Adrian Stott wrote: > I think that depends on how much the charges are. If they are > *higher* than the going rent for a long-term mooring in the vicinity, > very boaters will choose to pay them but will get a long-term mooring > instead. Thus freeing up the public moorings, which surely is what we > want.
Using price to reduce overstaying is not what BW are suggesting; its the exact opposite: pay and you can stay where you like for as long as you like. The £25 per day overstay charge already exists in lots of locations (ISTR that you said previously all locations in the south actually) and I'm told the rule is largely ignored/unused. We then have the worst of both worlds, overstaying in popular sites and no money generated. Any new policy should be based on penalising overstaying not legitimising it. A month or so ago I was moored in Wheelock and talking to someone who was quite proud of his ability to overstay in that area. He had recently been contacted by Northwich who said that if he wanted to stay in Wheelock then he would have to pay a charge as it is a nominated winter mooring site. He asked if this guaranteed him a mooring if he moved away and back and they said no. He told them to get stuffed. I can imagine anyone else who is asked to pay without getting a specific mooring would do the same. Also I can imagine it would be pretty near impossible to get someone who has paid off a time restricted mooring. > I like this idea. I think that as a solution to the continuous mooring problem it has not been thought through and is destined to cause more problems than it solves. As a revenue raising exercise it is marginally better but still pretty poor as it's easy to bypass. Steve NB Bream
