"Jannock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Sue wrote " How about charging for the length of time one spends on their >boat?" > >BW already do this in reverse. >If I weekend Jannock around the system for 9 months then they only get 3 >months end of garden rate from me. Next year I wish to stay longer on my >private mooring and so I will have to cough up an extra 4-500 pounds for the >honour of NOT using the system.
>How fair is that? Graham, if you (or anyone else) can tell me what "fair" means, I would be pleased to try and answer your question. Quipping aside, this question actually points to a key flaw in the BWAF proposals -- there is no methodology for evaluating them. So they are actually just a statement of opinion by BWAF, i.e. by the narrow-boat-owning lobby. No surprise, then, that it is recommending that wider craft pay more, eh? BW should have started this exercise with a real debate, and properly-run consultation, on what the criteria should be for evaluating proposed amendments to the system of charges. This would be very useful, and eliminate a lot of guff. It would allow a proper examination of, e.g., whether "ability to pay" is a valid criterion wrt waterway chargess, and, if so (unlikely), how to assess it (which would show that boat value is useless as a proxy for it, and that size is useless proxy as a proxy for boat value). Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
