On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:18:01 +0100, you wrote: >"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.
Hang on a mo. I thought you were the one who wanted BW to get a large property portfolio. Isn't maintaining and getting income from it what they should be doing, not just selling it to get capital that - once spent - has gone forever. >> 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. Surely this ought to include buildings that contribute to what the waterways look like, not just be new developments. After all, if the private sector want them, they must be worth money, so BW should be able to realise that for their use as part of "maximizing revenue". -- On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
