Ship storm
What would you do if you had an abandoned vehicle on your property sitting there for months and months on end. You’ve finally had enough so you have asked someone to take it away and they said they will do it, but it will cost you $200,000. Two people step up and stay they have recently purchased the vehicle, will pay you for storage costs for as long as they have owned the vehicle and take it away within the next month, at no cost to you, the only thing is, they have no proof they own it.
What would you do?
Me, I’d let the guys haul it away and pay me for my troubles. The City of Alameda? Not so much. From the Journal:
The city will spend $200,000 to remove a 293-foot boat illegally docked on the estuary, despite an offer from two scrap salesmen who have told the city they recently purchased the vessel and will pay to take it.
City attorney Teresa Highsmith said the main problem with the offer is that the two men have failed to show proof that they own the boat or that they have the ability to promptly remove it.
“It’s more of an issue of credibility,” Highsmith said. “How can I say this nicely? Their claim is not credible.”
The two men, Kenny Pham and Robert Roush, both of Houston, said they purchased the boat, known as Faithful, on Dec. 13 and planned to have it hauled away by the end of February. They said they also offered to pay the city $13,013 for about 10 weeks worth of docking fees.
“We said we’re working on it, we just took possession of it and we’re trying our best to move it,” Roush said. “More or less, the city said ‘Pay $140,000 or we’re going to turn around and pay someone $200,000 to get rid of it.’”…
Two words: credibility schmedibility. They are offering to take it off our hands at NO COST TO US and they City says, nope, we’d rather spend the $200K we don’t have to get rid of the damned thing. Unbelieveable. Just let the guys haul it away and be done with it and write it off as some bad monitoring by the City to police its docks and make sure that folks aren’t dumping their leaky vessels in our waters. Use the $200K to, I don’t know, build some more bus shelters or something.
Yes, yes, I understand that there are liability issues if the City gives away the property to someone who might not own the property, but according to this article there is clearly interest in the boat. Declare it abandoned property and auction it off to the highest bidder with the understanding that they will be responsible for all costs to haul it away and clean up any issues resulting from the move. It’s got to be cheaper than $200K.
I like the city’s response of asking for back rent and a security bond. If the company is legit, then coming up with a bond shouldn’t be a problem.
Comment by notadave — January 28, 2008 @ 7:34 am
It’s my understanding that they couldn’t show proof of anything, money, ownership, ability….
I think the issue was, what if these guys take the boat and it hits the bay bridge/dumps toxin in the bay/causes some problem. If they have no papers/insurance, etc. The City might be liable and therefore the risk is not worth it.
Comment by John Knox White — January 28, 2008 @ 8:17 am
where is the DMV for ships? There was a wooden mine sweeper by the Fruitvale bridge which was “owner” by a guy who used to throw parties on it, pretty cool actually. He “sold” it to some group of crazies who vandalized and scuttled it.
Comment by Mark I — January 28, 2008 @ 8:58 am
If the boat had a screen & projector, Lauren would think this was a bargain.
Comment by dave — January 28, 2008 @ 11:12 am
And popcorn. Don’t forget the popcorn.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 28, 2008 @ 11:15 am
bacon
Comment by notadave — January 28, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Lauren:
The law of abandoned property is very complicated. When you add in maritime law on top of it, any decision the city makes can have huge consequences. Simply put, the City cannot transfer ownership, control, and possession of something it does not own to another entity or person, except the true owner of the property. The two people that came forward could not demonstrate they had legal title to the vessels.
To the best of my knowledge, the City never went through the process of trying to obtain legal title to the two vessels. One, even a city, cannot not just declare property abandoned, take “dominion and control” over it, and transfer possession to another. There are notice and due diligence requirements. If the City sanctioned and facilitated the transfer of control over to an entity that had no legal right to such control, the City could be subject to a lawsuit for conversion. Additionally, with all the investigation charges, city staff time, and associated legal fees required to obtain legal title in order to dispose of the vessels, it could easily cost $200,000 and take months. In the meantime, the vessels would continue to reside in Alameda. The Council made the only decision it could given the situation.
jc
Comment by Jeff Cambra — January 28, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
Mark I. I went to a party on that boat a real long time ago, those were some crazy folks on that boat. We should buy this one and start throwing parties on it until it sinks. John P.
Comment by john piziali — January 28, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Jeff,
The staff report said that the city had followed maritime law and that the boat is now legally abandoned. (Letters sent, no response, no identifiable US presence, just some guy in the UK who doesn’t return messages….ahhh Delaware corporations, gotta love ‘em).
Comment by John Knox White — January 28, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
Clearly, Lauren is waaaay out of her depth on this one as the follow up posts have indicated.
Whoa … how did that happen?
Comment by James — January 28, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
If the boat is legally abandoned I am surprised that the liabilities to which Jeff refers should still be a concern for the city.
#8 John- I lived in Bob Schultz’s building at the bottom of Fifth Avenue where he used to hold a Rights of Spring party each March near his birthday. Some of those were wild too, as well as a run of Halloween parties we tenants threw for about a decade before they became too popular. Schultz discharged from the navy in Oakland and went to C.C.A.C. on the GI bill, and as an Oakland Park and Rec employee built much of the original Children’s Fairyland. His scene was a weird mix of Clampers and Oakland arts people like Alamedan Gary Bennet. The whole scene was infused with denizens of the waterfront like Ike Whitecrow who “owned” the mine sweeper, and other local weirdos like myself.
For me, the seventies were a bad hang over from the sixties, but during the eighties there were some rare times on the Oakland Riviera, as we called the estuary, and they won’t be replicated any time soon.
Comment by Mark Irons — January 30, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
So does anyone know what is going on with Alameda Landing. I thought the ground breaking was going to be a year ago and it doesn’t seem like anything has happened yet. Isn’t Cliff Bar suppose to be moving in the fall?
Comment by Joel — February 8, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
I did an internet search on the guys who claimed to own the faithful. Robert Roush’s background didn’t indicate an interest in things maritime, or philanthropy. I did find some interesting history on the vessel, and how it came to Alameda from Southern California, after a failed attempt to turn it into a Christian goodwill and hospital ship. The link is: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/27733/
Curt Lind will take jobs no one else wants, and has vessels even larger than the Faithful in his inventory. He has a secure place to dock it, and we are guaranteed that it won’t be a returning problem. I know him and his crew personally, we threw them a killer BBQ last fall. He did tow the barge away for free, and I’m picturing fire dancers on it’s deck for one of Curt’s parties. (safer than the dock or topdeck of his tugboat.) Sometimes decisions have to be made to be certain there will be no blowback. Kind of like insurance.
By the way, the Coast Guard is the equivalent of the DMV for Vessels, and lack of registration through them leaves the ownership of a vessel uncertain. I’m sure part of the cost went to insuring the vessels before they started preparation for movement. He also had to pay for a second tugboat with crew, and had to have divers inspect the hull, effect repairs, and pump it out as it was partially submerged before the vessel could be moved. It wasn’t simply a matter of hooking it up and towing it. Anything less than competent professional work, could have courted disaster. If a legitimate owner does show up, they will have to pay Curt for the ship, and the city won’t have to worry about potential litigation.
Comment by Jasmine Tokuda — February 22, 2008 @ 1:42 pm