On 27 Nov 2008, at 13:07, Adrian Stott wrote: > I wrote a WW article about this a while back. The real problem is > that CCs don't pay for moorings. The average boater (who does have a > long-term mooring) uses the public moorings no more than about 2 > months a year. The CCs use them 12 months a year. To me, that says > that CCs should be invoiced a mooring charge worth 10/12 of the price > of an annual long-term mooring. That would make getting a CC licence > much less financially attractive (in comparison to a conventional > licence) than it is now, and should reduce the numbers of them > significantly I think. > and here's the response from us that WW published:
Adrian Stott would like to charge continuous cruisers an extra £1500 for their licence and raise an extra £9 million for BW. Since the latest figures from BW state that they have issued licences to about 2000 boats with no declared mooring, we can't see how to get much past £3 million (1500 x 2000). Would Adrian like to amplify his maths? Of those 2000, a not inconsiderable proportion actually pay BW for winter moorings, but since it is only for part of the year it can't be declared as a permanent mooring. It would not be fair to charge them twice so we should reduce the potential income further. Shall we say £2 million? In his article Adrian is lumping together continuous cruisers and what have come to be called continuous moorers. We live on Sanity because we want to boat all the time, not because it is a cheap way of life, and Bruce's blog (http://nbsanity.blogspot.com/) shows that we comply with BW's rules very easily. They are clear enough and it is up to BW to enforce them on those boaters who bridge hop round a local area or just stay put for months. I can see no justification for penalising genuine continuous cruisers for the misdemeanours of a different group of boaters. Now let's look at the real costs to BW of our selfish behaviour in not paying for a mooring. We estimate that we use about sixty tankfuls of water a year. Boatyards that charge passing boaters for water put the price on a tankful between 50p and £2 so it would be generous to estimate the cost at £100. Adrian mentions sewage charges but would need to provide figures for the proportion of continuous cruisers who use cassette toilets. Both BW and the boatyards charge for pump out so he cannot complain about that. Then there is rubbish disposal. We can't think of a BW rubbish point that is not used by long term moorings so it is difficult to assess the extra cost of the one or two small carrier bags that we may add to a skip that has to be there anyway. We are actually very careful to recycle as much as we can. You may often see us going to the local supermarket with full carrier bags because, sadly, few BW sanitary stations provide recycling facilities, so we take it back to where it came from. Basically, then, Adrian would like to charge us £1500 for a few tanks full of water; rather a high figure even by the standards of the utility companies! Pensioners living in a house can expect a rebate on their council tax, not because they don't use local services but because it is accepted that they live on low fixed incomes. In the recent consultation on licence fee increases there was a discussion about the desirability of offering a reduced rate licence to pensioners; unfortunately it was acknowledged to be unworkable. A great many continuous cruisers are pensioners living on low fixed incomes. A recent survey established that many of us live on an income of less than £15,000 per annum. So instead of offering them a reduction in the cost of their licence, Adrian would like to relieve them of an extra 10% of their income. If BW did levy a £1500 premium on continuous cruising licences we know what will happen. Many of us (those who aren't driven off the water altogether) will rent the cheapest mooring we can find, not to occupy it but to avoid the levy. So there would be yet more competition for moorings and we know what that would mean, yet another price hike. Does Adrian really want to pay more for his mooring? Finally, all this is to ignore the benefits of having a number of experienced boaters constantly on the move round the system at all seasons. We provide interest and movement to the canalscape, often with some of the most interesting boats. We are more familiar than most with the reporting mechanisms for problems and with the personnel of the waterways. And we provide a pool of expert advice and assistance to the holiday makers, many of whom are hirers from those very APCO companies who, it seems, wish to see us penalised for our choice of lifestyle. > However, BW hasn't summoned the fortitude to do this yet. No, even BW can do maths better than you. All the best Bruce There are no strangers on the cut, only boaters we've yet to meet. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
