In the Nov. 28 and Dec.2 editions of The Post and Courier two writers took issue with Patriots Point’s estimates for the cost of moving the submarine USS Clamagore onto high land. They compare the task at Patriots Point to other landside displays of submarines in other states. These are “apples to oranges” comparisons.
Our cost estimates of almost $6 million include:
1) permitting and mitigation for environmental impacts, 2) dredging to allow the submarine to be positioned perpendicular to the shore, 3) the construction of an 800-foot long trestle system (numerous pilings required), 4) moving the submarine into position from her current berth, which includes removing and then replacing sections of the marina where she is berthed, 5) the construction of a large and intricate pedestal to cradle the 2,000-ton submarine permanently (the pedestal would have to be supported by many pilings driven 90 feet to bedrock), 6) engineering and design costs. This cost does not include restoration of the vessel which would still be required.
Corrosion does not stop once the sub is brought out of the water. In fact there is evidence that the process is accelerated when the vessel is exposed to air. The cost of restoring the vessel must ultimately be included in the price.
Patriots Point retained the services of a very qualified engineering firm in South Carolina to provide an estimate of these costs. I wish it were not so expensive, but it simply is.
The cost of bringing the USS Clamagore to a landside exhibit would be similar in either Alabama or California, if the circumstances were the same. They are not.
We appreciate and respect the passion displayed by our many veterans who only wish to save our history. We share their passion and dedication, but we hold the responsibility for making the tough decisions that have to be made.
There is nothing easy or pleasant about making such decisions. Every action we take regarding the USS Clamagore will be done with utmost respect for the vessel and her crew. We continue to work with the Clamagore Veterans Association to design and construct a fitting memorial to the submarine and her crew.
Patriots Point Road
In a word
Clemson’s 2013 football team can be summed up in one word — overrated.
The right idea?
In his initial campaign for presidency, then-Sen. Barack Obama, stressed “change,” as his plan for America. Coming on the heels of a lackluster performance by President George W. Bush, the idea of change, along with Sen. Obama’s appeal to young people and the fact that he was the first African-American to be seriously considered for the presidency, gave hope that the change that he was talking about would put America back on the right track.
History will determine if he had the right idea.
In his book, “Truman,” author David McCullough quoted President Truman: “If a man is acquainted with what other people have experienced at this desk [referring to his study of past presidents], it would be easier for him to go through a similar experience.
“It is ignorance that causes most mistakes. The man who sits here ought to know his American history, at least.”
President Truman goes on to say, “If ever there was a ‘clean break’ from all that had gone before, the result would be chaos.”
Candidate Barack Obama stressed change. I submit that there was nothing wrong with the United States when Barack Obama ran for president. The only thing wrong with our country was — and still is — the way it is being run.
The three people you profiled in your Dec. 1 front page article about the Affordable Care Act sound like they are getting good deals from the program, but I couldn’t help noticing that they all had insurance before the advent of the act.
The act’s purpose was to alleviate the plight of the 10 million or so citizens without insurance. Maybe your next above-the-fold cheerleading article about Obamacare could find some examples of the act helping the people it was designed to help.
Last week all six of South Carolina’s Republican representatives to Congress voted against a bill that would require disclosures about hydraulic-fracking operations on federal and non-federal lands, including the identity of chemicals used in fracking.
They also voted to bar federal regulation of fracking on federal and tribal lands. Rep. James Clyburn, the sole Democratic member of the S.C. House delegation, disagreed with the Republican majority.
For the life of me, I can’t understand what possible harm could come from the public knowing what chemicals the energy companies are pumping into our home planet in order to extract profits.
On the other hand, I can see how we could all be hurt badly by this information being kept secret from us.
I call on the members of Congress who voted to keep this information secret to explain why. What makes them so wise that they need to protect us from the truth?
Notice about comments: