2008/9/22 Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "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
I can't disagree with a word of this. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
