"Nigel Stanley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So what about the property endowment?
>
>Of course BW already has a significant source of income from
>commercial property dealings. I'm no expert at this, but my impression
>is that it does this quite well by forming partnerships with people
>who do know how to make money out of property. Of course there is
>always a threat that these commercial interests can divert BW from its
>heritage and public service duties, but on the whole it's been getting
>these right of late.
>
>So why not make this the sole source of BW additional funds?
>
>1) It breaks the connection with the public. It's good for BW and us
>to see that they are responsible to the public, because they receive
>funding from it. Without this there is even more danger it would
>become a property company with some wet bits attached.
No. Because the endowment would *not* "break the connection. The
endowment would be provided by the public. It could even be
structured as a perpetual (but interest-free) loan, if that would make
you feel better.
And BW (the company) would still have only one shareholder - the
government - just as it does today.
The connection would still be there, and strong.
>2) It couldn't work unless BW was effectively privatised. Otherwise a
>future government could simply grab back the property as the Tories
>proposed at the last election. BW finances would also continue to show
>up as part of the public sector accounts so no government could resist
>interfering.
No again. For a couple of reasons.
First, if some future goverment "took the real estate back", it would
have to replace the income that real estate were providing to BW with
- ta daa! - government grant. If what I believe is correct, and
funding via endowment is actually *more* attractive to governments,
then our hypothetical future one would not really want to do this.
As to appearing in the accounts, BW already does, as an asset
belonging to the government. If the endowment were (as I suggested it
could be) structured as a perpetual loan, then BW would be "worth" no
more as an asset than it is today, in effect.
>3) It puts too many eggs in one basket. The property market can be
>volatile, as can politically determined decisions about public grant
>(as we know to our cost). The best way to deal with this is to ensure
>that BW has a number of revenue streams.
But it already has several revenue streams! Boating income is a major
one. As are its other "enterprises (towpath cables, marinas, pubs,
etc.).
In fact, there is no reason, theoretically, that the endowment capital
be invested solely in property, so other assets could be invested in
if it were actually felt that there was too little diversity.
"Sue Burchett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Parks are not funded by property investment. They are funded by the people for
>the people. Museums don't sell their assets or buildings to raise funding.
Actually, museums frequently sell some of their holdings (e.g.
paintings) to make new acquisitions, and even to fund their
operations.
But what you are overlooking is that parks (usually) don't have the
long-term obligations that BW does (i.e. the need to keep a large
number of historic structures maintained and safely usable). The
obligations require matching secure income, not fickle annual grants.
So the parks and museums model fits badly with BW.
>I don't even believe it should just be listed buildings BW should hang on to.
>BW should have retained ownership of all the canal heritage including all the
>lock cottages.
Fine.
"Steve Haywood"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think it would be worthwhile peppering this site
>(www.qualityoflifechallenge.com) with suggestions; I shall
>certainly be making a submission myself. It seems to me this is a way of
>effecting Conservative policy before it gets entrenched along traditional
>lines. A significant response would let the party know there are potential
>votes in this issue, and some of the suggestions that people have made might
>even get them thinking outside of the box - which is what Cameron says he
>wants. What about a SOW submission? What about using the website to
>encourage individuals to make representations, Mike?
Good plan IMHO.
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/
