On 09/05/07, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Adrian, I sometimes wonder if you're getting paid by BW, so much of an apologist are you for its policies. The fact is the interests of personal owners, and our interests as users of the canal, are often at variance. Take lockside cottages, as one small example. People who buy houses anywhere, unsurprisingly want privacy. They erect fences, hedges and lines of trees to shield themselves from passers by. On the cut we are finding increasingly that we can't even SEE this preserved heritage any more: lock cottages are simply disappearing behind green screens. And there are many other examples of sold-off heritage architecture becoming inaccessible to canal users, and I'm surprised you aren't aware of it. Perhaps it's because I've been too busy with Cavalcade to set you right, since I know how much you depend on me for guidance on these matters ;-) Or perhaps you've been spending too much time with that nice Mr Baston? > > Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
