Our meeting with AG attorneys representing the DOT took place on June 23. It was an amicable meeting with positive, open conversation. The message from DOT is that they appreciate our efforts to preserve Falls of Clyde, but need to balance that against the role the Harbors Division has. In the spirit of cooperation, DOT has offered us an opportunity to present a plan to show how Friends of Falls of Clyde will move forward with our mission in a reasonable timeframe. They need details and a timeline. If the plan is accepted, which we will work diligently to make happen, the removal of the ship will be retracted. Our deadline for the plan is July 15. If for some reason the plan is not accepted, the ship will be impounded, so our incentive to submit a realistic plan is great.
We have had comments from supporters who want to be engaged in saving the ship. Now is the time. We will be contacting some of those people directly to solicit their ideas and encourage others to contact us with ideas. Remember, we are not trying to convince them of the importance of historic preservation, but rather show them how we will make preservation work.

FRUSTRATION!!! Many of you may have seen the news reports last night covering the story of the termination of our Revocable Permit by the Harbors Division. In each case 15-30 minutes was spent with reporters giving great detail about our response to the termination, with virtually none of it getting into the sound bites that were presented. Just as frustrating is the fact that statements made by Deputy Director Young alleging safety and security concerns have been refuted by FFOC and documentation provided to Harbors, yet we have no way to counter if the reporters don’t put our replies in the story.
For those who can influence others or want to contact Harbors Division, here are the key points to raise:

1. What is Harbors doing to remove Kulamanu, a derelict vessel with monies owed the State?
2. Why is Harbors focused on a nonprofit with the important mission to preserve a National Historic Landmark?
3. Why has Harbors not discussed with FFOC the possibility of paying something for the permit in order to contribute to their revenue?
4. Why is Harbors apparently ignoring the State’s commitment to historic preservation, especially in relation to the only maritime landmark symbolizing the important maritime industry?
5. What objective evidence does Harbors have to support the allegations that Falls of Clyde poses a safety and security risk to the harbor?
6. Why doesn’t Harbors recognize that a capital campaign can take several years and FFOC only had a financial target and started planning a campaign in 2015?

The last half of May was not a happy one. We continue to work on various projects on the deck, most recently with a new roof on the Paint Locker cabin. Unfortunately, we received a letter from the Deputy Director of the Harbors Division stating that our Revocable Permit on June 15. We, of course, will respond and plan to propose an alternative that will keep us at Pier 7. We are open to ideas that can support our efforts to educate Harbors Division leaders of the importance historic preservation of Falls of Clyde. We encourage our supporters to tell their stories about why Falls of Clyde must be saved as our National Historic Landmark by sending an email to [email protected].