive >income from those buildings but the focus should be on heritage.
You don't part with me at this stage - I even think that the pub partnership can be a good idea to keep some historically important canalside pubs going. I don't think it is being used properly yet - there's too much S&N bog standard chainery - but it has scope. >It may well be very old fashioned to say it but I do believe that BW is >a national asset and belongs in the public sector. It is not a viable >business in a commercial sense simply because it has insufficient >sources of income. Most of its customers (walkers etc.) don't pay to use >it and there is no easy way to get them to pay except through general >taxation. I have no enthusiasm for the contrived business models I've >heard to privatise BW here and elsewhere in recent weeks. But - as we've seen - pure old-fashioned public sector doesn't seem to work either because of the danger of random fluctuations in funding driven by short-term political expediency I'm very interested in seeing if there is a way to escape this: but I don't know if it has to be complete privitisation (and, indeed, I'd be very worried indeed for the character of the canals if controlled purely for profit). I think there are still a lot of unanswered questions concerning the property idea including long term viability and the tension between avoiding a loss and making maximum profit: a true private sector organisation will always tend to the latter; I can think of many cases when a body entrusted with the waterways should only be doing the former. >** Retreats and prepares to be shot down by assorted capitalists ** I'll watch and cheer from the sidelines -- On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon 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/
