howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
as has been said, landlords will have to accept the fact that they will not have an easy time from here on in.
they have had it easy up until now, owning property in places that they have never visited, sitting back collecting rents.
when the rents started to dry up they comforted themselves with the fact that the property was gaining in value.
this will not happen anymore, a high street of empty properties, with syringes in each doorway will not be saleable.
whether a government will ever bite the bullet and reduce business rates is another issue altogether.
it has always been an easy source of revenue.
Keith said: "Do we realy want to encourage boarded up shops throughout the town because thats where we are heading"
How about this:
Do we really want to pay £24.99 for a Blu-Ray in HMV when we can get it for £17.99 from Amazon?
We can't have our cake and eat it. We all want the benefits of online shopping but without losing the charm of the high street outing. Can't have everything. Shoppers are currently holding all the power, they and they alone will decide the fate of the high street. What do we do? Force shops to sell for less and see their profits fall? Ban online shopping? There is no simple answer. I think a better system of business rates might be a good start, help shops get some of their overheads down so that they can seriously start competing with the web.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The biggest property owner in Dover's High Street is a charity Howard. In many towns it is pension funds....
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
yes barry, but the charity is like a secret society, very difficult to find out the financial records and what they do that benefits the town.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Actually, it's not a case of some rent is better than no rent, because if Landlords reduce their rent, it also reduces the value of their property portfolio and that is one thing they want to keep high.
Many Dover properties are subject to almost London-rated rents and are far too high for the level of trading they are doing. Business-rates - or NNDR, are another big bane of a small business owner. If anyone could wave a magic wand and get either, or both of these reduced, they'd be voted in as PM, let alone Dover Business Support Manager.
I do think there needs to be an agreement to lower rents and rates and give small independant traders help, but I do believe all traders (large or small) need a level playing field and they're not getting one.
I don't know if it's possible or even legal, but to get new businesses opening up here, there should be a relief period of say 5 years, where the rent and rates are 50% of normal, then increase by 10 % each year; this would give the businesses time to grow and become better businesses and gradually as they make more money, they could afford to pay a little more too.
At the very least, they'd be given a fighting chance.
The Town itself needs sprucing up - from run-down buildings, to closed down buildings; from weeds and dead flowers to bright colourful flowers and plants; from banners across the road telling us what's coming up next, to restoring pride in the Town.
Reading the Express yesterday about La Via Romana and the aggravation he's experienced, it's no wonder businesses aren't doing well. On this very point, the DPAC phone would have worked very well and what about the "manned" CCTV ? that's supposed to be operated during daylight hours and this offence was during day-light hours, so why wasn't it picked up ?
Roger
If we can bail out the banks with so many acres of folding stuff you would think we could support local busineses........................
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
Totally agree with Ross there. Absolutely spot-on.
On a similar note, below is a piece from today's Sun, for your information. Please pay particular attention to the final paragraph:
**********************************
The credit crunch has seen the number of empty shops triple in the past year, it was revealed yesterday.
In some towns a quarter of high street stores stand empty.
Analysts warned that the economic crisis will "change our high streets forever".
The collapse of Woolworths, MFI and thousands of independent firms means shop vacancies have shot to 12 per cent.
The worst-hit town is Kent seaside resort Margate, where vacancy rates rocketed from five to 25 per cent.
The outlook is almost as bleak in Gateshead, Tyneside, and Hanwell, West London.
The Local Data Company studied 675 town centres in England and Wales and found only THREE had no vacancies.
Shop openings were down 50 per cent over the past 18 months. Director Matthew Hopkinson said: "Vacancy rates show no signs of abating. Banks are not lending and no one is thinking about investing."
The British Property Federation said councils were "cutting their own throats" with planning and parking restrictions.
******************************
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I think Dover is perhaps weathering the recession better than most Towns, but there is so much to do - on every level.
Just think how much better the Town would/could be with a Business Support Body supporting and promoting it.
Roger.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,698
From BBC business today - 19,000 shops have closed this year (12,000 independent traders and 7,000 branches of chains)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8177502.stm"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
post 26 from our bern says rather a lot.
the sort of money needed to give a little help to small local businesses would be a drop in the ocean compared that doled out to banks.
the same banks that are now ripping off mortgage payers.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
And those who need loans Howard - small businesses for cash flow and individuals for house improvements etc. which also keeps the economy going.
Isn't the Bank Rate, 1/2 of one percent ? loans around 8% and mortgages around 6 to 7%.
It is necessary for the Banks to make a profit, but this is just greedy and totally unhelpful to the economy in general.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The Base Rate is one of several factors that determines lending rates, usually it is a major one but that is not the case now. To characterise the present lending rates as banks ripping anyone off is not accurate. There are better deals than you identify there Roger, and others that are worse. One problem we have at the moment is reduced competition. This is felt regarding savings rates as well.
The banks make a margin on the difference between what they pay for money (the interest paid to savers for instance) and the rate they lend at, lower lending rates means lower saver rates and visa versa. Clearly there are other factors such as risk and the costs of defaults come out of the margins. In a recession risks of default are increased as well that has to be accounted for. Likewise on mortgages, property prices are a lot lower, many are in negative equity or close to it, as a result forced sales are not recovering all that is owed, these losses need to come out of margins as well. You cannot just look at the low base rate, compare lending rates to that and claim borrower are being ripped off. Remember as well that there are other fixed costs to lending that comes from margins, unaffected by base rates, salaries, offfices, power light etc etc... Lower lending volumes requires a higher margins to cover these costs also.
Frankly that is all so much wind. Each of us has been ripped off to bail out the banks. What they trade in is mostly on paper and on handshakes and reputations. We are in thrall to a bunch of people who deal in hypotheticals and have no moral compass.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
There are good and bad, Bern, as in all aspects of life. You cannot get away from basic facts, if they trade in a manner that they are not covering their costs and making a return on capital then we will all end up paying a lot more in the longer term. It is not 'wind' at all, these are complex businesses that are central to our economy and they must be allowed to operate efficiently and properly. Yes they need regulating and it was done very well indeed by the Bank of England for decades until Brown introduce his mad tri-ppartied regime and got wrong the BofE inflation/interest rate brief.
You are, of course, right, and I am admittedly biased having been taken advantage of by a scumbag in one of the banks - won't bore you with it, but it was clearly wrong and not my fault. I have moved on!! But the fact remains that we have allowed ourselves to be enslaved by a set of people and a set of rules that ultimately benefits no-one but the banks and the bankers. We collude with this power-based sham and still don't struggle away from it. this government is no better or worse than any other in diving into that pit of collusion and swimming with the sharks.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I cannot agree by this 'enslavement' point, we have a totally different view of life.
Though I am defending the banks, make no mistake I am no admirer of them and the very poor service offered these days by all banks.
You mention a problem with a bank, I hope that you went through the correct complaint procedures and if necessary went to the ombudsman.
Do you realise that 70% of life/pensions and investment business last year was placed through independent financial advisers and yet only 3% of the complaints that went to the ombudsman were regarding IFAs. To put it another way that means that banks and building societies (mainly but not exclusively) were responsible for 97% of complaints despite having just 30% of the business....So you see I have no reason to love them myself.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,698
The responsibility for getting into hock to the banks principally lies with the borrowers - people really must start taking responsibility for their actions.
Yes there have been (and probably still are) some dubious practices within banking and as Barry has pointed out they are the subject of the majority of complaints, however this does not excuse borrowers from their responsibility to borrow within their ability to repay.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
And if one is unwell? The idea of the complaints process in the banking system working to the advantage of the consumer is, frankly, risible. I can only agree about personal responsibility - we are advocates of the same in every part of life. But there are occassions when that is not an option, when perhaps depression or poor mental health can impact on actions. And the liklihood of someone that vulnerable or disordered being either able to start and complete a stressful process such as complaints (and it is stressful, let's not beat about the bush) or have the motivation to do so is remote enough to be invisible. And banks or the people who represent them who take advantage of the vulnerable are the scum at the bottom of the litter tray.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
I think BERN you are correct but whenever I have dealt with the multi national banks I have made sure wherever I can i am in control of whats going on
not always easy but you have to try
Well duh! I guess I was raising the need for accountability when that is clearly not the case, and someone is unwell. Banks do not give a flying one as long as there is no loss of their income.
