On 24 Sep 2008 at 15:14, Adrian Stott wrote: > "George Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >On 23 Sep 2008 at 12:28, Adrian Stott wrote: > > > >> But increasing the supply of moorings at honeypots is typically very > >> expensive. So reducing the demand is usually the better alternative, > >> at least in the short/medium term. I think that the fairest way to > >> reduce demand, and to help fund an increase in supply, is to charge > >> for the moorings. > > > >I don't see anything "fair" in this. In the extreme case, it would mean > >only the well-to-do could justify mooring at a honeypot site. Free > >market pricing is fine in commercial business, but not when imposed by > >an organisation you've already identified as a monopoly, and not when > >it applies to property theoretically "owned by the public". Instead, > >strictly enforce short stay requirements. If demand is way too high, > >allow pre-booking with a possible lottery component. > > BW *is* a monopoly with respect to the right to navigate. However, it > is *not* a monopoly with respect to moorings.
It *is* a monopoly with respect to honeypot moorings, which are what we're talking about. > The identity of the owner of what is being priced simply isn't > relevant, because the issues of return on investment and allocation of > goods does not vary depending on ownership. Here we have a political disagreement. I believe that property that is "owned by the public" and for the "recreational use of the public" (such as parks, waterways, footpaths, museums) should allow equal access to ALL of the public, not just the well-to-do. > If I were approaching e.g. Llangollen (but not in my barge, of > course!) on a leisurely and unprogrammed cruise, and wanted to stay > for a couple of nights, what good would a lottery system do me? Two points here: 1. due to their popularity, honeypot moorings could never be used for an unprogrammed cruise unless the mooring price were set high enough to ensure space (50 ukp per night at Llangollen in season?). 2. I suggested "pre-booking with a *possible* lottery component" [emphasis added]. On days and moorings where pre-booking demand is too high, a lottery system would at least give you a *chance* of getting a honeypot mooring (free of course). I do not subscribe to the idea that someone with sufficient money can just buy their way in. > I > wouldn't have known which day I was going to arrive, and I wouldn't > want to gamble on getting mooring when I actually did arrive. I would > want to be sure of getting one no matter what day I showed up. You might very well want this, but only those willing to put up enough money would get it, under your scheme. > Although a short stay would suit those people who want to stay for a > short time only, it would exclude those people who want to stay for > e.g. three or four days. Why should the former have priority? We are sharing the resource. > >On 23 Sep 2008 at 12:28, Adrian Stott wrote: > > > >> I think it is very *un*fair to charge large boats more. They impose no > >> added costs on BW, and their cruising ranges are smaller so they > >> should actually pay less. > > > >I think I missed something. Two thought experiments: > > > >1. Suppose BW licensed canoes. Then canoes should pay the largest > >charge, because they have the largest range. > > Yes, their per-day rate would be the maximum. But, since they are > usually kept in the garge and thus would pay for only those days they > are taken to the water, the number of days they would pay for per year > would be small so their total annual payment would be small. You are trying to defeat the argument on a technicality. Pick some other small vessel if you like that is not so easily removed. (Note: this in-water/out-of-water distinction is a bit odd anyway. A canoe in the water is chargable for cruising range, but as soon as it's pulled up on the bank, it isn't?. But then this is only a thought experiment.) > >2. Suppose BW licensed boats on the Thames. Then a big gin palace on > >the Thames should pay a very low fee, as they have such a limited range. > > What's wrong with that? If the boat is so big it can't get through > Windsor bridge, its owner naturally wants to buy the right to use only > the Thames below Windsor. Why should he be forced also to buy the > right to navigate on other waters that his boat can't reach or fit > into? ... or forced to buy the right to navigate waters in which he has no interest? Suppose I'm a weekend boater with a boat on the GU, and that's where I intend to stay. BW, as a monopoly, is NOT selling me what I want - the right to navigate on the GU - but would insist (under your scheme) that I must buy the right to navigate on all waters that would happen to fit my boat.
