!!Prep NOW!! NJ & NY PORTS to Break Lease- BOTH PORT CO's COULD SOON BE W/O LEASE!!!!

[tsk]

LOOK OUT WALMART!!! (watch their stock drop this morning!)

BOTH PORT COMPANIES COULD BE WITHOUT A LEASE TO OPERATE THE PORTS!!!

FORGET ABOUT A STRIKE!!!
THE PORTS MAY NOT BE OPERATING SOON!

HOPE EVERYONE IS WELL PREPPED!!!


Port Agency to Break Lease in Bid to Block Dubai Sale

Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints
Save Article


By PATRICK McGEEHAN
Published: February 24, 2006
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will break the lease of a big container terminal at Port Newark to stop a company based in Dubai from taking over part of the operation there, the agency's chairman said yesterday.

Anthony R. Coscia, the chairman, said the company that holds a lease on the terminal through 2030 violated the contract by selling a half-interest in it to Dubai Ports World without seeking the landlord's approval. He said the Port Authority would ask a judge in New Jersey Superior Court in Newark today to affirm its right to end the lease.
"Fundamentally, this is a landlord-tenant dispute," said Mr. Coscia, who is a lawyer. "We're terminating their lease because they sublet illegally."

Separately, the State of New Jersey sued the federal government in United States District Court in Trenton yesterday afternoon to block the Dubai deal. The lawsuit said Bush administration officials failed to fulfill their duty to fully investigate the national security implications of the transaction.

The Dubai company has agreed to pay $6.8 billion to buy Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation, a port operator based in London. One of the subsidiaries it would acquire, P & O Ports North America, owns half of the company that operates the Port Newark Container Terminal.

Andrew Rice, a spokesman for P & O and Dubai Ports World, said neither company would comment on the litigation.

The state's suit argues that the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which approved the deal last month, has not provided Gov. Jon S. Corzine with the information he needs to protect the residents of New Jersey. By withholding it, the suit argues, the committee is interfering with the sovereign rights of the state provided by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

The suit asks the court to order the committee to conduct a full investigation of the Dubai Ports World and to share information they gather with New Jersey's Office of Counterterrorism. As defendants, the suit names the heads of the federal agencies that make up the committee, including John W. Snow, the treasury secretary, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense.
"Our federal suit is really about information," Mr. Corzine said, at a ceremony to swear in Zulima V. Farber as attorney general. But he went on to criticize the decision to approve the deal quickly.

"This is very poorly executed foreign policy," Mr. Corzine said. "This should have been reviewed at the highest levels."

The suits were the first by public agencies in the growing controversy over the sale to Dubai, though Mr. Coscia said other port officials were considering taking similar action.

Like Mr. Corzine, Port Authority officials have been frustrated at their inability to obtain information from the Treasury Department about the committee's review. But the Port Authority's only power to slow or block Dubai Ports World from arriving as a tenant rests in the lease.

There was no pending dispute with the operators of the container terminal before the Dubai deal surfaced. But, Mr. Coscia said, the lease states that a tenant must get the agency's approval of a transfer of ownership interest.

"Our approval wasn't sought, so we haven't provided it," he said.

One complication of the dispute is that another port operator, A. P. Moller-Maersk, is caught in the crossfire. Maersk, a Danish company, planned to maintain its half-interest in the terminal but could soon be without a lease to operate at the port.

The Port Authority's message to Maersk, Mr. Coscia said, was, "We're sorry you're in the middle of this, but you're in the middle of this."

A spokeswoman for Maersk in New Jersey declined to comment.

David W. Chen contributed reporting from Trenton for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/nyregion/24suit.html
tsk, tsk...

 

[north runner]

Holy cow, this deal is really going sideways. The Port Authority does seem to have the power to cancel the deal. Take that you arab morons and your political accomplices in the WH.

 

[momof23goats]

I hope the other ports follow their lead. There is good ole american know how in action, or more than one way to skin a cat!!!!!!!!!!I think America is saying , no Arabs in control of our ports!!!!!!!!!!!!
My hats off to them.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

does the fgov have the power to impose imminent domain over the states? if they do, it wouldn't surprise me to see them pull a one-up over this. don't forget, the SC paved the way for ED to be okay just to raise revenue for the states/cities etc.

can see it now..............the ports will be "nationalized" like the national forests etc., the proceeds from the lease will go towards rebuilding that gold domed mosque in Iraq, and we will be going what?!?

they couldn't ever do that without the congress, right? the rules seem to be change much in the last few years, I can't rely on the things I learned in Gov't class in school. We are talking over 20 yrs ago.

 

[Barry Natchitoches]

 

[Hansa44]

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago

A United Arab Emirates company offered Thursday to delay its takeover of most operations at six U.S. ports to give the Bush administration more time to convince skeptical lawmakers the deal poses no security risks.

The surprise announcement relieves some pressure from a standoff between President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, where some lawmakers have threatened to block the deal because of concerns over the UAE's purported ties to terrorism. Immediate reaction on Capitol Hill was mixed.

Under the offer coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it will agree not to exercise control or influence the management over U.S. ports pending further talks with the Bush administration, Congress and local port authorities. It did not indicate how long it will wait for these discussions to take place.

The Dubai-based state-owned company said it will move forward with other parts of the deal affecting the rest of the world.

"It is not only unreasonable but also impractical to suggest that the closing of this entire global transaction should be delayed," Dubai Ports said in a statement.

"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," the company's chief operating officer, Ted Bilkey, said in a statement. "We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties. Security is everybody's business."

The announcement came as bipartisan political furor persisted over the deal — supposed to be completed in early March — because of national security concerns. Republicans and Democrats alike are crafting legislation blocking or delaying the deal with an Arab country tied to some of the hijackers from Sept. 11, 2001. Bush had pledged earlier to veto such a measure.

The company's announcement did not appease some of the deal's harshest Democratic critics.

"If the president were to voluntarily institute the review and delay the contract that would obviate the need for our legislation, but a simple cooling-off period will not allay our concerns," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

However, one prominent Republican who had questioned the deal appeared optimistic.

"This is definitely a positive step," said Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record) of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "We'll need more details as to the nature of the discussions that will be held and the extent of the investigation into Dubai Ports."

The company said U.S. operations affected by the deal account for roughly 10 percent of its overall value, noting that its purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. covers 30 terminals in 18 countries, ferries and properties. It stressed that the sale overall would not be delayed, and British shareholders will be paid as previously planned.

Earlier Thursday, Democrats pushed for a new 45-day investigation into the deal and accused the administration of failing to thoroughly investigate whether it would threaten national security.

For its part, the administration sought to quell the controversy.

"People don't need to worry about security," Bush told reporters after a morning Cabinet meeting at the White House. "This wouldn't be going forward if we weren't certain that our ports would be secure. The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government, the more they'll be comforted that our ports will be secure."

Meantime, Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, said Bush was willing to accept a slight delay in Dubai Ports World's purchase of terminal leases and other operations at the U.S. ports from a British company. "What is important is that members of Congress have the time to get fully briefed on this," Rove said on Fox Radio's "Tony Snow Show."

On Capitol Hill, administration officials who approved the transaction told the Senate Armed Services Committee that their 90-day review did not turn up a single national security concern to justify blocking it and they said no one raised an issue that would have prompted the need for a further, 45-day investigation.

"We're not aware of a single national security concern raised recently that was not part of" a three-month review before the deal was approved, Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told the lawmakers.

Democratic committee members accused officials of failing to take into account issues raised about the Arab country in the final report of the special commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee, derided the administration's "casual approach" in approving a deal involving a country "with an uneven record of battling terrorism."

Levin at one point noted that the Sept. 11 commission found "a persistent counterterrorism problem represented by the United Arab Emirates."

"Just raise your hand if anybody (at the witness table) talked to the 9-11 commission," commanded Levin. There was no response from the administration's representatives.

White House Homeland Security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend said the UAE's cooperation in the fight against terrorism has changed since 2001.

"They have been critical allies in Afghanistan," she told reporters at a news conference on a separate matter. "They have been critical allies in fighting the financial war against terror. They've been critical allies in terms of our military-to-military relationship."

Levin and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., accused the administration of ignoring a law that requires a longer review — an additional 45 days — if a proposed business deal could affect national security.

Kimmitt responded: "We didn't ignore the law. Concerns were raised. They were resolved."

Following the company's announcement, Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines, said the senator "welcomes the news that the investigation that she and others have called for will have a chance to proceed. The administration should now use this delay to conduct the investigation that the law requires."

Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he would ask Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to prepare a memorandum on the administration's interpretation of the law to see if it deviates from Congress' intent.

Elsewhere, New Jersey sued in federal court to block the UAE company from taking over operations at the Port Newark container terminal until the federal government investigates possible security risks. The owner of the busy shipping center, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said it also has security concerns about the takeover and plans to file a lawsuit Friday to terminate the firm's lease at the port.

Also Thursday, administration officials said that weeks before Dubai Ports World sought U.S. approval for the deal, the UAE contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The administration said there was no connection between the request for U.S. approval of the ports deal and the UAE's contribution.

The White House, which so far has gotten a total of $126 million in international donations, said the UAE's contribution shows the close relationship between the two governments.

___

Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett in Washington, Jeffrey Gold in Trenton, N.J., Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pa., and Anne Gearan in Beirut, Lebanon, contributed to this report.

 

[Wise Owl]

Bump to keep this from getting lost........

 

[Onebyone]

Now hopefully the other port owners will do something similar or congress will truly step up and stop the idioticy.

 

[TECH32]

Just so you all know, the Port Authority is the SINGLE LARGEST land owner in the NY/NJ area. Billions upon billions of dollars in assets. When they come down on someone, they come down hard...

 

[A.T.Hagan]

It's an interesting siutation, but Tsk you're sounding more than a little hysterical in the way you have posted it.

.....Alan.

 

[Rex Jackson]

Interesting.

 

[lynnie]

They said on the news last night that half the nation's imports come through that area.

 

[north runner]

I wouldn't say this is hysterical at all. In fact Alan, it dovetails so perfectly with breakdown america. These ports won't be run by the military, that's fersure. This in fact may be the first big power play of the crunch on american soil. And Bush has virtually declared himself a foreign agent in the matter making Homeland Security look like a joke. Incredible.

 

[Dennis Olson]

I wouldn't say this is hysterical at all. In fact Alan, it dovetails so perfectly with breakdown america. These ports won't be run by the military, that's fersure. This in fact may be the first big power play of the crunch on american soil. And Bush has virtually declared himself a foreign agent in the matter making Homeland Security look like a joke. Incredible.

I find myself in complete agreement with this PoV, particularly the last sentence.

 

[tsk]

north runner
This in fact may be the first big power play of the crunch on american soil.

Thank god somebody understands that this is not just "another day".

Does anybody understand that if BOTH companies lose their lease, there is no controlling entity (as of now) to take over the port operations? Which means, these important docks could (at least temporarily) cease operation. Guess what that will do to your Walmart shopping???

Lilbitsnana : does the fgov have the power to impose imminent domain over the states? if they do, it wouldn't surprise me to see them pull a one-up over this.

Wow, never even THOUGHT of that!
It's all insane, isn't it??? I just shake my head any more...


tsk, tsk...

 

[Worrier King]

I wouldn't say this is hysterical at all. In fact Alan, it dovetails so perfectly with breakdown america. These ports won't be run by the military, that's fersure. This in fact may be the first big power play of the crunch on american soil. And Bush has virtually declared himself a foreign agent in the matter making Homeland Security look like a joke. Incredible.

Well stated!

At this point you can be sure the administration isn't thinking about the well being of the American people, but are thinking how to manipulate this situation further to advance their own private interests, explained in a matter that plays to the blind allegiance of their misguided supporters similiar to as we have been witnessing on this website.

Any American who isnt going to be sticking a $buck$ in their pocket from this deal should be against this business arrangement, as, (regardless of whats claimed by a administration who's record towards REAL national security is abysmal beyond anything other than words), this situation DOES have major threatening implications to National Security.

IMHO, it seems a sure way to deliver larger payloads of WMD to the very "Homeland" this administration claims to be working to defend.

 

[TECH32]

Thank god somebody understands that this is not just "another day".

Does anybody understand that if BOTH companies lose their lease, there is no controlling entity (as of now) to take over the port operations? Which means, these important docks could (at least temporarily) cease operation. Guess what that will do to your Walmart shopping???


Wow, never even THOUGHT of that!
It's all insane, isn't it??? I just shake my head any more...


tsk, tsk...

Never happen. Never EVER happen. The PA would bring in "temporary" managers to make sure ships got loaded/unloaded.

They ain't stupid you know.

 

[Pearl]

does the fgov have the power to impose imminent domain over the states? if they do, it wouldn't surprise me to see them pull a one-up over this. don't forget, the SC paved the way for ED to be okay just to raise revenue for the states/cities etc.

(snip)

Good point! You mean something like, move the National Guard in to manage the ports for the US gummint?



I thought they were all in Iraq.

Whatever happens, it won't be good for us in the hinterlands.

Pearl

 

[Lilbitsnana]

I was being a little facetious on my previous post.

But, the half serious part, was thinking more along the lines of they would put whoever they wanted in the "management" position. Not National Guard, or US citizens. Most likely they would allow the UAE to take over management, regardless of popular opinion.

Now, if you want to go "way out", then think in terms of UN troops or NATO troops or anyone other than US citizens.

 

[Wise Owl]

So is there any news from the NJ court yet? What time was the hearing scheduled for? Anybody know? Wonder who is watching this, which reporters from where?

Guess I will go looking for updates........

 

[GILTRIC]

The land that the ports sit on in NJ and NY and Penn. for that matter, is public land. It belongs to the people of the state which it lies.

The Port Authority manages the land and sub-lets it out to other companies who actually do the loading and unloading.

If the Feds try to exert control over the states public owned land via emminent domain......It will be time to get off your ass and grab your rifle.

 

[funkyducky]

So is there any news from the NJ court yet? What time was the hearing scheduled for? Anybody know? Wonder who is watching this, which reporters from where?

Guess I will go looking for updates........

http://www.nj.com/newsflash/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1140799158135790.xml&storylist=jersey
2/24/2006, 12:44 p.m. ET
By JEFFREY GOLD
The Associated Press

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — The owner of Port Newark on Friday, citing security concerns, filed a lawsuit against the company operating the port to block a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates government from taking over operations at the container terminal.

The action by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey claims that the pending acquisition of the port operator, London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., violates a 30-year lease the authority and P&O signed in 2000.

The Port Authority lawsuit, filed in state Superior Court in Newark, asks for an order blocking the purchase and declaring that P&O has broken the lease by failing to obtain the authority's consent for the takeover.
***
Port Authority Chairman Anthony Coscia was not immediately available. On Thursday, Coscia said the authority had not received a response from the U.S. Treasury Department after requesting details about how the federal government determined it was safe to allow Dubai Ports World to buy the British company.

"We as owners of that facility should be made comfortable that whoever operates that facility is capable of it," Coscia said.

Superior Court Judge Patricia K. Costello in Newark scheduled a hearing for 10 a.m. March 3.

The action by the Port Authority is the latest stemming from the pending takeover of operations at Port Newark and several other U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World.



http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=3937972

Port Newark owner sues to block Dubai company from managing terminal
Arab co. agrees to postpone takeover of U.S. ports indefinitely
***
Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said the company "is not demonstrating the skill of protecting the national security interests of the United States." The state's lawsuit names several Bush Cabinet members, including Treasury Secretary John Snow, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

The New Jersey Office of Counter-Terrorism requested documents submitted to the committee by Dubai Ports World, but has not been given all the information sought, the lawsuit said.

The news came hours after the United Arab Emirates company at the center of the lawsuit volunteered to postpone its takeover of significant operations at six major U.S. seaports, giving the White House more time to convince skeptical lawmakers the deal poses no increased risks from terrorism.

The surprise concession late Thursday cools the standoff building between the Congress and President Bush over his administration's previous approval of the deal. In early reaction, lawmakers praised the temporary hold. But some critics pressed anew for an intensive examination of the deal's risks.

 

[tsk]

GILTRIC
If the Feds try to exert control over the states public owned land via emminent domain......It will be time to get off your ass and grab your rifle.

Hasn't the groundwork already been laid to do just that?

tsk, tsk...

 

[Fuzzychick]

BUMP

 

[UpNorth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsk
Thank god somebody understands that this is not just "another day".

Does anybody understand that if BOTH companies lose their lease, there is no controlling entity (as of now) to take over the port operations? Which means, these important docks could (at least temporarily) cease operation. Guess what that will do to your Walmart shopping???


Wow, never even THOUGHT of that!
It's all insane, isn't it??? I just shake my head any more...


tsk, tsk...

I think you are over exaggerating the effects of what would occur if the port authority terminated its lease with these two companies as a result of the dispute with dpw. Just because these two terminals might shutdown doesn't mean that the whole port will shut down.

EDIT, now if this reoccurs throughout all the major ports across the country, then yes time to panic.

 

[Zagdid]

I can't believe nobody noticed or at least mentioned the ironey of having those:

Cartoon crazy Danes (Maersk, a Danish company) in partnership with the UAE.

 

[GILTRIC]

Hasn't the groundwork already been laid to do just that?

tsk, tsk...

Of course it has...but when people lose one thing...they always rationalize their inaction by saying "well I'll do something if I ever lose XXXXXXX"....

Then they lose XXXXXXX and they rationalize their inaction by saying ..."Well losing that is not so bad...I'll worry about it when I lose XXXXXXX"

People are always looking for excuses for inaction on their part.


Land of the "look the other way"

 

[mdanse]

Just to keep this thread alive, let's just BTTT

Interesting times we live in!!!
Dana

 

[Sid Vicious]

bump

 

[Capt. Senile]

does the fgov have the power to impose imminent domain over the states? if they do, it wouldn't surprise me to see them pull a one-up over this. don't forget, the SC paved the way for ED to be okay just to raise revenue for the states/cities etc.

can see it now..............the ports will be "nationalized" like the national forests etc., the proceeds from the lease will go towards rebuilding that gold domed mosque in Iraq, and we will be going what?!?

they couldn't ever do that without the congress, right? the rules seem to be change much in the last few years, I can't rely on the things I learned in Gov't class in school. We are talking over 20 yrs ago.

Way back in 1861 the Federal government imposed imminent domain over the southern half of the country. It took 4 years to settle the details and we all know the outcome. So, yup, I think they think they can do it again as they haven't been beaten yet

 

[dero50]

BUMP!!!