Windermere and Bowness firms say 'no' to trade boost tax (From The Westmorland Gazette)

Seems clear which businesses voted against the idea, which is hardly surprising, since their higher rates would see the contributing more.

Perhaps the way forward would be a clearer idea on what the money could be spent on - draw up a wish list, and see which items those businesses WOULD support?

It is hardly surprising that the proposal was blocked as the document itself was fundamentally flawed. The document granted landlords too much voting power which overshadowed the vast majority of smaller proprieters who were in favour of the tax agreement. I think its a great shame this proposal was blocked by those who have taken a short termist view. The investmewnt outlay was very small (1%) of total rates and i believe the benefits earned through improvments to the village for example improved visitor staisfaction, increase number in return visitors would have greatly outweighed the annual tax charge. The feedback effects would have ironically accrued to those who blocked the proposal. It is a weak argument to blame the national financial crisis to the failure, infact i believe that in a time of national financial crisis windermere must look to commit more investment to the improvement of the local area. We have to invest to speculate. According to Pricewaterhousecoope
rs UK the North has been disproportionately affected by the recession (primarily due to redindancies in the council sector) therefore with disposable income at an all time low, we have to entice people to visit Windermere instead of the visiting competitors, such as grasmere, Ambleside or Scotland. It is really becoming apparent that Bowness has been waining in terms of day visitors and overnight stays in recent years due to the speed boat ban and the economic downturn. Therefore it is absolutely essential that we begin to take a longtermist view of the area and not shy away from new investment, this keeps the area from decaying and keeps both commercial and residential property prices high. Perhaps a good idea would be instead to grant the council more powers to impose financial penalities on landlords who fail miserably to upkeep their properties.

To be fair, 1% of for instance Lakeland or Booths rateable value, was going to be a far bigger sum of money than say Huddlestones butchers, so big businesses would end up paying the largest sum, while probably benefiting less from some of the tentative proposals about what the money should be spent on... such as improved parking! They have car parks, which attract customers!

So what measures COULD the money be spent on, which would benefit ALL the businesses?
That is where the way forward lies - the common ground.

The voting system presently in place, where rather than single votes, votes are weighted according to rateable value will not help the situation, as the numbers of larger businesses in Windermere and Bowness will always give them an edge.

Businesses below a certain rateable value were excluded from voting, so perhaps those ABOVE a certain threshold might be similarly excluded?

i agree, the voting system was unfair so shame on the likes of windermere cruises, lakeland stores, lakeland plastics, big hotels like storrs park who voted against the wishes of the majority. they should re-do the vote more fairly.

I think the Chamber of Trade should still find some common ground where all concerned would benefit - that way the bigger businesses would not always be at odds with the scheme.

After all, it IS the bigger businesses that will pay more towards it, and they are under just as much financial pressure!

Ok, so before all the large businesses in the area get unfairly lynched, can we just point out some basic facts...
Out of 800 or so businesses, only 297 voted, this could have been because they didn't care what the result was, or it could have been that they believed if they didn't vote it would automatically class as a 'no' vote. In fact if people didn't vote because they didn't want the BID, then they were actually without knowing voting for it! There was vey little done to change this last point of view, and a 'real' reluctancy to educate people of the fact. This could only be down to 'very' poor communication skills from the BID committee, or something possibly a little more strategic!
I'm sure everyone that was passionate about it voted, I can not say the same about everyone who was against it. Only a few years ago, we saw what happened when people presumed the 10mph ban wouldn't happen... only a few fought, and no surprise when a ban appeared by magic.

So back to the facts...

Total number of votes = 297
Votes for BID = 150
Votes against BID = 147
% = 50.5% in favour (it couldn't be less overwhelming)

Total rateable value of those that voted = £7,682,750
Value in favour for BID = £2,728,050
Value against BID = £4,954,700
% = 35.5% in favour, 64.5% against (a more significant message)

But let's look at what people above are saying..They are claiming that all the 'Big Boys' voted against and all the small business voted for.
If it was the way they suggest, considering the votes were basically 50-50, and the value was 1/3-2/3, this would mean all the 'Big Boys' were only twice the size of the small businesses. So Windermere Cruises were only twice the size of Helens Chocolates, Lakeland Limited was only twice the size of WIndermere Laundrette, and the Old England was only twice the size as Ellerthwaite Lodge Hotel! This we all know is nonsense!
So the maths would suggest a very different story. In fact some of the 'Big Boys' did want the bid, they must have, otherwise you'd be looking at a very different Value %, minimum 10% for - 90% against. As for naming and shaming above, I think you should be ashamed of yourself. Even if you know this for a fact, the amount of 'social' and 'charity' work these businesses already do within the community off their own back, puts what a lot of normal businesses to shame.
So hopefully we've changed our minds on lynching the big boys... Maybe it's how the entire BID process was run that actually needs to be looked at. Maybe the way in which the money was allocated in the plan wasn't what people wanted. Maybe, the plan was created by a group of people that hadn't 'truly' engaged with its community, hiding behind putting meetings on, and not asking why no one apart form the committee turned up. All these are the behaviours of bodies that inevitably fail because they fail to connect, fail to communicate and thus fail to listen because there is no dialogue.
BIDs do work, they are great in fact... And I do feel it's a shame it didn't happen. Maybe it was the wrong time to do it, maybe it was the wrong people driving it, maybe, and this is my opinion, people just weren't engaged properly, and as such I thank the stars that it didn't sneak through, because I fear that we'd have a much bigger issue on our hands, and a concept that was supposed to bring a community together for the better, might just have ripped it apart.
I urge other communities to look at BID, just think about it honestly, transparently, and if the community doesn't come to your 'meetings', maybe they're telling you something!

My own feeling is that once the timing of the voting and the manner in which voting would be counted was announced, there was insufficient time for all the facts to be made known.

The winter periods either side of Christmas is notoriously difficult to get a message across due to the number of things going on, the onset of winter holidays for tourism operators, and the darker evenings - when most public meetings among businesses tend to take place.

I feel certain that after the result of this first vote, a lot more businesses would take part if the vote was taken again.

PFC - your point about the 10 mph limit is accurate and well made!