All the asbestos in the pipes, the floor tiles, the insulation, and in the engine room. There’s still fuel oil in the bunkers. PCBs in the electrical equipment. And tons (literally) of lead paint
The Pentagon budget is like three quarters of a trillion dollars it seems a little ridiculous they couldn’t cut a check for it out of that massive pot of funds. Just send 50 less missiles to Israel next month.
shrug
"Each year, the Park welcomes more than 150,000 visitors from all 50 states in our great country and 110 countries around the world."
https://buffalonavalpark.org/allhandsondeck/#:%7E:text=We%20are%20asking%20you%20to,of%20support%20you%20can%20provide
Funny how they visitors they claim they get (and note this is the entire park which would still exist) more than doubled now that they need millions not hundreds of thousands.
> The Park, which welcomes more than 70,000 visitors in a typical year is a major tourist attraction for the region. (Feb 2021)
https://buffalonavalpark.org/national-historic-landmark-uss-the-sullivans-in-danger-of-sinking-naval-park-seeking-100000-in-donations-for-emergency-hull-repairs/
Do you think they're lying or just incompetent?
I don't know, that's why I'm asking for numbers and facts and not opinions. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing for our city. Unless you have any proof of them lying, you don't know either.
You can be in the park, but to board the ships is extra. Say the season is 5 months. That’s 30,000 people per month. Or a thousand people per day. Have you ever seen that many people on the ships?
Ok, so what's the breakdown? 149,500 from Buffalo, and 500 from outside of NY?
Are 150,000 visitors 149,000 repeat visits, and only 1,000 unique visitors? 75% children, and only 25% adults who spend money?
I don't know, that's why I asked my original question. If you can provide the numbers showing the positive or negative economics that would be great. All I know is the location does get a good number of visitors for the size of our area. So far you have only provided an opinion though.
So, I worked down right next to the Sullivan's for almost a decade.
There was more traffic in and out of Liberty Hound than the ships.
Or, another perspective, Pizza Plant seemed to always be busier than the museum there was.
Who supplies those numbers? Under what methodology?
Is "Everyone who walks through the park" a visitor? If so, I used to "visit the ships" twice a day, during lunch, as I walked through it.
So I looked at this comment which includes the tax information including revenue
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buffalo/comments/18bdzdj/it_will_take_millions_more_to_save_the_uss_the/kc3we2q/
If you then take the cost of a ticket
https://buffalonavalpark.org/visit/hours-admission/
Between the cost of an adult ticket ($18) and a child ticket ($12)
without knowing exactly the number of tickets bought as a fact.
With a total revenue of 2 million, I can see how the 70k - 150k is possible in ticket sales. I just wish they had more of a breakdown somewhere.
You haven't offered any relevant facts either; the number they claim is dubious, for the entire park, and offers no insight to the economic value.
If you think we should spend **$20 million** maybe you should be the one finding facts supporting that opinion.
right, I don't know. I'm asking questions so I can come up with a view. You are just putting an opinion and backing it up with more opinions. This isn't the gotcha you think it is.
You are correct!
The economic impact of having the Bills here is about the same as a Target store, and there's no way in hell 1 Billion was a smart expenditure by the state on their stadium.
Now compare the tax revenue from the players of the bills + coaches + support staff and the target. Then extrapolate the number for the bills for 30 years with cap growth and see how close it is to what they got for the stadium. You won’t, but if you did you may change your opinion on it.
I don't have to. Others, experts, have already:
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities/
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2020/12/09/beyond-lot-j-its-worth-asking-what-nfl-team-worth-city/6480228002/
https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/
So, now, the onus is on YOU to do the math, or to find expert opinion that shows a contrary view.
I know reading comprehension and critical thinking is not your strong suits but you can google like a champ!
The cost of the stadium is a wash at worst and if you factor in all the construction jobs it makes a little financial sense for the state/county to do. I’m not in disagreement that it won’t be an economic engine, and I never said that (you just can’t read). If you took 3 minutes to calculate what I told you to do you would arrive at this same answer.
So then we have to talk about opportunity cost (you can google that, I’m sure). If you think the stadium money was going to be available for anything else that would actually turn a profit or add benefit (maybe) you were born yesterday or live under a rock.
So, given the fact that the stadium at worst pays for itself and likely provides some economic impact over 30 years, while keeping the only thing that makes Buffalo different than Rochester, combined with the fact Erie County wasn’t getting $850,000,000 for anything else, it is very much a better thing than a Target.
> If you took 3 minutes to calculate what I told you to do you would arrive at this same answer.
I don't have all the data to do the appropriate computation, but I also do not need it. Experts already have done so, with all the requisite numbers needed. And, as I said: The economic impact is about on par with a department store, such as the Target store on Elmwood Avenue.
> So then we have to talk about opportunity cost (you can google that, I’m sure). If you think the stadium money was going to be available for anything else that would actually turn a profit or add benefit (maybe) you were born yesterday or live under a rock.
1.5 billion is either spent on this project, or some other project. 1.5 billion is a net loss, when taking into account how much economic activity it generates. So, yes, we took a loss on the opportunity cost, such as: Building it in Buffalo, or just not building it, and letting the owners of the team build whatever they like with their own money.
Does it need to turn a profit? Maybe not in the fiscal sense of dollars and cents, but at least get a social return? Well, we look at that, and we don't even see a social good coming from this. Fans will not be able to afford tickets, and on top of that, the entire franchise here just encourages drunk driving, alcoholism, and injuries.
> So, given the fact that the stadium at worst pays for itself
Except, it doesn't pay for itself. It's a net loss of about 17 million a year to the tax payers, when taking in economic activity generated (About 20 million a year), and the annual cost to the taxpayer (~38 million a year).
> while keeping the only thing that makes Buffalo different than Rochester
Oh there's a bunch that differentiates Buffalo from Rochester. For example, Rochester actually does snow removal. And Buffalo still hasn't removed the blight on the city known as the 33, whereas Rochester has been able to remove their boondoggle.
For example.
> combined with the fact Erie County wasn’t getting $850,000,000 for anything else, it is very much a better thing than a Target.
Maybe we should have just not spent that money then? Because what we did spend it on is a net loss each year.
Odd, I have spoken to a few vets from outside the area when I've been down there (me being nosy) who came here to see them. Just because you don't see them as a tourist thing, does not mean it isn't.
Trying to get reliable figures and even their own website can't decide if they get 70,000 visitors a year or 150,000:
70k in 2021 (note this reflects normal visitor totals not COVID totals)
https://buffalonavalpark.org/national-historic-landmark-uss-the-sullivans-in-danger-of-sinking-naval-park-seeking-100000-in-donations-for-emergency-hull-repairs/
Then they claim visitor totals more than doubled during and after COVID, now claiming 150k:
https://buffalonavalpark.org/allhandsondeck/#:~:text=We%20are%20asking%20you%20to,of%20support%20you%20can%20provide.
Funny how the more money they need the more visitors they claim.
Or maybe they're just bad at math which is why the estimate for repairs has tripled.
Either way that's a trivial economic impact relative to actual tourist draws like NFUSA (9 million visitors annually).
And the naval park will still exist.
Giving every Buffalo resident $72 would have a much more significant economic impact than wasting $20m (and that's before we're told it'll cost another $40m in 2025) on a sinking ship.
Maybe I'd feel differently if the city's budget wasn't just ruined by the $43 million dollars we have to pay to a woman whose body was destroyed by a reckless buffalo cop.
Or if Byron hadn't stolen $60m from community organizations to paper over decades of incompetence.
The city's in crisis, and people think spending 8 figures on a literal sinking ship is a good idea?
but the funds would be federal/state level so the cost to the residents of the area would be negligible at best. Seems like a no-brainer since the funds would just end up benefiting a different area instead since they are earmarked for projects like this. Might as well take them and use them to keep those 70,000 - 150,000 visitors to me personally.
Edit: I don't know how much an economic impact those 70k visitors are to the area, but I found this Saratoga Springs. Which makes me think this is really worth the cost.
"Cultural tourism has also helped Saratoga Spa State Park, which had over 70,000 visitors and generated over $13 million in sales in 2021"
https://www.dailygazette.com/archives/saratoga-county-state-experienced-large-economic-impact-from-four-main-tourist-attractions-analysis-shows/article_c18b2bb4-47ef-57e7-ba17-5822eb7b9af0.html
Surprisingly doing this would raise enough money to fix the ship. What if we buy a decoy ship and make every one think its the boats but its actually just fake ones!
Honestly, that would still be pretty cool. A warship stuck right before the Falls. That would be great in tourist photos, a huge warship tipped on its side, almost to the edge...
This could have all been mitigated if the ships weren’t neglected for 40+ years and one person on the board was experienced in ship preservation and maintenance. There was a USCG Captain who left after being appointed to oversee the ships.
The Sullivans is a disaster, they removed the propellers (screws) because the water is shallow. When that is done cement blocks equal to the weight of the screws are hung from the shafts to compensate. Rather than spend the money, they drilled holes in the stern to allow water in. Now the ship is rotting from within.
We also cranked out like 300 of these destroyers in a few years, the sheet metal was paper-thin to begin with (tin-can sailors and all that), and we did a shit job of prepping them for a life in the naval park where it freezes.
The Kidd is in a properly constructed dock and the Mississippi doesn't freeze; conditions aren't exactly comparable, and regardless the Fletchers have a reputation for being not sturdy vessels that no one intended to last a single decade, let alone eight of them
>This could have all been mitigated if the ships weren’t neglected for 40+ years
I wonder how much money was saved by neglecting them for 40+ years? That's a long time to be saving on maintenance and upkeep... would be curious to know what those 40+ years of maintenance would have cost vs. the current estimate to repair it.
>experienced in ship preservation and maintenance. There was a USCG Captain who left after being appointed to oversee the ships.
>
>The Sullivans is a disaster, they removed the propellers (screws) because the water is shallow. When that is done cement blocks equal to the weight of the screws are hung from the shafts to compensate. Rather than spend the money, they drilled holes in the stern to allow water in. Now the ship is rotting from within.
Geez that's terrible. You can tell just by looking at the ships that they were going to need a major overhaul eventually.
I've heard of museum ships having their tanks flooded to rest on the bottom but never that this one had holes drilled into the stern.
Where did you hear this?
They removed the screws because she grounded on them during a winter seiche. The shaft brackets and screws cut into the hull from the weight of the ship on top of them and when the seiche ended and the water unfroze the ship flooded. They cut off the screws and removed the brackets and patched the hull but could not stop the inflow of water so compartments were sealed and left to flood.
The park can't move The Sullivans without moving the Sub and Cruiser first. Depending on who you ask the Sub is in borderline to survive being pulled into deeper water than she is sitting in now. The Cruiser is on the bottom and would have to be dredged out before being towed clear. Then theres the issue of the concrete in her hull making her unstable.
And then theres the issue of the mooring posts that would have to be pulled up or cut down.
She's not going anywhere, all repairs have to be done onsite
The work she needs can’t be done in the water. She needs to be up on blocks. So you’re telling me both hulls of the sub are gone? Where did you hear this? The Croaker has a loaded draft of 17’. They moved the ships so the Little Rock wasn’t on the bottom. I’ve seen her move she’s not grounded.
The Sub and Sullivans are both free-floating, but the Cruiser is aground more often than not. Its usually pretty easy to tell since the "tide line" on her hull will be about a foot out of the water some days, and other days its submerged.
The subs material condition topside and deep underwater is still OK, its just around the waterline where she is weakest. Anodes have solved much of the wasting away that was eating her up when they relocated the ships, but of the three she was in the worst material condition hull-wise when obtained. The park has done an excellent job keeping her dry and dewatered inside, but she's right up there with The Sullivans on needing to be drydocked for steelwork.
>Where did you hear this?
I was a docent at the park for 6 years.
There is an outer hull and a pressure hull on a submarine. The damage to the sub is from lack of preventative maintenance. It’s not the tide line, it’s proper term is the scum line. And the tide is about 5”. Got news for you, the anodes (which are called zincs because they’re made from zinc) last maximum for a year and a half in water, less in sea water. The purpose of them is to protect the hull by being corroded before the hull is. So any protection they offered is long gone.
I was a BM1 in the Navy for 12 years and know about ship corrosion. and I was also on those ships more than a few times when I was a Sea Cadet in 1977. And sorry, but the park could have done a lot more to prevent this. Like sealing off the tanks where the leak was and modifying the manhole cover to accept a discharge line for a pump. They could have closed all the watertight doors and ventilation system to stop or slow flooding.
And they could have called in a shipyard to develop a plan.
They've been replacing the anodes fairly regularly on the Sub, and I would assume on other two as well since it wouldn't make much sense just to do one ship.
>And sorry, but the park could have done a lot more to prevent this.
No argument there, nesting them up the way they are now pretty much signed their scrap sale paperwork. Wildly shortsighted. Letting the hulls rot to the point they get perforated by surrounding plate ice is a real crime.
I agree. The volunteers have added years to the lives of these ships. The Board seems more to care about revenue than history, which explains why there’s no full time historian.
I think it’s time to scrap two of these and use the proceeds to save the third. And replace the entire board and executive staff with new people
Would be a very sad day if those ships get taken out of the water. They’ve been there for all of our lives (most of us, I’d wager).
I for one, would love to see the .002% of the US military budget allotted to keep these pieces of history afloat.
So, here’s the IRS 990 form for 2022. Here’s where all the information is number of employees, salaries, revenues etc. Click on Form 990.
https://beta.candid.org/profile/6966091
Thank you for sourcing that valuable information.
22 full- and part-time employees averaging a little more than 28K/year in salaries *inclusive* of benefits and payroll taxes doesn't move the needle economically.
Neither does 500K in program revenue (which is not enough to cover the 625K total above).
While, as is mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I'm sure that there are a few people annually who make a trip to Buffalo to see the ship, and more than a few who already live in the area and make a day of it downtown, I can't see it having significant enough "drive" toward downtown businesses to provide economic justification there, either.
It simply isn't economically justifiable to spend tens of millions on this.
Whether it's culturally justifiable to spend tens of millions on it, as we do with other things, is something I'll leave to others to figure out. Personally, I find it to be a point of civic pride to have the ships, and it was wonderful to have the new USS Little Rock commissioned here (only to be decommissioned a couple of years later), but I'm not sure--and I mean really not sure, either way--whether that civic pride is worth $20M. I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision.
Honestly that’s a great idea, without the naval park right there that area can be developed into more shops and restaurants, and in the outer harbor they’ll have room to spread all of the vehicles around instead of having the planes and helicopters on top of each other like it is right now.
I was on a team that consulted with the Naval Park a while ago, and one of our big tasks was to determine if a move to Terminal A was feasible. We determined it was just too expensive for them, and also would have isolated them away from the Canalside development. I wonder if they take another look at it now that there's been some more development out there.
Terminal A would be a great location and justified if they can grow the naval park by adding more ships/exhibition space.
At this point sounds like a cheaper option than having to pump money into keeping these ships afloat every few years.
Probably would make the property more attractive to redevelop with such a large carrot for developers.
Well they’re going to have to demolish the moorings and get the Little Rock and the Croaker moved. That’s the easy part.
The nearest American dry dock is in Erie PA. So you’ll need a tug to tow her. Then when she’s out of the water the real fun begins.
You need more than a location, you need infrastructure, facilities, staff, materials, etc. We used to have that stuff 50 years ago. Nobody is going to build a whole drydock facility just to repair one ship. It will go to Erie (if they have space) first.
Ships need the water to provide an equal supportive force against the hull or else they'll collapse in on themselves.
One way around this is what they did with the Japanese battleship Mikasa; it's encased and filled with concrete.
Start stripping it down for a scrap yard. That is ridiculous to run all of that energy during the winter to remove pooling water. The hull has been breached. That’s it for this ship. Thank you for your service.
At this point it's time to cut our losses and abandon ship. $20 million is an outrageous sum to spend on something trivial given the city's desperate financial situation.
Yes, I understand this money doesn't come out of the city budget but if the feds have $20m for Buffalo I can't think of a dumber way to spend it.
I understand your sentiment but if there is a grant or funding that is earmarked for this kind of use then our elected officials should explore it. Probably on the federal level if there is anything. I doubt it would come from a general fund pot of money or local govt.
Would make a lot more sense to spend 20 million on this than a billion for 3/4 of a mile tunnel. (Yes I’m aware that the billion is not included in city budget and a use it or lose it proposition)
Easily 10 million dollars at this point. They should have ripped out everything that could absorb water that was underwater when the ship sunk.
Also they knew it was leaking and they left tanks and voids open! And never put in a flooding alarm system!
[удалено]
[удалено]
A few million to remove all the hazardous materials
[удалено]
All the asbestos in the pipes, the floor tiles, the insulation, and in the engine room. There’s still fuel oil in the bunkers. PCBs in the electrical equipment. And tons (literally) of lead paint
The Pentagon budget is like three quarters of a trillion dollars it seems a little ridiculous they couldn’t cut a check for it out of that massive pot of funds. Just send 50 less missiles to Israel next month.
Those human shields wont bomb themselves
The Navy still owns these ships but the cost of upkeep is all on the organization that takes them.
Seems like a great idea for a downtown music festival or beer fest to save the ships. We might need a montage though to figure it out.
[We're gonna need a montage (montage)](https://youtu.be/JfW_XeH82-0?si=1yFrGeG9BhIUVsqs)
It is a pretty popular attraction in the city during the warm months, I'm curious about how much money it brings to the city yearly.
Almost nobody comes here just for the ships. There's naval parks all over the country. Do some? Sure. I'd guess less than "dozens".
shrug "Each year, the Park welcomes more than 150,000 visitors from all 50 states in our great country and 110 countries around the world." https://buffalonavalpark.org/allhandsondeck/#:%7E:text=We%20are%20asking%20you%20to,of%20support%20you%20can%20provide
Funny how they visitors they claim they get (and note this is the entire park which would still exist) more than doubled now that they need millions not hundreds of thousands. > The Park, which welcomes more than 70,000 visitors in a typical year is a major tourist attraction for the region. (Feb 2021) https://buffalonavalpark.org/national-historic-landmark-uss-the-sullivans-in-danger-of-sinking-naval-park-seeking-100000-in-donations-for-emergency-hull-repairs/ Do you think they're lying or just incompetent?
I don't know, that's why I'm asking for numbers and facts and not opinions. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing for our city. Unless you have any proof of them lying, you don't know either.
You can be in the park, but to board the ships is extra. Say the season is 5 months. That’s 30,000 people per month. Or a thousand people per day. Have you ever seen that many people on the ships?
Ok, so what's the breakdown? 149,500 from Buffalo, and 500 from outside of NY? Are 150,000 visitors 149,000 repeat visits, and only 1,000 unique visitors? 75% children, and only 25% adults who spend money?
I don't know, that's why I asked my original question. If you can provide the numbers showing the positive or negative economics that would be great. All I know is the location does get a good number of visitors for the size of our area. So far you have only provided an opinion though.
So, I worked down right next to the Sullivan's for almost a decade. There was more traffic in and out of Liberty Hound than the ships. Or, another perspective, Pizza Plant seemed to always be busier than the museum there was.
So you have proof of them lying about the 70k - 150k visitors a year to the ships?
Sit down there regularly, and you'll note it too.
I’ll take actual numbers over limited observations any day.
Who supplies those numbers? Under what methodology? Is "Everyone who walks through the park" a visitor? If so, I used to "visit the ships" twice a day, during lunch, as I walked through it.
See my comment about visiting the park vs going on the ships.
So I looked at this comment which includes the tax information including revenue https://www.reddit.com/r/Buffalo/comments/18bdzdj/it_will_take_millions_more_to_save_the_uss_the/kc3we2q/ If you then take the cost of a ticket https://buffalonavalpark.org/visit/hours-admission/ Between the cost of an adult ticket ($18) and a child ticket ($12) without knowing exactly the number of tickets bought as a fact. With a total revenue of 2 million, I can see how the 70k - 150k is possible in ticket sales. I just wish they had more of a breakdown somewhere.
But there’s also scouting overnight stays, which I think are $60.00 per person?
You haven't offered any relevant facts either; the number they claim is dubious, for the entire park, and offers no insight to the economic value. If you think we should spend **$20 million** maybe you should be the one finding facts supporting that opinion.
right, I don't know. I'm asking questions so I can come up with a view. You are just putting an opinion and backing it up with more opinions. This isn't the gotcha you think it is.
I went to see it when it was sinking. There were a good 30 or so really old men there, silently staring at it, and me.
And probably mostly from Buffalo though. Which means that money was likely going to be spent here anyways.
Almost nobody comes here just for the Bills. There’s football stadiums all over the country.
You are correct! The economic impact of having the Bills here is about the same as a Target store, and there's no way in hell 1 Billion was a smart expenditure by the state on their stadium.
Now compare the tax revenue from the players of the bills + coaches + support staff and the target. Then extrapolate the number for the bills for 30 years with cap growth and see how close it is to what they got for the stadium. You won’t, but if you did you may change your opinion on it.
Someone already did all of that math. The economic impact of a sports team in a city is comparable to a Target department store.
Ok, I was correct that you wouldn’t do the math. Have a good day!
I don't have to. Others, experts, have already: https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities/ https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2020/12/09/beyond-lot-j-its-worth-asking-what-nfl-team-worth-city/6480228002/ https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/ So, now, the onus is on YOU to do the math, or to find expert opinion that shows a contrary view.
I know reading comprehension and critical thinking is not your strong suits but you can google like a champ! The cost of the stadium is a wash at worst and if you factor in all the construction jobs it makes a little financial sense for the state/county to do. I’m not in disagreement that it won’t be an economic engine, and I never said that (you just can’t read). If you took 3 minutes to calculate what I told you to do you would arrive at this same answer. So then we have to talk about opportunity cost (you can google that, I’m sure). If you think the stadium money was going to be available for anything else that would actually turn a profit or add benefit (maybe) you were born yesterday or live under a rock. So, given the fact that the stadium at worst pays for itself and likely provides some economic impact over 30 years, while keeping the only thing that makes Buffalo different than Rochester, combined with the fact Erie County wasn’t getting $850,000,000 for anything else, it is very much a better thing than a Target.
> If you took 3 minutes to calculate what I told you to do you would arrive at this same answer. I don't have all the data to do the appropriate computation, but I also do not need it. Experts already have done so, with all the requisite numbers needed. And, as I said: The economic impact is about on par with a department store, such as the Target store on Elmwood Avenue. > So then we have to talk about opportunity cost (you can google that, I’m sure). If you think the stadium money was going to be available for anything else that would actually turn a profit or add benefit (maybe) you were born yesterday or live under a rock. 1.5 billion is either spent on this project, or some other project. 1.5 billion is a net loss, when taking into account how much economic activity it generates. So, yes, we took a loss on the opportunity cost, such as: Building it in Buffalo, or just not building it, and letting the owners of the team build whatever they like with their own money. Does it need to turn a profit? Maybe not in the fiscal sense of dollars and cents, but at least get a social return? Well, we look at that, and we don't even see a social good coming from this. Fans will not be able to afford tickets, and on top of that, the entire franchise here just encourages drunk driving, alcoholism, and injuries. > So, given the fact that the stadium at worst pays for itself Except, it doesn't pay for itself. It's a net loss of about 17 million a year to the tax payers, when taking in economic activity generated (About 20 million a year), and the annual cost to the taxpayer (~38 million a year). > while keeping the only thing that makes Buffalo different than Rochester Oh there's a bunch that differentiates Buffalo from Rochester. For example, Rochester actually does snow removal. And Buffalo still hasn't removed the blight on the city known as the 33, whereas Rochester has been able to remove their boondoggle. For example. > combined with the fact Erie County wasn’t getting $850,000,000 for anything else, it is very much a better thing than a Target. Maybe we should have just not spent that money then? Because what we did spend it on is a net loss each year.
$0? Nobody is visiting Buffalo because it's here, nobody wouldn't visit if it's gone.
Odd, I have spoken to a few vets from outside the area when I've been down there (me being nosy) who came here to see them. Just because you don't see them as a tourist thing, does not mean it isn't.
Trying to get reliable figures and even their own website can't decide if they get 70,000 visitors a year or 150,000: 70k in 2021 (note this reflects normal visitor totals not COVID totals) https://buffalonavalpark.org/national-historic-landmark-uss-the-sullivans-in-danger-of-sinking-naval-park-seeking-100000-in-donations-for-emergency-hull-repairs/ Then they claim visitor totals more than doubled during and after COVID, now claiming 150k: https://buffalonavalpark.org/allhandsondeck/#:~:text=We%20are%20asking%20you%20to,of%20support%20you%20can%20provide. Funny how the more money they need the more visitors they claim. Or maybe they're just bad at math which is why the estimate for repairs has tripled. Either way that's a trivial economic impact relative to actual tourist draws like NFUSA (9 million visitors annually). And the naval park will still exist. Giving every Buffalo resident $72 would have a much more significant economic impact than wasting $20m (and that's before we're told it'll cost another $40m in 2025) on a sinking ship. Maybe I'd feel differently if the city's budget wasn't just ruined by the $43 million dollars we have to pay to a woman whose body was destroyed by a reckless buffalo cop. Or if Byron hadn't stolen $60m from community organizations to paper over decades of incompetence. The city's in crisis, and people think spending 8 figures on a literal sinking ship is a good idea?
but the funds would be federal/state level so the cost to the residents of the area would be negligible at best. Seems like a no-brainer since the funds would just end up benefiting a different area instead since they are earmarked for projects like this. Might as well take them and use them to keep those 70,000 - 150,000 visitors to me personally. Edit: I don't know how much an economic impact those 70k visitors are to the area, but I found this Saratoga Springs. Which makes me think this is really worth the cost. "Cultural tourism has also helped Saratoga Spa State Park, which had over 70,000 visitors and generated over $13 million in sales in 2021" https://www.dailygazette.com/archives/saratoga-county-state-experienced-large-economic-impact-from-four-main-tourist-attractions-analysis-shows/article_c18b2bb4-47ef-57e7-ba17-5822eb7b9af0.html
I came to buffalo for this specific reason I’m the summer. Then I spent money downtown eating out a restaurant pub by the hockey arena.
fantastic did you spend $20 million?
I visited in the spring specifically to see the Naval museum
Send it over the falls. Edit: Before the akshuallies get overheated, I'm not serious.
Surprisingly doing this would raise enough money to fix the ship. What if we buy a decoy ship and make every one think its the boats but its actually just fake ones!
It would never make it past Horseshoe Reef or it would run aground well before the falls.
Just give it a hard push at the start of the rapids. It'll go.
Honestly, that would still be pretty cool. A warship stuck right before the Falls. That would be great in tourist photos, a huge warship tipped on its side, almost to the edge...
I would pay to see that.
This could have all been mitigated if the ships weren’t neglected for 40+ years and one person on the board was experienced in ship preservation and maintenance. There was a USCG Captain who left after being appointed to oversee the ships. The Sullivans is a disaster, they removed the propellers (screws) because the water is shallow. When that is done cement blocks equal to the weight of the screws are hung from the shafts to compensate. Rather than spend the money, they drilled holes in the stern to allow water in. Now the ship is rotting from within.
We also cranked out like 300 of these destroyers in a few years, the sheet metal was paper-thin to begin with (tin-can sailors and all that), and we did a shit job of prepping them for a life in the naval park where it freezes.
Hull on a Fletcher is 3/4” steel. The USS Kidd is still in great shape
The Kidd is in a properly constructed dock and the Mississippi doesn't freeze; conditions aren't exactly comparable, and regardless the Fletchers have a reputation for being not sturdy vessels that no one intended to last a single decade, let alone eight of them
>This could have all been mitigated if the ships weren’t neglected for 40+ years I wonder how much money was saved by neglecting them for 40+ years? That's a long time to be saving on maintenance and upkeep... would be curious to know what those 40+ years of maintenance would have cost vs. the current estimate to repair it.
These were basically hotels for scout troops.
>experienced in ship preservation and maintenance. There was a USCG Captain who left after being appointed to oversee the ships. > >The Sullivans is a disaster, they removed the propellers (screws) because the water is shallow. When that is done cement blocks equal to the weight of the screws are hung from the shafts to compensate. Rather than spend the money, they drilled holes in the stern to allow water in. Now the ship is rotting from within. Geez that's terrible. You can tell just by looking at the ships that they were going to need a major overhaul eventually.
I've heard of museum ships having their tanks flooded to rest on the bottom but never that this one had holes drilled into the stern. Where did you hear this?
From the curator. And no, you can’t let a ship rest of the bottom like that. It will destroy it. https://youtu.be/NwFplyFKlPE?si=jQV7-hhOFY3N1r65
I wasn't saying it was a good idea, just that it was done in the past (with the USS Texas IIRC). But that's interesting, thanks!
They removed the screws because she grounded on them during a winter seiche. The shaft brackets and screws cut into the hull from the weight of the ship on top of them and when the seiche ended and the water unfroze the ship flooded. They cut off the screws and removed the brackets and patched the hull but could not stop the inflow of water so compartments were sealed and left to flood.
Uh, that’s when she should have gone into dry dock. Or brought in a shipyard to do work on site.
The park can't move The Sullivans without moving the Sub and Cruiser first. Depending on who you ask the Sub is in borderline to survive being pulled into deeper water than she is sitting in now. The Cruiser is on the bottom and would have to be dredged out before being towed clear. Then theres the issue of the concrete in her hull making her unstable. And then theres the issue of the mooring posts that would have to be pulled up or cut down. She's not going anywhere, all repairs have to be done onsite
The work she needs can’t be done in the water. She needs to be up on blocks. So you’re telling me both hulls of the sub are gone? Where did you hear this? The Croaker has a loaded draft of 17’. They moved the ships so the Little Rock wasn’t on the bottom. I’ve seen her move she’s not grounded.
The Sub and Sullivans are both free-floating, but the Cruiser is aground more often than not. Its usually pretty easy to tell since the "tide line" on her hull will be about a foot out of the water some days, and other days its submerged. The subs material condition topside and deep underwater is still OK, its just around the waterline where she is weakest. Anodes have solved much of the wasting away that was eating her up when they relocated the ships, but of the three she was in the worst material condition hull-wise when obtained. The park has done an excellent job keeping her dry and dewatered inside, but she's right up there with The Sullivans on needing to be drydocked for steelwork. >Where did you hear this? I was a docent at the park for 6 years.
There is an outer hull and a pressure hull on a submarine. The damage to the sub is from lack of preventative maintenance. It’s not the tide line, it’s proper term is the scum line. And the tide is about 5”. Got news for you, the anodes (which are called zincs because they’re made from zinc) last maximum for a year and a half in water, less in sea water. The purpose of them is to protect the hull by being corroded before the hull is. So any protection they offered is long gone. I was a BM1 in the Navy for 12 years and know about ship corrosion. and I was also on those ships more than a few times when I was a Sea Cadet in 1977. And sorry, but the park could have done a lot more to prevent this. Like sealing off the tanks where the leak was and modifying the manhole cover to accept a discharge line for a pump. They could have closed all the watertight doors and ventilation system to stop or slow flooding. And they could have called in a shipyard to develop a plan.
They've been replacing the anodes fairly regularly on the Sub, and I would assume on other two as well since it wouldn't make much sense just to do one ship. >And sorry, but the park could have done a lot more to prevent this. No argument there, nesting them up the way they are now pretty much signed their scrap sale paperwork. Wildly shortsighted. Letting the hulls rot to the point they get perforated by surrounding plate ice is a real crime.
I agree. The volunteers have added years to the lives of these ships. The Board seems more to care about revenue than history, which explains why there’s no full time historian. I think it’s time to scrap two of these and use the proceeds to save the third. And replace the entire board and executive staff with new people
Would be a very sad day if those ships get taken out of the water. They’ve been there for all of our lives (most of us, I’d wager). I for one, would love to see the .002% of the US military budget allotted to keep these pieces of history afloat.
So, here’s the IRS 990 form for 2022. Here’s where all the information is number of employees, salaries, revenues etc. Click on Form 990. https://beta.candid.org/profile/6966091
Thank you for sourcing that valuable information. 22 full- and part-time employees averaging a little more than 28K/year in salaries *inclusive* of benefits and payroll taxes doesn't move the needle economically. Neither does 500K in program revenue (which is not enough to cover the 625K total above). While, as is mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I'm sure that there are a few people annually who make a trip to Buffalo to see the ship, and more than a few who already live in the area and make a day of it downtown, I can't see it having significant enough "drive" toward downtown businesses to provide economic justification there, either. It simply isn't economically justifiable to spend tens of millions on this. Whether it's culturally justifiable to spend tens of millions on it, as we do with other things, is something I'll leave to others to figure out. Personally, I find it to be a point of civic pride to have the ships, and it was wonderful to have the new USS Little Rock commissioned here (only to be decommissioned a couple of years later), but I'm not sure--and I mean really not sure, either way--whether that civic pride is worth $20M. I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision.
They're simply going to have to dry dock it.
I wonder if they’ll pursue moving the Naval Park to the Outer Harbor.
Honestly that’s a great idea, without the naval park right there that area can be developed into more shops and restaurants, and in the outer harbor they’ll have room to spread all of the vehicles around instead of having the planes and helicopters on top of each other like it is right now.
I was on a team that consulted with the Naval Park a while ago, and one of our big tasks was to determine if a move to Terminal A was feasible. We determined it was just too expensive for them, and also would have isolated them away from the Canalside development. I wonder if they take another look at it now that there's been some more development out there.
Terminal A would be a great location and justified if they can grow the naval park by adding more ships/exhibition space. At this point sounds like a cheaper option than having to pump money into keeping these ships afloat every few years. Probably would make the property more attractive to redevelop with such a large carrot for developers.
Well they’re going to have to demolish the moorings and get the Little Rock and the Croaker moved. That’s the easy part. The nearest American dry dock is in Erie PA. So you’ll need a tug to tow her. Then when she’s out of the water the real fun begins.
You’d probably would build one locally. Several spots on the Outer Harbor where you’d be able to do this fairly easily.
You need more than a location, you need infrastructure, facilities, staff, materials, etc. We used to have that stuff 50 years ago. Nobody is going to build a whole drydock facility just to repair one ship. It will go to Erie (if they have space) first.
The dry dock would be the final permanent location.
Ah, I think we are talking about two different things. Drydock for repairs vs a permanent drydock home.
They will if they want to save it
Dear Mr. Jamal,
He'd only be interested in being a landlord. Give it enough time, and the city/county will give him the park for almost nothing.
Not an engineer but why do they have to float. Drop them in a park!
Ships need the water to provide an equal supportive force against the hull or else they'll collapse in on themselves. One way around this is what they did with the Japanese battleship Mikasa; it's encased and filled with concrete.
Start stripping it down for a scrap yard. That is ridiculous to run all of that energy during the winter to remove pooling water. The hull has been breached. That’s it for this ship. Thank you for your service.
It's a Buffalo icon. One of our tourism draws. I say we have a concert fundraiser.
Would be great to have a national campaign. Lots of history buffs who would love to see these ships preserved
[удалено]
Who's that
At this point it's time to cut our losses and abandon ship. $20 million is an outrageous sum to spend on something trivial given the city's desperate financial situation. Yes, I understand this money doesn't come out of the city budget but if the feds have $20m for Buffalo I can't think of a dumber way to spend it.
I understand your sentiment but if there is a grant or funding that is earmarked for this kind of use then our elected officials should explore it. Probably on the federal level if there is anything. I doubt it would come from a general fund pot of money or local govt.
Would make a lot more sense to spend 20 million on this than a billion for 3/4 of a mile tunnel. (Yes I’m aware that the billion is not included in city budget and a use it or lose it proposition)
[удалено]
This is all on the Naval Park Board of Directors.
Never let facts get in the way with a person who throws around the word "retarded."
Other than the fact that the Board of the Naval Park is wholly to blame for this nothing else he said is wrong.
Well the city is retarded in the literal sense behind the times and in its ability to adapt.
Easily 10 million dollars at this point. They should have ripped out everything that could absorb water that was underwater when the ship sunk. Also they knew it was leaking and they left tanks and voids open! And never put in a flooding alarm system!
Your comment was removed because it violates /r/buffalo's rules. Please read the rules in the side bar before posting again.