Judge tosses out Charleston cruise terminal case

[SavvySarah]

Yessss!!! Now, proceed Carnival. Bring us Vista!!! Yes, I realize Vista in Charleston is utterly unrealistic, allow me to live in my own "fantasy" world.

 

:)

 

http://www.abcnews4.com/story/25227060/judge-tosses-out-charleston-cruise-terminal-case

 

If the link doesn't post, you should be able to google ABC News 4 Charleston and find the story that was posted at 5 pm today. If this is a repeat thread, apologies, I didn't see one...

[Hendricks Clan]

Great news for the Palmetto State. Now if NCL would only come back and offer 7-Day Caribbean cruises, that would make my day!

Edited April 12, 2014 by Hendricks Clan

[etwright]

Sweeeet! Happy for you guys! :cool::):cool:

[francina]

What other cruise line sails from Charleston besides carnival?

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[bobsfamily]

What other cruise line sails from Charleston besides carnival?

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Right now it is only Carnival that is full-time from Charleston. If the new terminal is built we may see another cruise line depart on a limited schedule from Charleston. I think the ports authority has a limit of somewhere around 104 "visits" a year for cruise ships and Carnival is at about 70-75 a year.

[billie5]

This outcome of pretrial motions was, I would guess, expected by nearly everyone. Good to finally reach it.

[bobsfamily]

There is one last (OK I guess they can appeal) hurdle, a judge did say the corps did not do enough in granting a permit for piers in the harbour. The corps is still examining the permit and has not issued another one.

[zqvol]

It will only take 2 or 3 more years for the appeals to be heard, and then it will get sent back for trial and more appeals.

 

In 6 or 8 years they will be able to do something.

[TPFKAH]

Yessss!!! Now, proceed Carnival. Bring us Vista!!! Yes, I realize Vista in Charleston is utterly unrealistic, allow me to live in my own "fantasy" world.

 

:)

 

http://www.abcnews4.com/story/25227060/judge-tosses-out-charleston-cruise-terminal-case

 

If the link doesn't post, you should be able to google ABC News 4 Charleston and find the story that was posted at 5 pm today. If this is a repeat thread, apologies, I didn't see one...

 

I'm glad to hear this. Sounded silly to begin with.

[SavvySarah]

It will only take 2 or 3 more years for the appeals to be heard, and then it will get sent back for trial and more appeals.

 

In 6 or 8 years they will be able to do something.

 

 

Stop raining on my parade... ;) Maybe the legal system will have exhausted their battle that they won't win. One can hope!

[pirate4me2]

Awesome news!

[RetiredArmyinSC]

Dear fellow cruisers who disgusted with the dump of a cruise terminal in Charleston.. wait for it...As of 10/15/2014 There is a another challenge by the aristocrats of Charleston to the terminal. They are complaining now that the judge who tossed the lawsuit did not do it right. Believe it or not they filed another 74 page complaint.

 

I don't know about you but I think Carnival is going to pull out of Charleston. Why would they want to keep spending extra money labor and lawsuits why would they want to stick around? I think part of the agreement for them to show up to Charleston was to get that terminal built. But it is going on 5 years now maybe they reach the end here.

 

What I find really strange is that these nut jobs who keep the lawyers busy did not complain about the aquarium being built 10 years ago. That was a lot of new construction on the river and no one complain except for the low income housing on that land. Darn I just answer my own question. Low income housing and cruise ships are beneath the Charleston aristocrats. They do not like looking at the peasants in the area.

[Coopdog08]

I know it's not Carnival fault and it's the people of Charleston but if they ever get a decent terminal they could make a killing... The options from Charleston are great.. They could go to Bermuda once month and get a full cruise with little to no price dropping... They could go to Canada, Boston etc a couple times a year and sell it out with little to no price dropping.. Then they could have there regular cruises to the Bahamas and then some select to places like Grand Cayman, Key West, San Juan, etc. Two ships, with some offering 6,7 or 8 days. They say the amount of people they could get to Galveston is huge, hence adding a third ship but Charleston could be huge as they have everyone from Virginia, NC, SC, Ga, Tenn and West Va.

[mugtech]

Dear fellow cruisers who disgusted with the dump of a cruise terminal in Charleston.. wait for it...As of 10/15/2014 There is a another challenge by the aristocrats of Charleston to the terminal. They are complaining now that the judge who tossed the lawsuit did not do it right. Believe it or not they filed another 74 page complaint.

 

I don't know about you but I think Carnival is going to pull out of Charleston. Why would they want to keep spending extra money labor and lawsuits why would they want to stick around? I think part of the agreement for them to show up to Charleston was to get that terminal built. But it is going on 5 years now maybe they reach the end here.

 

What I find really strange is that these nut jobs who keep the lawyers busy did not complain about the aquarium being built 10 years ago. That was a lot of new construction on the river and no one complain except for the low income housing on that land. Darn I just answer my own question. Low income housing and cruise ships are beneath the Charleston aristocrats. They do not like looking at the peasants in the area.

 

Sounds like Carnival is too low rent. Perhaps we should start the rumor that the Queen Mary wants to sail out of Charleston while flying the Confederate flag. :rolleyes:

[RetiredArmyinSC]

I find it strange that the new Cooper river bridge was built higher was mainly for bigger cargo ships. I am sure the nut jobs who hate cruise ships like looking at the pretty bridge. I do not why they didn't protest the old bridge being torn down. I think blowing up an old bridge in the water was a lot more environmentally damaging than replacing 5 pilings for the new terminal. Besides the old bridge was paid for and a lot more scary to drive on than the new one.

[RetiredArmyinSC]

I think bringing back wooden whaling ships with a whale oil processing plant in the cruise terminal might work. It is an old way of life the aristocrats made their money from. Besides you needed whale oil to light lamps and what ever they did in the 1860's. That is period these people want to live in.

[poundcake09]

Some may agree or disagree with my thought on this thread but, here goes anyway.

 

It would seem to the average consumer that the State of South Carolina and the City of Charleston would be in a Win/Win situation here. The Cruise Industry would make a boat load of money off of the neighboring states that find Charleston to be a Shorter drive for a Cruise Port. I live in Atlanta which is 5 hrs in drive time. Which would be more appealing to me than driving 10hrs to Miami. The Charleston Airport and Tourism could only benefit from the Improvements or expansions.

Not to insult the residents of Charleston in saying... Charleston could use something to better itself. Southern Charm is Great but, it's only so much to it. Cruising on the other hand will add much more revenue to the City's Growth.

 

Corporations and Politicians constantly bicker over $$$$$.

Simply Greedy!!!! The same itineraries are growing BORING.... Bring More Carnival and they will Come!

Edited October 19, 2014 by poundcake09

[travler27]

Can't speak directly to the situation in Charleston. However, I own a home and property in a small town in middle Tennessee and there is a lot to be said for a small town and limited growth. A lot of our citizens want more industry, tax revenue and economic plus physical growth. A lot want things to stay the same. I'm in the group that want's things to stay as they are. I don't need a job, I don't need additional government services, I like the size of the current town and additional amenities brought by increased tax revenue and big business are of no value to me. I suppose I can see both sides of the argument. Charleston will work it out one way or another. Bigger is not always better. Growth does not always result in improvement.

[TennesseeTater]

I'm originally from Charleston. I no longer live there but my entire family does. Please keep in mind these lawsuits only represent a small percentage of people. Most locals probably don't mind the cruise ships. It's a small percentage of people with deep pockets.

[RDC1]

Can't speak directly to the situation in Charleston. However, I own a home and property in a small town in middle Tennessee and there is a lot to be said for a small town and limited growth. A lot of our citizens want more industry, tax revenue and economic plus physical growth. A lot want things to stay the same. I'm in the group that want's things to stay as they are. I don't need a job, I don't need additional government services, I like the size of the current town and additional amenities brought by increased tax revenue and big business are of no value to me. I suppose I can see both sides of the argument. Charleston will work it out one way or another. Bigger is not always better. Growth does not always result in improvement.

 

You don't need them, but other people might.

 

The problem is no growth in small towns is no new jobs, younger people cannot find good jobs locally and leave, town grows older, over time businesses close and town starts to die. Unless you have a town that resort or retirement area that attracts people in that don't need jobs.

[RetiredArmyinSC]

I agree it is nice having a ship out of Charleston. Most of the people who cruise on the Fantasy are I say a 5 hour drive from the ship. I have met people from the most of the country that come on a cruise mainly because they want to see Charleston also. I hate to tell them the bluebloods of Charleston do not like them and the cruise ship they are getting on. I agree the itineraries are boring. I believe the main reason is because of the Jones Act saying ships have to stop a foreign port before coming back. Time repeal the Jones Act.

[chengkp75]

I agree it is nice having a ship out of Charleston. Most of the people who cruise on the Fantasy are I say a 5 hour drive from the ship. I have met people from the most of the country that come on a cruise mainly because they want to see Charleston also. I hate to tell them the bluebloods of Charleston do not like them and the cruise ship they are getting on. I agree the itineraries are boring. I believe the main reason is because of the Jones Act saying ships have to stop a foreign port before coming back. Time repeal the Jones Act.

 

First off, it is not the Jones Act that precludes foreign ships from coastwise carriage of passengers, it is the Passenger Vessel Service Act.

 

Second, 68 nations around the world exercise cabotage privileges (restricting coastwise carriage to domestically flagged vessels). So the US is not alone in the world doing this.

 

Third, once you repeal the PVSA, you invite the "law of unintended consequences" to rear its head. Once you lift the restriction on coastwise carriage between US ports for foreign vessels, you open the door to foreign flag ships entering the following markets, just in Charleston: the Charleston Harbor and Fort Sumter tours, dinner cruises, and even the water taxi service. Allowing foreign flag ships/boats into these services, you would remove the ability of the USCG to document and regulate the safety of these vessels. Improbable? Not when you consider the cost savings of not meeting USCG requirements, and using a foreign crew. Why do you think there are no US flag cruise ships (other than POA in Hawaii)?

 

If cabotage is lifted for ships, what would prevent the airlines from following suit? Airlines follow similar laws to ships, which is why Air Canada cannot fly you from Albany to Detroit, without an intermediate stop in Canada.

[RetiredArmyinSC]

The Jones Act is generally lumped together under US code 46 which also contains the Passenger act. People refer to the Jones Act because it is easily more recognizable.

 

All foreign flag vessels are subject to laws of the United States. Once they are in US territorial waters they subject to inspections by the coast guard.

 

How many US flagged ships do you see in US ports? None unless they are grey bottom ships.

 

Passenger ships are very heavy regulated by the US. They are inspected by the EPA, Coast Guard, Homeland security, IRS and CDC. So that is not true they are not inspected by anyone here in this country.

 

The law needs to updated to reflect modern times. US codes for shipping started back in the 1780's and the Passenger act was added in the 1880's when the US was an isolationist country.

 

Our US constitution was based on the 13th century Magna Carta but I believe our constitution has been change few times since adopting a 13th century document. Since we are still not living in the 13th century.

[chengkp75]

The Jones Act is generally lumped together under US code 46 which also contains the Passenger act. People refer to the Jones Act because it is easily more recognizable.

 

All foreign flag vessels are subject to laws of the United States. Once they are in US territorial waters they subject to inspections by the coast guard. No, they are not. The USCG inspects foreign flag ships as part of the "port state" control, which allows the host nation to ensure that SOLAS regulations are met. When the USCG inspects a US flag ship as "flag state", they are able to enforce the far stricter USCG regulations that they cannot enforce on foreign flag ships. If foreign flag ships were subject to US laws, how do the cruise lines (and any other foreign flag ship) bypass US labor laws?

 

Even criminal jurisdiction is limited on foreign ships, even when in US territorial waters, being primarily limited to crimes against US citizens. From the FBI website:

 

 

The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S. has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if:

◾The ship, regardless of flag, is a U.S.-owned vessel, either whole or in part, regardless of the nationality of the victim or the perpetrator, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state;

◾The offense by or against a U.S. national was committed outside the jurisdiction of any nation;

◾The crime occurred in the U.S. territorial sea (within 12 miles of the coast), regardless of the nationality of the vessel, the victim or the perpetrator; or

◾The victim or perpetrator is a U.S. national on any vessel during a voyage that departed from or will arrive in a U.S. port.

 

How many US flagged ships do you see in US ports? None unless they are grey bottom ships. I have worked on US flagged deep sea vessels for 39 years without once working on a gray hull (navy, MSC, or MSC charter). And all ships in coastal trade are US vessels.

 

Passenger ships are very heavy regulated by the US. They are inspected by the EPA, Coast Guard, Homeland security, IRS and CDC. So that is not true they are not inspected by anyone here in this country. Foreign flag cruise ships are NOT inspected by the EPA, neither are US flag ships. Any pollution or emissions regulations are enforced by the USCG, again, as a port state control. The only jurisdiction Homeland Security has over the ships is CBP's immigration and customs clearance of passengers. What does the IRS have to do with the cruise ship industry? The ships are flagged overseas, and the cruise lines themselves are incorporated overseas, and therefore pay very little US tax.

 

The law needs to updated to reflect modern times. US codes for shipping started back in the 1780's and the Passenger act was added in the 1880's when the US was an isolationist country. The Jones Act and the PVSA have been updated regularly, as recently as 2006. I will add a link to a Marad document that lists all the countries (that responded to the survey) that have cabotage laws: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hsdl.org%2F%3Fview%26did%3D455295&ei=JhpEVJnjOIWEyQT2_IGQCQ&usg=AFQjCNEpkPfU01HKpypj_tRn3aJaaX0Wiw&bvm=bv.77648437,d.aWw

 

Our US constitution was based on the 13th century Magna Carta but I believe our constitution has been change few times since adopting a 13th century document. Since we are still not living in the 13th century.

 

It is estimated that the cost difference between operating a US flag ship and a foreign flag ship (on average, and this balances way over to cargo ships with their much lower payroll costs, since there are more cargo ships than cruise ships) to be in excess of $3 million, per ship, per year. What is the difference? The additional regulations and additional cost of meeting the documentation and inspection cost of the US flag. To give an example in the cruise industry, the USCG's goal is to bord and inspect each foreign flag cruise ship twice a year (however, there is no requirement that they get to all ships even once a year, if the budget doesn't allow), but the only US flag deep sea cruise ship, the Pride of America, is required to have a USCG inspection four times a year. The US is virtually always one of the last countries to ratify IMO regulations, including the world recognized SOLAS, because the USCG didn't want to have to enforce regulations that were less stringent than their own.

 

So while a deep sea cargo vessel can save $3 million per year, what can a cruise ship save? And so, a smaller coastal ship or ferry, could save $100-200 thousand a year, so what reason would a ship owner have to keep the US flag?

 

Protectionism would be restricting imports and exports to US flag ships. What the Jones Act and PVSA regulate is coastwise traffic, i.e. traffic domestically between US ports.

[jcsuzeta]

Some may agree or disagree with my thought on this thread but, here goes anyway.

 

It would seem to the average consumer that the State of South Carolina and the City of Charleston would be in a Win/Win situation here. The Cruise Industry would make a boat load of money off of the neighboring states that find Charleston to be a Shorter drive for a Cruise Port. I live in Atlanta which is 5 hrs in drive time. Which would be more appealing to me than driving 10hrs to Miami. The Charleston Airport and Tourism could only benefit from the Improvements or expansions.

Not to insult the residents of Charleston in saying... Charleston could use something to better itself. Southern Charm is Great but, it's only so much to it. Cruising on the other hand will add much more revenue to the City's Growth.

 

Corporations and Politicians constantly bicker over $$$$$.

Simply Greedy!!!! The same itineraries are growing BORING.... Bring More Carnival and they will Come!

 

 

Exactly! What city doesn't want more income? I'm definitely confused by their stance...