Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Adrian Stott wrote: > >> >> Most of BW's property that is held for income is let on long-term >> (typically 25 year) commercial leases. Such leases do normally have >> periodic rent reviews, but these are usually specified as being >> "upward-only" so the rent can never fall. This means that BW's >> property income has probably reduced very little in the last year or >> two, and isn't likely to. >> > >How is it then that it dropped from £63.2 million in 2005/6 to >£59.56 million in 2006/7?
I haven't had the chance to review BW's accounts. Could be due to a number of reasons, such as: - Sale of some properties previously being rented - Withdrawal of some properties from lease to allow them to be redeveloped - Rent-free periods on new tenancies etc. etc. I repeat, real estate is a long-term investment, and generally very secure over the long-term. This means it is highly suitable for the provision of revenue to cover long-term liabilities, such as the waterways. It also means that the cyclical operation of the property market is not an argument against using it. OTOH, the rapidly increasing population of the UK seems effectively certain to result in an increased demand for real estate, and thus over the longer term significantly higher prices for it. I would sure rather see the waterways depend on real estate than on government, which we *know* is unreliable. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
