Bruce Napier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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. >> >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?
I hate to spoil a good story with facts, but -- What I actually said in the article was: "APCO thinks that charging continuous cruisers for mooring would definitely be fair on that basis, and estimates that, at around £1,500 per boat, it could bring in up to a very significant £9m each year." Please note the first two words in that quote. If I had said "A famous actor believes in scientology", that *doesn't* mean that I do. Unfortunately, the writer of the response letter quoted above seems to have misunderstood that. I actually think both components of the APCO estimate (average annual charge for a long term mooring, and number of boats without one at present) are somewhat high. However, even if the actual amount were only a quarter of what APCO estimates, I think it would still be worthwhile for BW to get it. >In his article Adrian is lumping together continuous cruisers and >what have come to be called continuous moorers. I am lumping together all those who do not have a long-term mooring. Every boat has to moor somewhere (almost)each night, after all. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't much care what it is used for during the day. >Now let's look at the real costs to BW of our selfish behaviour in >not paying for a mooring. <snip of a long paragraph about service costs> Sorry, Bruce, but you are off the point again. What BW loses is the *revenue* from charging you for mooring. Nothing to do with services or the costs of providing them. The price for a mooring is set by the market, not through some cost-plus calculation. The market price of a year's mooring is, let's say, £1,000 for the average boat (but over £2,000 for some, of course). I think that price applies in total whether you use the same mooring every day, or 50 or more different ones in the year. I claim that a standard licence should come with, say, two month's use of public moorings, which is comfortably more than most boaters cruise in a year. So I think that you, as a licenced continuous cruiser, should each year pay 10/12 of the market price (note, not "cost") of renting a long-term mooring in addition to the standard licence fee. >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. I think BW is not in the housing business, and is certainly not in the housing subsidy business. So I think that if you want your mooring subsidised, you need to find another outfit to provide the subsidy. It definitely shouldn't come out the already too-small amount BW has available to spend on maintaining the waterways. >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? No, what would happen is a lot of people who have bought boats because they see them as cheap living space will change their minds and sell them. And, I suspect, quite a lot of the towpath squatters' boats would be scrapped. >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. If you want to get paid as a cruising waterways expert, get hired for a position which that is the job description. Don't claim we've already hired you and therefore you are taking your pay in moorings, as that seems a little, er, arrogant.. Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
