Comments on: Ship storm

By: Jasmine Tokuda

Jasmine Tokuda — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:42:24 +0000

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.

By: Joel

Joel — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:28:24 +0000

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?

By: Mark Irons

Mark Irons — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:48:04 +0000

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.

By: James

James — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:09:07 +0000

Clearly, Lauren is waaaay out of her depth on this one as the follow up posts have indicated.

Whoa … how did that happen?

By: John Knox White

John Knox White — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:31:08 +0000

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).

By: john piziali

john piziali — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:20:42 +0000

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.

By: Jeff Cambra

Jeff Cambra — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:01:30 +0000

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.

By: notadave

notadave — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:44:00 +0000

bacon

By: Lauren Do

Lauren Do — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:15:32 +0000

And popcorn. Don’t forget the popcorn.

By: dave

dave — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:12:54 +0000

If the boat had a screen & projector, Lauren would think this was a bargain.