Adrian Stott wrote: > "Neil Arlidge" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Nick Atty wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:24:04 -0000, Neil Arlidge wrote: >>> >>>> There is one school of thought that says we should just let BW get >>>> on with it. The waterways will survive in some form or other. With >>>> a slight downturn in the economy BW will hang themselves...after >>>> all that is what happens when you mess with virtual privatisation, >>>> market forces and 200 year old infrastructure...look what happened >>>> to Railtrack...and Metronet. > > This comparison doesn't work. BW depends primarily on *income* from > its property portfolio. Such income mostly comes as rent from > standard leases, which are usually for 20 or 25 year terms with > upward-only rent reviews (i.e. the rent never goes down). In other > words, this is an unusually secure and stable form of income, exactly > the type needed for funding the waterways. > > The design of the original railway privatisation was poor, because it > suffered from the unfortunate constraint that it should produce an > arrangement that any incoming Labour government would find too > expensive to reverse (the design chosen overlooked the fact that if > the railways went bust, renationalising them would not be expensive). > It also ignored the original logic under which the railways were > build, i.e. that the same business should own the track and the > trains, and run the trains. > > The Metronet problem is based on the looney-tunes way in which the > Tube is structured (not the least the huge subsidies it needlessly > depends on). A significant cause of it is also the grotesquely > complicated contracts involved, a typical artifact of the > generally-failing PFI idea. > > If funding yourself from the income of a property portfolio is such a > bad idea, how is it that so many major univerties (Harvard, Stamford, > Oxford ...) have used it successfully for so long? > >>> I am arguing against: >>> >>> Endless rows of identikit fake-wharehouse-shaped housing on both >>> banks of miles of waterways in the suburbs. >>> Endless shiny office buildings in the centres >>> Both of which take a lot of value from being by the waterways, and >>> from having boats passing, but return nothing other than the >>> occasional "No Mooring" sign or the closure of a useful facility >>> because it doesn't fit in. > > Then talk to the local authorities that approve this stuff. This is > not an issue of waterways management. > > However, it may be a bit unrealistic to expect the continuation of > waterways lined with derelict brick sheds. > >>> New boat after new boat crewed by people who have no interest in the >>> waterways per se, > > Yes - keep those heretics out of our church! Sic the dogs on them! > >> I have often wondered why BW want a larger property portfolio and the >> provision to borrow and seen to make no real attempt to get in money >> from community sources, > > Wonder no more. It is is because BW wants a secure income to cover as > much of its revenue requirements as possible. Government grant is not > such an inome. "Community sources" money is even less so. > >> could it be that they have not *quite* got a large enough >> portfolio (and they KNOW this?) to weather any down turn in the >> property market. > > You are partly right. BW does *not* have a large enough portfolio. It > still needs government grant to cover the difference between its > property income and its operational costs. But that is nothing to do > with the normal cycles of the real estate market.
>From what I have heard am totaly right and BW have NOT got a large enough property portfolio to cover cycles in the real estate market! Shirley this is what they are after? BW will be making a loss on quite a bit of new property they have coming on stream....mind you I am sure market forces will soon sort BW out. -- Neil Arlidge - NB Earnest - Shannon Reg 7410 Read about our Irish travels at: http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/Tour_07/index.html
