The USS Missouri pays rent at Pearl?

FRIDAY….1-25-08…Sometimes, interesting little items that I think would make interesting Tidbits for the B.S. Notebook, get lost in the shuffle of other news. With the economy, and the primary elections getting front and back page coverage in most of the mainstream press, it doesn’t leave much room for the interesting little items that people should know about.

Such is the case for the item coming out of Honolulu. Most people consider the battleship USS Missouri a national treasure. The famous ship on which the formal surrender of Japan brought world war two to a close sits nose to nose at the gravesite of the battleship USS Arizona. Both, a fitting memorial to the beginning and the end of world war two.
But, the Navy considers the USS Missouri as a tenant that has to pay rent if it want to stay at Pearl Harbor. The rent is more than two hundred thousand dollars a year. That’s what the battleship Missouri memorial pays to dock, where thousands of tourists pay to tour the ship and the USS Arizona memorial. Since signing the lease for the dock space, the memorial has paid more than one and a half million dollars in rent.
Now, they’ve asked the Navy to lower the 200 thousand dollars annual rent. The Navy has rejected the request. Congressman Neil Abercrombie says he’s disappointed in the navy’s rejection, and he’s asking it to reconsider. But, the Navy says….it’s required to get fair market value for the dock space.
One has to wonder just who established “fair market value” for dock space on what used to be “battleship row”. If the historic battleship USS Missouri has to be moved….who, or what would take Its place at the dock? Nothing could! Battleship row itself, is a memorial. The whole controversy will undoubtedly end up in congress…..which is a good thing, no matter which political party is in control.
Now, if you have a comment, you can email at kpay dot com, or to me personally at bsessions, at sunset dot net. Or put a comment in the form below. I am Bruce Sessions, with Tidbits from the B.s. Notebook.


5 Responses

  1. Bruce, I don’t know anything about this tidbit and your post just brings more questions to mind.

    Who “owns” the Missouri and why is the Navy the renter? Does the state of Hawaii have anything to do with the amount that is being charged…or perhaps old legal agreements? Usually when something like this is going on old laws or legal agreements are in the mix.

    The Navy answered the question:

    “But, the Navy considers the USS Missouri as a tenant that has to pay rent if it want to stay at Pearl Harbor.”

    But it doesn’t tell us the story.

  2. The information for Friday’s Tidbit was gleaned from Navy Times. The Navy Times didn’t print atribution either. The Times is limited on space…I’m limited to 2 minutes on the air.

  3. Gee JoeWo, you went to all that trouble…four links!

    And you couldn’t take a minute to share the answers to some of the questions? Is it because the links tols us a lot about the Missouri and the war but nothing about the rent issue?

  4. Ok, this is really wrong and I’m mad! It’s time to take matters into our own hands and I’m immediately contacting the Secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter and I suggest you do the same.

    I’m asking Secretary Winter to reconsider the Navy’s idiotic decision to charge “fair market” rent to the U.S.S. Missouri Memorial. Only a bureaucrat could see the logic in this one, and if Winter wants to hang on to his job he just better straigten up and fly right!

    The Secretary of Navy is under the false assumption that Federal law does not allow for the “fair market” rental charge to be waived or reduced. WRONG!

    Federal law DOES provide a number of actions that can be considered as ‘in-kind’ alternatives to lease payments, such as maintenance, protection, repair, improvement or restoration work to name but a few.

    It’s beyond shameful that we should be charging a patriotic nonprofit organization to maintain a national treasure, a living symbol of our military sacrifice and ultimate victory in WWII.

    You may wish to follow my lead and contact them too:

    Secretary of the Navy
    1000 Navy Pentagon
    Washington, D.C. 20350-1000

  5. A dollar a year would be the right number for such a thing.

    I winder what the Navy does with that two hundred thousand? I wonder if it goes to the “general fund” of a “special fund” of some sort.

    With some digging you might find somebody is using it for something that isn’t in the UCMJ.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: