Saving the Delta Queen: One last chance
The Delta Queen hasn't docked in Pittsburgh in years, idled in 2009 by majority congressional Democrats' refusal to renew a safety exemption needed for overnight passenger service. That's because its then-owners wouldn't negotiate with the Seafarers International Union.
Now, Senate Democrats must act for Delta Queen cruises to resume before a March deadline for the steamboat to vacate a Chattanooga, Tenn., dock where it's become a floating hotel.
A rent dispute has Chattanooga's mayor determined to evict the steamboat, The New York Times reports. But investors headed by a former Delta Queen employee want to buy, refurbish and return the wooden-superstructure steamboat to passenger service. Legislation to renew the needed exemption was introduced in May.
The House version, sponsored by Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, passed on Sept. 25, 280-89. But the Senate version, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, remains stalled in that Democrat-controlled chamber's Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
A congressional source says no union issue with the Delta Queen's prospective new owners now blocks the exemption. That makes the Senate committee's inaction all the more puzzling.
The Delta Queen, a magnificent example of 1920s workmanship, oozes 19th-century charm. If Senate Democrats won't allow it to once again cruise inland waterways, they will have done a disservice to a piece of Americana too significant to abandon.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The hunting proposal: A rule too far
- State of Corruption: The McCord scandal
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Catholic Education Week: School choice & more
- The Thursday wrap
- Saturday essay: A new (& blue) feeder
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Host a Super Bowl?: False prophets/profits
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes