Adrian Stott wrote: > Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Adrian, I have been a long term admirer of much of your thinking >> (though by no means not all) but the posts you have made on this >> subject are, IMO, plain rubbish. > > Aw, come on Will! Don't be shy. Say what you really think. >
Speaking my mind is both a failing and strength of mine I ma told....;>) >> There is only one way to solve >> the mooring problem and that is make more moorings available. > > First we need to agree what "the mooring problem" is. > > My definition of it is that it is impossible at present for the > average person to get a mooring when and where he needs one. > > What's yours? There aren't enough moorings to meet the demand. This tends to allow providers to increase pricing at will. I just spotted and interesting statement in BW 'Mooring Investment Guide' > British Waterways is responding to demand pressure > by raising its online mooring prices ahead of inflation and > significantly more so in areas with exceptionally long waiting > lists. Hhmm. I thought BW were not supposed to be leading market prices. > A shortage is a mismatch between supply and demand. In a > well-functioning market, shortages are removed by movements in price. > A higher price both reduces demand and increases supply (by making <snip> Of course - Market Economics 101 > Adding to supply reduces the market-clearing price. But that is > addressing a different problem, i.e. wanting to pay less, as opposed > to wanting availability. > > It would be nice if there were more moorings. I'm sure all of us > would like to pay less for our moorings. The trouble is, it is very > difficult to create new moorings. The high land prices today make > many schemes for doing so uneconomic. We've had this discussion before and I proposed one solution to this was for groups of people (clubs) to build cooperative moorings to reduce the ROI targets. On uk.rec.waterways I have just asked you a question about what I call layby moorings...that is to have online moorings that are set up in a 'layby' so that the width of the canal at that point is not lost thereby resolving the two main objections to online moorings and, also I suspect, making them a much more attractive investment than marinas. >The ever-increasing regulation, > and the negative attitude towards such development in many local > authorities, can make approvals effectively impossible to get. > A very important factor and one that I think all of us (boaters, BW and user groups) should all be pursuing. It may even be one more good reason for BW to be in the Dep of Local GOv & Communities rather than Dept of Excuses, Foolishly Reasoned Adjustment. >> To my mind it should be part of BW's role to ensure that there >> are enough mooring s available for the expanding number of boats >> on coming on the market. > > How is it doing to do that? It has little more clout than any other > developer with respect to getting approvals for new moorings. It has > none with respect to economics (moorings produce much less revenue/ha > than, e.g., housing, no matter who owns the land). > One stop being in the mooring market as well as being the 'regulator'. IMO it is a conflict to be in a position to influence market prices as well as enjoying the profits of both direct and indirect income from the mooring market. Two, show some signs of trying to influence legislators etc to reduce the planning obstacles...why boaters might even help by writing to their MPs about it. Three, I suppose it is also possible that a reduction in the levy that BW expect from marina operators might help > OTOH, BW actually is trying quite hard to get more moorings created, > through (e.g.) its New Marinas Unit. It claims there are now several > thousand in the pipeline over the next decade. However, even this > number will not be enough to ensure availability at current prices. > That's good to hear....my own investigations into that area preceded the NMU and I found it mildly hard work to get information out of BW on that occasion even though Eugene kindly put me in touch with the 'right' people. >> I also fail to see the argument that moorings are under-priced. >> It seems obvious to me that the reason mooring prices are rising >> is simply because there are not enough to meet demand. Make more >> available and the price will stabilise to its true natural level >> (probably downwards) not one that is artificially inflated >> because of short supply. > > The "natural level" for the price is the market-clearing level. The > lack of vacancies is proof that current prices are below that level. I have a more simplistic view. The lack of vacancies is because of the lack of moorings. > You have actually agreed with that in your last paragraph above, by > saying it "is simply because there are not enough to meet demand". But > what you have left out is that this occurs *only* if the prices are > too low. > Not necessarily. If it was easier to get permission to open a marina/on line mooring and there was less/fewer charges from BW, etc. then perhaps more people (landowners) would take the risk. Seems to me that 2,200 miles of canal has 2,200 miles of potential mooring space and much of it is used only for grazing. >> Where has this auction idea come from? Where any boaters involved >> in the process? If so, I'd like to meet some of them in an open >> debate. > > If you're going to be at Hertford, let me know. There's a good venue > there for such debates (by happy coincidence, it is called "The (Old) > Barge". > That sounds like an interesting venue but it doesn't answer my question. By the way I thought your presentation at Gloucester was excellent. I meant to come over and introduce myself but seem to have missed your departure when I went to feed my meter. Cheers Will -- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
