----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Stott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [canals-list] Re: Working narrowboats to pay the £50 "broad" beam surcharge?! (XP)
> Steve Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Adrian Stott wrote: >> >>> And if all the towpath moorings are already occupied when you get >>> there? >> >>Moor somewhere else. Better luck next time. Paying extra to the licence >>fee for a short term towpath mooring is unacceptable under any >>circumstances. > > Right. > > Suppose I'm a retired visitor from Australia, taking my > once-in-a-lifetime cruise on the UK waterways. I especially want to > visit my aged sister, who lives in Braunston, and I need to be right > in town because my wife walks with two canes. > > I'm going to be really satisfied by finding "Moorings Full - Better > Luck Next Time" sign all along the towpath, aren't I? Especially when > I would have been quite happy to pay a couple of quid to moor close to > the town. > > When the demand for something exceeds supply, the best method of > dealing with the situation *is* usually to put a market-clearing price > on it. > > Contrary to your belief, this isn't an example of arrogant gouging. It > is actually the way to ensure that those with the greatest need get > the supply. It gives everyone a choice, instead of the moorings > always going those who are happy to tie up at 2 p.m. every day (unlike > most hirers, who want to see rather more of the waterway than that > allows. Too bad for them, eh?). > > There are obviously quite a few boaters who agree with you, though. I > have tried to puzzle out why. I've come to the conclusion that it is > because you know how to work the current system, and get the moorings > you want when you want. If there were a visitor mooring charge in > busy locations, you might find that impossible to get round, though. > With money at stake, the lackadaisical enforcement of time limits > would be replaced by proper monitoring. If you didn't pay (a small > amount) initially, you would pay (a much larger amount) when you were > caught. Your knowledge of the waterways would no longer be an > advantage in this situation. > > Maybe that's unfair, and you are actually objecting on principle. In > that case, I suggest you should rethink the principle, because your > conclusion is highly questionable IMHO. > > Unavailability, the injustice of unauthorised over-staying, etc. are > actually much worse than a mooring fee. First-come-first-served is > actually highly inconvenient to the majority. OTOH, market pricing > can ensure there are always some moorings available, for as long as > you want them, everywhere. > > Lack of pricing works only where supply is very large compared to the > demand. The supply of moorings is not very large, so that approach is > simply no longer appropriate. > > Think of it this way. The licence does indeed give you the right to > moor. Subject to your paying a mooring fee in busy locations. > I actually agree wth Adrian on this, so long as charging is used to regulate demand at popular mooring sites, and NOT as a stealth tax on boaters.This is also why I can see no justifcation for slapping an extra charge on continuous cruisers: they have paid for their mooring rights already. -- Iain
