This was the day that Harbors Division held the administrative hearing where we attempted to make a case for reversing the impoundment and having the revocable permit reinstated. A news release has been issued and will be posted on the website and Facebook to communicate to all of our followers. While this was a bit of a perfunctory process, we were able to make our case, albeit not a technical one that the Harbors attorneys made.
What Friends of Falls of Clyde now needs is to have as many people as possible add their names as supporters and to sign the petition and send notes to the Governor’s office. We need as much community show of support as possible. Since Falls of Clyde has an international reputation as an outstanding historic maritime artifact, we also need national and international followers to weigh in with their support.
We are at an urgent stage in our mission and will need supporters to provide us with ideas for people who may be able to influence the Harbors Division and/or be able to provide financial support or direct us to people who have financial resources and want to support our mission.
Harbors knows that we are not about to roll over and we are ready for a fight. Come join us to battle the bureaucracy!!

The website has been updated to show the world the plan that was submitted to DOT-Harbors Division, which they have rejected. Take an objective look and see what you think. Remember that they know what our mission is which is the focus of the plan, but they insisted on having the second contingency as their out. Their last minute change to have us give them an immediate removal action totally undercuts their credibility to objectively assess the original intent of the plan. Click on the plan cover to read it.
We have also posted a complete audio interview that President Bruce McEwan conducted with KHON2 TV. While only a few seconds commenting on Friends of Falls of Clyde’s plan to challenge the impound decision at an administrative hearing, the entire interview really gives the detail to our argument and puts the Harbors Division’s approach in perspective.  http://www.friendsoffallsofclyde.org/uploads/3/1/6/1/3161140/khon_interview_august_13_2016.m4a
 

We are doing the battle of the TV spots. The Harbors Division has publicly announced their denial of our plan. They are apparently using a comment in the JMS insurance survey to allege the ship is in poor condition and, therefore, unsafe. The irony here is that this report was easily accepted by our insurance underwriters. Harbors Division is, of course, not citing the Executive Summary: “The Falls of Clyde is in remarkable condition for a 135 year old vessel.”  “The ship is fit for its intended purpose as a moored museum ship.” As we have repeated over and over with evidence, there is no safety issue. I made the point in my interview that poor condition does NOT equate with being unsafe. The reality is Falls of Clyde is in better condition in 2016 than she was when she arrived in 1963. Saying something is unsafe is not proving it.
In the KHON TV news spot, Harbors Division was quoted as saying they denied the plan because it did not have an immediate plan for removing the ship. How stupid is this for a plan that has three options, which all are set to be completed one way or another in 2017. Where does immediate fit in?
We will continue to challenge the decision to impound and seek reinstatement of the revocable permit. Where is due process for a nonprofit citizen of Hawaii? We continue to urge supporters to send your opinions to the Harbors Division, Department of Transportation, Governor’s Office.
This is truly a situation where a nonprofit is being targeted because we do not have the resources of a big company that would probably be throwing lawyers at the Harbors Division if they were treated like we are being treated.

Even knowing that Harbors Division is focused on removing Falls of Clyde from Honolulu Harbor, we were still hopeful that our plan would be accepted. The Deputy Director added a last minute requirement to include details on where we would berth the ship outside of Pier 7 and the details of the towing arrangement we have made, including how we will fund it. Since this information was NOT communicated to our representative at the last Harbors meeting, the email from the Deputy Director came in too late for us to get into the plan. However, the plan did include the contingency that we were exploring alternative berthing at a mainland location. We also covered the towing issue by confirming we had a towing agreement as part of the drydock plan. We felt this was enough to make the plan acceptable.
However, on August 10 the Harbor Police showed up at President McEwan’s residence to deliver a letter from the Deputy Director informing Friends of Falls of Clyde that the plan was not accepted and included a notice to remove the ship in 72 hours or it will be impounded. The reason for not accepting the plan was based on the same items that were sent in the email. We immediately responded via email pointing out that the reason for the denial was not relevant to the plan itself, since the towing information would only apply when the ship was taken to drydock or removed from the harbor, plus pointing out the pieces that were in the plan.
We are looking into an appeal process related to being impounded. The reason for the impoundment is that we are berthed illegally. We are berthed illegally only because the Harbors Division terminated our revocable permit. By accepting the plan, they would need to reinstate the permit or issue a new one for the period of the plan. How is it fair for the agency to terminate the permit for one alleged and unproven reason and then not accept the plan based on irrelevant requirements?
We are looking for some balanced, positive media coverage to alert the community to what is happening and to find some authority who can see the logic in our plan and that it meets the requirements set by Harbors, even though acceptance was never defined.
Right now we need our challenge with Harbors Division broadcast far and wide and comments sent to the Department of Transportation, Harbors Division website hidot.hawaii.gov/harbors.