Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 9 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Death of riverboat hurts us all
Published Wednesday, November 11, 2009
“Besides, no one wants to have the last riverboat on the Mississippi River.”
This quote by the Grand Soleil’s attorney Kent Hudson says more than he intended. It is hard to imagine that a great era in American history quietly came to a close with little notice.
Nicholas Roosevelt piloted the riverboat “New Orleans” down the Mississippi River in 1811 ushering this vast waterway and the lands it drained to an economic explosion. From these humble beginnings arose a legendary transportation system. Everyone should read Mark Twain’s “Life on the Mississippi” to gain a full appreciation of its impact.
With time, other commercial means evolved to solve the transit of goods, but riverboats remained a wonder on the Mississippi. Excursions allowed tourists to re-live the tranquil experience of travel by the rhythmic sound of a paddle wheel.
That is all gone now thanks to the unilateral actions of one man, Minnesota Democrat James Oberstar, who refused an exemption to the 1966 Safety and Sea Act. Apparently, this was done to satisfy Seafarer’s International Union which was in a dispute with a riverboat owner.
It is hard to imagine that such an important component of America’s historical heritage could fall victim to pure politics … but such is the case.
As a result, for the first time since 1811 no riverboats will cruise the Mississippi River. Furthermore, the economic impact of this loss of tourist dollars on communities, like Natchez, cannot be measured.
Where were the protests from the national delegations that line this vast waterway? Why was this allowed to happen behind closed doors under questionable circumstances? It is a sad comment on our times that a historic era could end and the greater good of communities that line a vast waterway could fall victim to pure politics. But such is the case.
Ron Chapman
associate professor of history,
Nunez Community College
Chalmette, La.; part-time Natchez resident
Comments
Posted by grungebob (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Apparently because no one cared, Ron. Get over it.
If there were truly a large market for river excursions, new boats would be built in compliance with current safety regulations. The investment just isn't worth the return.
There is also a considerable difference between a working replica of a steam powered riverboat and a casino barge.
Posted by eawprops (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Too bad that boat couldn't be turned into a hotel and docked under the hill. Natchez probably doesn't need more hotel rooms but it would make a unique place to stay.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They should be in a museum alongside the aircraft, trains and automobiles that served their purpose and should be remembered as a begining that got us where we are today. I am glad this reasoning isn't used to arm our military because sticks,stones and spears have also been replaced.
Posted by grungebob (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I jumped the gun a bit here - odd for someone known for his calm and self restraint.
Mr Chapman's letter has absolutely nothing to do with the sale of the Grand Soleil. He simply plays off Hudson's remark to lament the demise of old paddlewheelers to safety regs, which is very old news totally irrelevant to the
local story and barely relevant in its own right.
I question the ND's lack of editorial discretion and suspect the letter was chosen primarily because it was the right size. The New York Times motto is "all the news that's fit to print". Perhaps the ND should adopt "any news that fits we print".
Posted by Natchezbear (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Hudson statement refers to casino riverboats...of which there will still be for years to come. There probably wont be a lot of new ones. Just because Ms. changed its laws doesn't mean all states will. There are still plenty of excursion boats on the river and still will be for years to come.Visit New Orleans , St Louis, Louisville and many small towns in Mn. if you want to see steamboats and ride them.
NatchezBear (former Riverboat Officer)
Posted by grungebob (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, Nbear. Chapman's letter refers to one or two very old boats that have probably been out compliance with the Safety at Sea Act since it went into effect and were granted waivers until just recently.
As a former riverboat officer I am sure you can attest to how diligent and uncomprimising USCG inspectors could be regarding safety regs.
The Soleil and other casino riverboats are not self propelled vessels, but barges made to resemble steam powered paddlewheelers. Her demise was strictly a financial matter.
Again, the ND might have been a bit more discriminating when considering Chapman's letter.
Posted by Natchezbear (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As much as I love the Delta Queen, she was a stinky, old wooden fire trap, running with silver fish and other critters. Her retirement in Chattanooga was inevitable. She is however still a usefull hotel and restaurant, only needing a new owner to keep her open for business. The American Queen and Mississippi Queen (where I served) can still be used as excursion boats (MQ needs a whole lot more work) when economy gets better and investors are once again interested. The Grande Solie boat was a relic from the days when casinos had to sail, so it had an engine until someone sold it last year ( another unexplained GS mess). Laws changed, boats became stationary and many are as you said just barges made to look like riverboats as in Natchez (Hysterical society demanded it). New law state a percentage of casino must be over water(as seen at River walk in V'sburg) The whole casino law system is as twisted as people can dream up. For instance in Tunica they would dig a hole and float a boat in the middle of a cotton field to be within the boundaries of the law.
Posted by grungebob (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the background. My details were admittedly a bit fuzzy.
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe they put in Chapman's letter because they didn't want people to see Ser Shrish whatever-his-name-is Boxley's letter which was in the paper edition, so this one filled the space.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)