rsachek

That was a few months ago. Presumably, no compromise was reached or perhaps none was even attempted. A verdict should be expected literally any day now, given that we're nearly at the end of April. There is speculation that even in a best case scenrio — the conservancy prevails and the ship is allowed to dock indefinitely at the old rent rate — the conservancy doesn't have the funds to sustain. RXR has been chipping in to cover expenses for several years and I believe that relationship is now over, leaving the conservancy to pay the full cost. One has to imagine that donations are dwindling gives how many years this saga has dragged on.

Thanks for the replies, all. Very helpful. I would actually prefer to book directly with NCL, but some TAs are offering considerable onboard credit and one is even willing to discount the price of the cruise in the amount of the onboard credit instead and I'm too cheap to pass that up.

Can anyone comment on the logistics of using the CruiseFirst certificate if booking through a travel agent? Do you still pay a deposit at the time of booking with the travel agent? Then once the cruise is linked to your Lattitudes account, can you apply the certificate and the cerifiticate amount is then deducted from the final payment balance? Does this sound correct? I have tried contacting NCL and two different travel agents and nobody seems to have a confident answer.

^^ Yeah, the rent dispute trial started last Wednesday (January 24th) and was only expected to last a day or two, I believe. I was expecting to have heard a verdict by now, but apparently the relevant parties will be notified in writing at later date, which could be as late as March or April. The conservancy is hanging its hat on a lease that was re-negotiated in 2011 after the ship was acquired from NCL. The lease spells out an $850 daily rate “continuing until upon removal of the vessel from its current location.” On the other hand, the landlord’s defense is that the lease wasn’t intended to be in perpetuity and nobody expected the ship to remain there for so long after the lease was signed. The judge in the trial recommended that the two sides try to work something out via negotiation, rather than a court ruling. In my opinion, a good compromise might be to keep the old rent rate until the end of 2024, then the ship has to either begin paying the higher rate or move. Honestly, it is silly keeping this rusted out, gutted hulk around any longer. If it was ever going to be repurposed, it would have already happened. New York firmly doesn't want the ship there, anyway. They're saying it won't even fit at Pier 76 and would require dredging. See: RXR's Ship-to-Hotel Conversion is in Deep Trouble The conservancy has fought a good fight, but it's over for the Big U.

At this point, I think the conservancy is willing to donate the ship to any city that's willing to accept her. They might have a slick set of drawings for the mixed-use plan, but no lender or investor is ever going to piss away $500 million on this pipe dream. How would that investment ever be recovered? $500 million is literally how much professional sports stadiums cost to build. The United States is not that historically significant, either. It had a short, boring career and there's nothing original to see inside because it's all been gutted. Plus, modern society doesn't care about old-timey ocean liners. The Queen Mary in Long Beach has been a financial disaster for anyone foolish enough to invest. And that ship was fully intact and well known by the public at the time of it's hotel/exhibit conversion.

The SS United States is in a rent dispute that could leave it without a berth. Time to throw in the towel, methinks.