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
CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION OF
LITIGATION FOR TRESPASS AND EJECTMENT
PARTY:
State Lands Commission
AREA, LAND TYPE, AND LOCATION:
Sovereign lands in Horseshoe Bend located near Decker Island, downriver from the city of Rio Vista, Solano County.
UNAUTHORIZED USES:
Mooring improvements and the vessel Faithful and the ferryboat San Diego.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
On April 30, 2008, staff of the State Lands Commission (Commission) was contacted
by the Solano County Sheriff’s office regarding the vessel Faithful. The Sheriff’s office contacted the Commission to advise that the Faithful had been moored adjacent to Decker Island since sometime in February 2008 and wanted to know if the Commission had authorized the mooring of the Faithful at that location. The Sheriff’s office also provided information as to who claimed to be the owner of the Faithful as well as some background information on the vessel.
On May 9, 2008, the Solano County Sheriff’s office accompanied Commission staff on a site inspection to verify the location of the vessel. During the site inspection, it was learned that the Faithful was moored alongside another large vessel, the ferryboat San Diego. Staff obtained GPS information on the vessels and took photographs, attached as Exhibit B, to document the vessels locations and their conditions. Upon analyzing the GPS information and reviewing in-house records and data, staff determined that in their present location the Faithful and San Diego are anchored on lands owned by the State of California and under the jurisdiction and control of the State Lands Commission. The mooring of the vessels is without the permission of the Commission and as such constitutes a trespass. Staff is now requesting authorization from the Commission to take all necessary steps, including litigation, for trespass, ejectment and removal of all of the unauthorized improvements.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE FAITHFUL:
The Faithful is a 293-foot vessel that had been moored at Alameda Point within the city of Alameda’s jurisdiction for many years. During this time, a group was attempting to purchase it from its owner at the time, Al Borqa Aviation, Inc. The City considered the Faithful a derelict and wanted it moved. After conducting a maritime survey, which determined the vessel had no value (and may have been polluting the water), the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, a Joint Powers Authority of the city of Alameda, exercised its jurisdiction under Harbors and Navigation Code Section 522 and 523 and declared it abandoned and contracted with a boat salvager, Mr. Curt Lind, to remove it and a barge.
The Agreement with the Authority provided Mr. Lind remove and dispose of the vessel and the barge for $200,000. He advised the Authority that he would be taking the vessel to an anchorage or marina he owned or controlled. At some point, the vessel was then moved to Horseshoe Bend. It is unknown what happened to the barge, but it is not moored with the Faithful. On April 30, 2008, Commission staff contacted Mr. Lind who claimed ownership of the Faithful and argued that he had a right to anchor the vessel where it is.
No lease or other authorization has been issued for the use of sovereign lands to moor the Faithful.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SAN DIEGO:
Staff has learned that from 1931 to 1969, the San Diego was used to transport people between Coronado and San Diego. In the mid-80’s, there was a proposal to place the San Diego on Glorietta Bay to be used as a floating dinner theatre, but that proposal was not pursued.
Sometime after that, the San Diego was then towed north to the city of Antioch which expressed an interest in using the ferryboat as a floating dinner theater; however, that proposal also was never completed. Staff does not know how long the San Diego has been moored at its present location, but it appears to be since at least 2002 and possibly longer. Commission staff continues to gather information in order to determine who owns the San Diego.
No lease or other authorization has been issued for the use of sovereign lands to moor the San Diego.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION:
1. Pursuant to the Commission’s delegation of authority and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15061), the staff has determined that this activity is exempt from the requirements of the CEQA under the general rule that the CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The staff believes, based on the information available to it, that there is no possibility that this project may have a significant effect on the environment.
Authority: Title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15061 (b)(3).
2. This activity involves lands identified as possessing significant environmental values pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 6370, et seq. Based upon the staff’s consultation with the persons nominating such lands and through the CEQA review process, it is the staff’s opinion that the project, as proposed, is consistent with its use classification.
EXHIBITS:
A. Location Map
B. Photograph of the Vessel Faithful and Ferryboat San Diego
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION:
CEQA FINDING:
FIND THAT THE ACTIVITY IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEQA PURSUANT TO TITLE 14, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, SECTION 15061 BECAUSE THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT THE ACTIVITY MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; TITLE 14, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, SECTION 15061 (b)(3).
SIGNIFICANT LANDS INVENTORY FINDING:
FIND THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE USE CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE LAND PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 6370, ET SEQ.
AUTHORIZATION:
1. RATIFY STAFF’S FINDING THAT THE MOORING TACKLE, THE VESSEL FAITHFUL AND FERRYBOAT SAN DIEGO ARE IN TRESPASS ON STATE-OWNED SOVEREIGN LAND LOCATED IN HORSESHOE BEND AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A.
2. AUTHORIZE STAFF OF THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION AND THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY, INCLUDING LITIGATION, TO REMOVE ALL MOORING TACKLE, THE VESSEL FAITHFUL, AND FERRYBOAT SAN DIEGO FROM SOVEREIGN LANDS IN THE BED OF HORSESHOE BEND AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, SOLANO COUNTY; AND TO RESTORE THE SOVEREIGN LANDS AT THIS LOCATION TO THEIR CONDITION PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE UNAUTHORIZED PROPERTY AND TO RECOVER THE COMMISSION’S DAMAGES AND COSTS.
Comment by john marowski — June 23, 2009 @ 3:59 am
200000$ for what?
The ship was empty of fuel and oil since he was tow from L.A. to S.F. (…)
It’s a litle bit expensive to only tow it to an illegal place(…)
How much for a mile?
Comment by john marowski — June 23, 2009 @ 4:04 am
#12 Catellus/Pro Logis has no money to move forward with Alameda Landing and their CEO resigned after stock lost 90% of its value. Cliff Bar jettisoned their expansion plans because of the peanut after market shares took a dive following the peanut recall. City had to pay for the Willie Stargell project with sewer fund dollars because Catellus could not move forward on any further phases.
Comment by Sarah — June 23, 2009 @ 10:29 am