"Neil Arlidge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It is indeed the historic arifacts that are at risk! >BW waterways managers have a 4 year "asset disposal" program that must >include a LOT of historic buildings within that portfolio...perhaps Eugene >can elaborate on this for us?
If BW sells a historic building, all that happens is that the building gets a new owner. That is not the same a demolition! BW owns a lot of historic buildings. Historic buildings cost a lot to maintain/operate. The money to do that must come from BW, i.e. it gets spent on that rather than on running the waterways. If BW owns a historic building that it does not need (i.e. is not required for the operation of the waterways), surely we are better off if BW sells it? The buyer will want/need it, and BW will both be relieved of the cost of maintaining it and get a capital sum from the sale. > After all Robin Evans did say heritage was safe in BW's hands It sounds to me that that statement refers to buildings which remain in BW's ownership. The heritage protection laws/rules covering the building don't change if BW sells it. They apply to the new owner just the same. So, if BW is disposing of a lot of (unneeded) historic buildings, that sounds to me like a good thing for the waterways. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
