|
Post by kris on Jul 19, 2018 9:21:14 GMT
Thanks for the links gazza, interesting reading. The thing I find really intriguing is the way the EA have followed carts process for justifying the increases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 9:32:33 GMT
Thanks for the links gazza, interesting reading. The thing I find really intriguing is the way the EA have followed carts process for justifying the increases. We had period where the were pushing low carbon impact leisure use (canoing to me and you) they spent a fortune on canoe portages (many of which were in the wrong place - around 7 years on most are taped off and not in use! Maybe C&Rt got the idea of pushing the waterways for everyone bar boaters from the EA?! As far as costs go my annual bill to have the boat floating on the Nene is a couple of quid short of £1000 - this is made up of the following EA licence fee (including tender) Club membership and mooring fees BSS amortised over 4 years Insurance Just under half is club fees (which also include use of slip and paint dock at no extra cost, a tidy sum on top at our nearest commercial Marina) £83.33 a month is a bargain, best of all the Dwarf's child benefit covers all bar 53p of it I haven't included things like running costs, you know, beer, pub grub, ice creams, bowling - you know the sort of thing
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 19, 2018 9:37:07 GMT
Very rarely, but I'm quite happy for the maintenance of them to decline, so that they become un-paved tracks. The point is it's the same argument as you put forward. So explain to me the difference. Why should I pay for services that I don't use? You see what you said there, same for joe blogs on the river then. Ideal world you pay for the river upkeep and screw what you dont use, joe pays for roads and schools and screw the stuff he doesnt use, never gonna happen though is it. Oh so your not as stupid as you seem sometimes. Yes I know what I wrote, it's the same argument you put forward. In a sensible humane society people pay into a central pot so that hopefully all services that are needed to keep society running and healthy can be paid for. Not pick and choose what they want to pay for or not. I don't claim housing benefit, but I'm happy for my taxes to go on housing benefit otherwise we would have more homeless than we have. That's not the kind of society I want to live in. The argument you put forward, the liscence fees don't cover the cost of the waterways. Is a spurious argument put out by cart and now the EA to justify over inflation increases. Cart get so much for boat liscences, but they also earn income from the property portfolio, the idea is that this income goes to maintaining the waterways. Which seems reasonable, after all there would be no property portfolio without boats. This is without considering the money from central government. So there is enough money to maintain the navigations,if cart rationalises it's managment structure and stops squandering money. So this idea that boat liscences don't pay for the upkeep of the waterways is spurious. Perhaps you should look up how much is actually spent on maintenance every year?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 19, 2018 9:59:49 GMT
A more accurate intereputation of the statement " the revenue from boat liscences doesn't cover the cost of running the waterways so boaters must pay more." Would be the revenue from boat liscences doesn't cover our large saleries or pensions. We are not prepared for the gravy train to end so boaters must pay more.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 19, 2018 10:16:53 GMT
It makes the Broads tolls look good value . . . The Broads tolls are fixed by statute to cover administrative costs of the registration scheme only - if I recall correctly; designedly no surplus to cover any maintenance of the navigation whatsoever. With the Middle Level Bill, we have managed to get undertakings that the level of charges are not designed to cover navigation maintenance, only to supply a contribution towards those. (future changes to allow it to cover those being subject to approval from the Navigation Advisory committee to be set up - with boater representation). Boats being lived on within marinas are only to be charged admin costs if they do not leave the marina; the Select Committee agreed the benefits of registration, but agreed that they should not be asked to pay for what they did not use.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 19, 2018 10:34:21 GMT
... We are not prepared for the gravy train to end so boaters must pay more. This is the nub of the problem, the bloody trains! If their gravy still had to be delivered by boat, things would be much better.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 19, 2018 10:38:37 GMT
Why should I pay for roads then, or for schools or any of the services I don't use that I pay into? Because otherwise England would be overrun with uneducated barbarians (I mean, more than at present). By supporting other peoples' kids in education you are being an active member of Society. You use the roads even if it's just buying something that has come by road. The Police are helping to stop you getting murdered three times a day. Ambulances drive along roads and are available 24/7 for your first dizzy spell. I'd suggest you read the rest of what I've posted in is thread and take the above bit you've quoted in context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 10:39:11 GMT
It makes the Broads tolls look good value . . . The Broads tolls are fixed by statute to cover administrative costs of the registration scheme only - if I recall correctly; designedly no surplus to cover any maintenance of the navigation whatsoever. With the Middle Level Bill, we have managed to get undertakings that the level of charges are not designed to cover navigation maintenance, only to supply a contribution towards those. (future changes to allow it to cover those being subject to approval from the Navigation Advisory committee to be set up - with boater representation). Boats being lived on within marinas are only to be charged admin costs if they do not leave the marina; the Select Committee agreed the benefits of registration, but agreed that they should not be asked to pay for what they did not use. Thanks Nigel, informative as ever!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 19, 2018 10:54:27 GMT
... We are not prepared for the gravy train to end so boaters must pay more. This is the nub of the problem, the bloody trains! If their gravy still had to be delivered by boat, things would be much better. It's abit early to be drinking already Nick, even if you are a pensioner.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 19, 2018 10:56:46 GMT
Actually, there is some ambiguity in the Broads Act. On the one hand, s.1 states: “ ‘toll’ means a charge levied by the Authority under section 26 of the Harbours Act 1964 (c. 4) and includes any charge levied in respect of a vessel moored, used or navigated on any adjacent waters;” – and s.11(2) provides: “The Authority may make byelaws for the purpose of providing for the registration of vessels in the navigation area or on adjacent waters, and for the determination and recovery of tolls in respect of vessels moored, used or navigated in the navigation area or on adjacent waters.” That does not suggest any capping.
S.11(5) on the other hand, provides: “The Authority may require an applicant for registration, on making his application, to pay a reasonable fee in respect of the administrative expenses of dealing with the application; and different fees may be specified in relation to different cases or classes of case.”
Arguably, they could charge what they liked for the toll, and additionally charge an administration fee for processing the application for it! It is unsatisfactorily indeterminate; the admin fees would not alter depending on different classes etc, which is why I feel that this must refer to the tolls. That is given some emphasis by the preamble which states that the reason for the Act is only for "the regulation and management of the navigation area of the authority"; no mention of any need to raise funds for upkeep. Doubtless lawyers could argue to the contrary as I have indicated, and the venerable legal maxim that ambiguities in private Acts must be construed against the promoters in favour of the public would receive merely a scant nod of recognition in judgments if alluded to at all.
The Middle Level Bill very specifically states that live aboard boats not using the navigation need only pay administrative costs (including checks on insurance and safety certificates).
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 19, 2018 15:36:34 GMT
Why should I pay for roads then, or for schools or any of the services I don't use? I don't know what you're on about with my comment (which was not a 'quote' from anywhere) - but I have tidied up your question. See above. You quoted me foxy, but you quoted me out of context. So the words you quoted could be construed to mean something they didn't in the original context. What's so hard to understand?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 19, 2018 16:27:48 GMT
I suggest you re-read whats written because that is not what I said at all. I was pointing out the stupidity of Froggys stance.so yes by clipping what i said you are misquoting me.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 19, 2018 16:35:18 GMT
Kris wasent moaning but questioning someone else's post.
he made a valid point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 18:12:01 GMT
At least he actually quoted (even if out of context).
He usually quotes and alters what you've written.
Bless.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by larkboy on Jul 19, 2018 18:37:24 GMT
Thing is why should the tax payers foot the bill for our boating pleasures, joe blogs never goes near the river, has no interest in the river yet his taxes go towards keeping it open for navigation for boaters... Would i pay more for my boat on the system, yes, but only to a point, trigger points will come, hard up boaters will get hit first, then the like of myself who does not live on the boat at the minute but can afford to use it as a pleasure thing. Think of it this way, a cheap house to rent in the hawkesbury junction area is £600-£700/month, i pay around £230/month to have by boat on the cut, moored offside, its not that bad really. Taxpayers in East Anglia should help foot the bill, or at least all those with houses built on flood plains, of which there are many. The waterways infrastructure is as much to do with flood and levels management as it is about navigation. I also think the E.A need to be far more proactive in collecting licence fees from all the tossers that don't think it applies to them, there are an awful lot round our way.
|
|