The LA Shipyard Wrangle is About to Hit the Bumpers

May 27, 2010, 12:53AM EST
Gambol Industries is not going away

A costly, unsatisfactory compromise is likely in the unsettling wrangle over the largely defunct Southwest Marine shipyard, now owned by Gambol Industries, in Los Angeles. The year's deadline is but a month away for a plan to be produced over Gambol's assertion that there will be enough business to build and repair vessels, mostly in the 200-400 foot range.
In the last 11 months, little has changed. The port wants much of the unused berth space as a dumping ground for channel deepening mud, so that two terminal projects can go ahead. Gambol wants the silt to be taken somewhere else and says it can attract enough business to employ 800 people, paying   $42 million in wages a year.
Understandably, the port takes its own view of the situation – which is extremely skeptical of Gambol's assessment. "Southwest Marine [at its height] had fewer employees than Gambol projects for its shipyard. When it closed, Southwest Marine and another failing facility had a combined sales volume less than a third of Gambol’s projected total payroll," notes a report by port staff.
Market share is projected at a maximum of 67 percent of all US-flagged vessels between 72 feet and 200 feet. Other yards are doing this work and thus Gambol would be depriving someone else – not increasing the volume of business.
Gambol boss Robert Stein wrote in a newspaper op-ed earlier this month of the prospects: "Don't only take my word for it. The beneficial economic impact of the Gambol plan is supported by a Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. study. According to the study, the Gambol plan could spark a significant economic renaissance for the local shipbuilding and repair industry."
Ahem. That's not my recollection, or the port's. The development corporation said its forecast was based on figures supplied by Gambol.
That quibble aside, it's clear that Gambol is not going away, even though the costs and delays in changing the location for the dump site will be horrendous. This dispute is being seen in the wider context of the future of LA/Long Beach and if the talk comes down to a lawsuit slugfest, Southern California's fortunes will take another knock.
Sharp-minded deal makers sense that the only way to end this is through money, probably by cutting Gambol a yearly "compensation fee" or some such payment to let the channel work go ahead.
Just how much money will be involved (with taxpayers ultimately footing the bill) will be indicated in a month's time.
 
 
 
 
 
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
Glenn Dudley
Martin Rushmere needs to get his fact correct before he posts articles like the one above.

1st off, Gambol does not "own" the old Southwest Marine Shipyard. This is Port of Los Angeles property. Should an agreement betwen Gambol and the Port be reached, Gambol would lease the location from the Port.

Mr. Rushmere has obviously not read Gambols' business plan, but it appears that he is further twisting already mis-represented figures.

The most incrudulous statement that Mr. Rushmere makes is that providing Gambol "a yearly compenstion fee to let the channel depening project go ahead" "usually with tax payers footing the bill". This is pure fabrication, as I stated above, the location is Port property.

Dear Mr. Rushmere, get your fact straight before you post again. Dear readers, please take Mr. Rushmeres' writings with a grain of salt, as his ignorance is very misleading and skewed.
5/27/2010 11:23:23 AM
 
Jeff Maillian
"Stunning inaccuracy and blatant fabrications from factless Martin Rushmere" might be the nicest way to describe this article - As noted above, Gambol Industries does not own, lease, or rent Southwest Marine. As for emplyment, in the 1980s, Southwest Marine had over 1,500 workers - the Port is renowned for getting the numbers wrong if it is to their benefit.

Market share is actually projected in the Gambol presentations at less than 5% of a specific set of local and West Coast commercial vessels, far from the "67% of all US-flagged vessels" claimed by Mr. Rushmere - was at the Board of Harbor Commissioner hearing, I heard it myself. As for other yards doing the work - sorry, folks, competition is dead! It is plainly unfair in Mr. Rushmere's world to try to fill an obvious void in the marketplace and win business. All of you vessels owners, be careful - in his worldview, each time you bid for a job or cargo, you are taking work away from those more deserving! We're all familiar with the backlog at West Coast shipyards, so adding capacity seems a good thing.

As I heard the Gambol proposals, there is NO added cost to the Port or anyone but Gambol Industries. There is NO delay necessary, except those imposed by canards and roadblocks thrown up by the Port staff.

The entire "compnesation fee" argument is obviously made up of whole cloth and accredited to "sharp-minded deal makers" - I believe that translates as straw men in Mr. Rushmere's mind.

Lastly, did your buddies at the Port of Los Angeles happen to mention that they can take the small volumes of sediments destined to destroy the last L.A. shipyard and barge it a couple miles west into the Port of Long Beach? Did they mention that Long Beach is begging for millions of cubic yards of fill material for their projects? Did they mention this can save the invaluable shipyard assets, SAVE the Port about twenty million dollars, and help create hundred of new jobs in LA and Long Beach?

Note to the editors - sure be nice if this piece had been vetted prior to publication! Next time the politically motivated opposition wants to sound off, at least they could be is remotely honest and factual!
5/27/2010 5:44:15 PM
 

Sign in

Latest blog comments

2/4/2012

dilipan thomas
well there is no job for most people who has finished studi...

2/2/2012

Saunders Jones
Joe, You are right on regarding both GMATS and the Super...

1/25/2012

Joseph Keefe
Mark: You get the prize, indeed. Thanks for weighing in....

1/24/2012

Mark Sales
An apt and appropriate view of the situation. It also shou...

1/24/2012

Eric Goldring
I just wrote an article on my blog about the hype which has...

1/20/2012

Shiran Senanayake
I believe that Cruise Masters are fatigued with so many por...

1/19/2012

Alan Loynd
Absolutely correct. With the largest passenger ships now...

1/19/2012

James Lynch
Well stated. The need for regulation is obvious in any fie...

1/19/2012

Eugene (Gene) Horton
Dear Greg, I read your article on “size matters” and found...

1/19/2012

Laurie Thomas
Joe, to add to John's comment, here's another gem/bad news ...