Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2023 20:09:18 GMT
The problem is, if CRT start to price continuous cruisers off the waterways, all boat owners will consequently suffer. At the moment, CRT has a vested interest in keeping the waterways maintained to a certain extent, owing to the fact that they have to enforce the 14 day rule. No continuous cruisers would probably result in less maintenance, and further damage to the waterways. Boat values would drop dramatically. Many Marina boat owners would just sell up owing to lack of cruising ability, (though that is happening already). It’s all getting a bit chaotic with CRT management, they are completely out of their depth. They’ve had 11 years to come up with a constructive plan for the future of waterways, but stupidly relied on obtaining further government funding, even though they had been specifically told it would not happen.
It’s too late now, the damage is done, and the only benefactors from the whole cock up are the pension greedy fat cats.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jul 5, 2023 20:12:49 GMT
We all have a 12 month licence ... how much time we devote to cruising is a personal choice surely. If free time is restricted a mooring is required, if not it isn't. Most years we pay for three months mooring ... this year sadly it was 7 months. I don't really understand this divisive wedge. Rog This is one view, and a perfectly valid one at that. You are right that how much time devoted to being out and about on the cut is a personal choice (albeit sometimes constrained by one’s personal circumstances). But that doesn’t mean that some sort of “pay per usage” model is an unreasonable strategy. It is simply an alternative strategy. But you pay to use the marina because that's your choice / personal circumstances ... a continuous cruiser doesn't need to pay for mooring because that's theirs. Not just a hint of green in your complaint is there ? Rog
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Jul 5, 2023 20:13:03 GMT
The problem is, if CRT start to price continuous cruisers off the waterways, all boat owners will consequently suffer. At the moment, CRT has a vested interest in keeping the waterways maintained to a certain extent, owing to the fact that they have to enforce the 14 day rule. No continuous cruisers would probably result in less maintenance, and further damage to the waterways. Boat values would drop dramatically. Many Marina boat owners would just sell up owing to lack of cruising ability, (though that is happening already). It’s all getting a bit chaotic with CRT management, they are completely out of their depth. They’ve had 11 years to come up with a constructive plan for the future of waterways, but stupidly relied on obtaining further government funding, even though they had been specifically told it would not happen. It’s too late now, the damage is done, and the only benefactors from the whole cock up are the pension greedy fat cats. I met a very interesting young man a few weeks back who was extolling much the same theory - i.e. the marina dwellers impose an awful lot of wear and tear on their "local" locks with their constant toing and froing to their "weekend mooring" whilst he had travelled over 100 miles and only used one lockful of water as he was still moving downhill!
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jul 5, 2023 20:18:15 GMT
The problem is, if CRT start to price continuous cruisers off the waterways, all boat owners will consequently suffer. At the moment, CRT has a vested interest in keeping the waterways maintained to a certain extent, owing to the fact that they have to enforce the 14 day rule. No continuous cruisers would probably result in less maintenance, and further damage to the waterways. Boat values would drop dramatically. Many Marina boat owners would just sell up owing to lack of cruising ability, (though that is happening already). It’s all getting a bit chaotic with CRT management, they are completely out of their depth. They’ve had 11 years to come up with a constructive plan for the future of waterways, but stupidly relied on obtaining further government funding, even though they had been specifically told it would not happen. It’s too late now, the damage is done, and the only benefactors from the whole cock up are the pension greedy fat cats. I met a very interesting young man a few weeks back who was extolling much the same theory - i.e. the marina dwellers impose an awful lot of wear and tear on their "local" locks with their constant toing and froing to their "weekend mooring" whilst he had travelled over 100 miles and o nly used one lockful of water as he was still moving downhill! He was very lucky to find all locks in his favour.
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Jul 5, 2023 20:20:20 GMT
I believe he is just a genuine cc'er, no grand plan and quite content to wait his turn.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 5, 2023 20:20:51 GMT
The problem is, if CRT start to price continuous cruisers off the waterways, all boat owners will consequently suffer. At the moment, CRT has a vested interest in keeping the waterways maintained to a certain extent, owing to the fact that they have to enforce the 14 day rule. No continuous cruisers would probably result in less maintenance, and further damage to the waterways. Boat values would drop dramatically. Many Marina boat owners would just sell up owing to lack of cruising ability, (though that is happening already). It’s all getting a bit chaotic with CRT management, they are completely out of their depth. They’ve had 11 years to come up with a constructive plan for the future of waterways, but stupidly relied on obtaining further government funding, even though they had been specifically told it would not happen. It’s too late now, the damage is done, and the only benefactors from the whole cock up are the pension greedy fat cats. If is a big if. Adding say 50% to CC licence fee isn’t going to price most CCers off the water. £500-ish is a fairly small extra % of the total cost of living on the cut. But there is a captive cash-cow audience there to screw some more money out of. EXCEPT that I don’t think the law allows them to charge differently for CC vs HM. As to your last couple of paras, unfortunately I can only agree.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 5, 2023 20:24:44 GMT
I pay for a home mooring and I don’t share your views. I’m not sure that dropping a few shekels in Tony’s pocket for the privilege of sharing one mooring space with 50 people, counts. I haven’t moored with Tony for along time. It was actually quite exspensive as well for what it was. Plus Tony should have been paying me for putting up with him.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 5, 2023 20:34:32 GMT
I don't pay for a home mooring and I don't share his views. or do you disagree with my view that people without a home mooring could reasonably be expected to pay more than those with? Most boaters without a home mooring cover far less of the network than I do, the usual complaint seems to be that they don't move enough. Your argument has no basis beyond showcasing the bitterness in your soul, and your hatred towards anyone who lives their life differently to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2023 20:36:10 GMT
CRT have not invested in the waterways, only in themselves. They had numerous chances to work with the people who had a vested interest in the continued survival of the waterways, but instead chose conflict and division. CRT has been nothing short of a disaster, and even made themselves look utterly stupid and incompetent by suggesting publicly a few months back, that the government should nationalise the waterways, again.
Utterly absurd.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 5, 2023 20:38:02 GMT
I’m not sure that dropping a few shekels in Tony’s pocket for the privilege of sharing one mooring space with 50 people, counts. I haven’t moored with Tony for along time. It was actually quite exspensive as well for what it was. Plus Tony should have been paying me for putting up with him. It was a joke!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 5, 2023 20:49:01 GMT
or do you disagree with my view that people without a home mooring could reasonably be expected to pay more than those with? Most boaters without a home mooring cover far less of the network than I do, the usual complaint seems to be that they don't move enough. Your argument has no basis beyond showcasing the bitterness in your soul, and your hatred towards anyone who lives their life differently to you. The basis of my argument is that the direct costs to CRT in terms of rubbish disposal, drinking water supply and disposal of shit is on average a lot more for CCers than for HMers. The other increased cost at a group level is that “enforcement” is mostly about CCers and not about HMers. The enforcement department probably employs a significant % of staff. All those towpath walkers and office dwellers sending snotograms… In our marina, everyone has to have a CRT licence. I would say that 75% never leave the marina, 20% rarely do and then go just a few miles before scuttling home. 5% are away for a month or two. It may come as a surprise to you, but this isn't all about you. One has to look at a broad spectrum of users to get an idea of trends, rather than looking at one or two people’s usage patterns - your own and … your own.
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Jul 5, 2023 20:50:41 GMT
Most boaters without a home mooring cover far less of the network than I do, the usual complaint seems to be that they don't move enough. Your argument has no basis beyond showcasing the bitterness in your soul, and your hatred towards anyone who lives their life differently to you. It may come as a surprise to you, but this isn't all about you. One has to look at a broad spectrum of users to get an idea of trends, rather than looking at one or two people’s usage patterns - your own and … your own. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Jul 5, 2023 20:54:57 GMT
But that argument is equally applied to you Telemachus You have a licence to cruise the system for 12 months but choose not to (personal circumstances) so have to take a mooring. Rog ETA metanoia beat me to it ... and more succinctly 😁
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 5, 2023 21:04:34 GMT
But that argument is equally applied to you Telemachus You have a licence to cruise the system for 12 months but choose not to (personal circumstances) so have to take a mooring. Rog ETA metanoia beat me to it ... and more succinctly 😁 But I am not basing my point on my own circumstances. I am basing on what I see around our marina, what I hear on the much larger forum CWDF and what I know about human nature. Personally I don’t think it is legally feasible to charge differently for CC Vs HM without a change in the law. But in my opinion, and it’s only my opinion, a survey of all boaters would probably support the idea, just as they supported charging wide beams more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2023 21:07:20 GMT
Most boaters without a home mooring cover far less of the network than I do, the usual complaint seems to be that they don't move enough. Your argument has no basis beyond showcasing the bitterness in your soul, and your hatred towards anyone who lives their life differently to you. The basis of my argument is that the direct costs to CRT in terms of rubbish disposal, drinking water supply and disposal of shit is on average a lot more for CCers than for HMers. The other increased cost at a group level is that “enforcement” is mostly about CCers and not about HMers. The enforcement department probably employs a significant % of staff. All those towpath walkers and office dwellers sending snotograms… Some valid points there. However, the costs for such services will continue to rise, and at some point, those heading out of the marinas will also be targeted. Setting out to support the CRT initiatives because it will stop them from hitting you is probably frivolous really. I would suggest an alternative, boat owners join forces to support a better management team with initiatives in funding, spending and support. CRT have received well over 2 billion quid since 2012, and yet last year, they couldn’t even organise vegetation management. CRT breeds within itself, and consequently uses up the majority of funding.
|
|