16-30 September

As the saying goes, the other shoe has fallen. We received the Decision and Order (D&O) from the Hearing Officer and he decided in favor of the Harbors Division. We were very disappointed, but not surprised because we thought the decision would be made based on a narrow interpretation of the issues. However, we disagree with some of the facts that were relied upon. The D&O stated: “Indeed, the State continually communicated and met with the Petitioner in an effort to resolve the State’s long-standing concerns regarding safety issues, the Vessel’s seaworthiness, and the need to repair portions of Pier 7.” What are the facts? First, every time the matter of safety was raised, there was never a specific reason for Harbors Division’s allegation. When the Revocable Permit was terminated, safety was not even mentioned. How could there be such important safety issues if they could never articulate what they are? The issue of seaworthiness was never raised. Under maritime law, a vessel is seaworthy if it is reasonably fit for its intended use. Falls of Clyde is a stationary museum ship, therefore, it is fit for its purpose. There was never any long-standing concern for seaworthiness that the Harbors Division ever raised with us, which would have been a moot point based on the definition of seaworthiness. Finally, the repair of Pier 7 was never raised until the letter terminating the Revocable Permit. 
Unfortunately, however the Hearing Officer got those “facts” from Harbors Division, they were given to undermine Friends of Falls Clyde’s efforts to get the impoundment reversed  and the Revocable Permit reinstated.
The only positive part of the D&O was the Hearing Officer not considering our arguments based on Federal and State historic preservation laws. He stated that they were not relevant to the impoundment. It is our position that when the Harbors Division takes their next step to move toward their goal of removing the ship from the harbor that those laws will be relevant.