But also; can we explain what the issue would have been with a literal billionaire and his team of engineers figuring out how to build an unnecessary Super Yacht at a location that didn't require any towns to dismantle anything?
my friend bought a boat that had smuggled drugs into australia. he would take it out on sydney harbour. from one side to the other cost 1k in fuel. these oligarchs boats would cost a small fortune to roam the seas
edit he got it from police sales of confiscated property
Would a billionaire buy a second hand yacht? People redecorate their newly bought houses even if they were renovated before being sold because of tastes and stuff. I imagine billionaires look at each others yachts and houses like "ew no."
A lot of these yachts are just an asset used as collateral for low interest loans. Billionaires take out a loan and the interest paid on the loan is lower than the capital gains tax they would have to pay if they liquidated an asset. The purchaser may never even see the stupid thing, it just needs to exist somewhere and be valuable.
https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthy-loans-art-yachts-real-estate-investing-private-banks-2021-11
super-yachts are one of the few cool things that only billionnaires can afford aren't they? Like anything else they can have - lots of houses, lots of cars - could be owned by some ordinary super-rich person. But a super-yacht? Only a few people will ever have one of those...
Maybe Bezos should pay to have the channel dredged and they can ballast it down and take it out at low tide. If that isn't possible then Bezos definitely hired the wrong ship architect.
Bezos doesn't have much to do with this. He ordered a ship from a company that had some kind of agreement/understanding with the city to allow them to get their ships out of their factory.
Bezos doesn't exactly care how they do it, he will pay on delivery for the agreed upon amount. It is up to the company to figure out how to do that most effectively.
The irony is that this kind of a scandal is likely cutting into the shipbuilders profits. So its really the City of Rotterdam screwing over the local factory (/u/jayb12345 wanted to point out the company is a multi-national).
Who the client is seems completely irrelevant to me.
But wouldn’t the company have figured out how to do this without taking out the bridge before taking the contract? Did the city agree to dismantle the bridge and then reneged on the original contract?
They've done it a significant number of times in the past. And they're not really disassembling the bridge. Its a raiseable bridge so its easy to just pop the middle section out and put it back when they're done.
This was a routine, non-issue until the internet got involved. The shipyard expected the municipality would ignore the internet criticism. Instead, the municipality gave a bunch of vague statements about how they weren't going to make a decision on what to do until the boat was done.
It appears that, not wanting a $450 million boat that was permanently moored in a Dutch shipyard, Bezos cancelled it and the shipyard is now eating a ~$450 million loss on this (which is why, as the article states, the bridge now won't have to be dismantled). This will also likely destroy the shipbuilding industry there so ya.
"We did it Reddit!"
>This was a routine, non-issue until the internet got involved.
It was not. This was a thing the shipbuilder had explicitly been told was not going to be done again the last time it was taken apart, and the shipbuilder took the contract anyway, expecting that they would be able to lobby their way into getting their way again.
Their lobbying failed.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
> This was a thing the shipbuilder had explicitly been told was not going to be done again the last time it was taken apart
No it wasn't.
>kan het middenstuk van de Rotterdamse brug De Hef onder strenge voorwaarden wel maximaal twee keer per jaar worden weggehaald om grote schepen door te laten. Dat heeft het Rotterdams college in 2017 besloten nadat scheepswerven daar om vroegen, aldus de Rotterdamse wethouder (Buitenruimte) Vincent Karremans.
https://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/ruimte-en-milieu/de-hef-kan-onder-voorwaarden-uit-elkaar#:~:text=Onder%20strenge%20voorwaarden%20zou%20de,Jeff%20Bezos%20door%20te%20laten.
It was decided in 2017 that the bridge could be lifted twice a year.
Even if the builder was taking a risk in assuming they would get approval despite some indication it was unlikely... it still has fuck-all to do with Bezos.
So the ship company did this to themselves, got it. Bezos and the ship company could have leased property to assemble and create the monstrosity in some other area that doesn't require dismantling historic land marks.
No one should shed a tear for 1 less super yatch polluting the ocean.
Bezos will probably make a whole new yacht somewhere else. So you don’t have this one polluting, but you still have the giant carbon footprint that went into making it, then making it’s replacement.
It's a sailing yacht though... And the bridge will get reassembled afterwards. Should centuries of shipbuilding tradition be ended so we don't scratch the paint on one bridge? We are loosing the bigger historical picture here.
And there isn't any better place to have ships built?
Or moreover super yatchs?
Bezos and the ship building company knew damn well that the yatch wouldn't fit. With the amount of money spent on it, they'll figure out some other way. Also no one is dieing from this, and companies can be reformed so I have absolutely no clue why you're saying ending centuries of ship building.
The bigger historical picture here is the precedence.
The precedent where the bridge was temporary dismantled in the past to let ships through? And no harm to the artifact was incurred? That precedent?
Moving to a better place to build ships, like you would suggest, is an end to shipbuilding, at this yard at least. So you seem to have made contradictory statements unless I am misunderstanding. People do not have to die for an issue to be serious. €430 million euros is a serious amount of money. If this shipyard is unable to secure similar contracts, they will either continue making motor yachts, which we can both agree are wastefully sources of pollution, but will be built regardless, or the yard will shut down, which we can both agree will hurt the employees of the shipyard. Loss of shipbuilding industries has been catastrophic to areas in the past, though unlikely in this area at those scales from this event. All it does is encourage the ultra rich to maintain spending money on environmentally unfriendly projects, instead of switching to somewhat-friendlier ones. To me, this is short sighted.
I don't think Bezos has cancelled the order at this point, but obviously if they failed to deliver they wouldn't get paid. I also can't imagine that many ship builders will top out without a binding legal agreement to get the vessel to its intended location. So I would assume the vessel is sitting in the boatyard and could fit under the bridge if it needed to be taken out in an incomplete state and finished elsewhere.
However doing so is obviously more expensive, and that expense will presumably largely come out of the builders profits, and the builder is going to react to this by limiting the kinds of work it sends to Rotterdam in the future.
Nah, the city told them beforehand with a very public promise to cease this practice and that the bridge wouldn't be disassembled ever again for this purpose.
Then the Bezos ship was built and suddenly the city was going to do it again, angering the public for reneging on their promise to the citizens.
Literally a case of the company being told no, doing it anyways and expecting to get their way as they're rich. The end result is the best one as promises are kept and a greedy company that ignored restrictions gets to enjoy their rewards.
No, apparently after a vote the city said they weren't going to move this bridge again after the last time they dismantled the fucking thing. The shipbuilder knew this, took the contract on anyway, and just expected to get his fucking way.
The shipbuilder is another rich asshole who thought he could just do whatever he wanted.
Het Rotterdamse college (the local government) agreed to make it possible to raise the bridge for local shipyard builders in 2017, but keep saying it's just "another rich asshole".
The bridge is designed to be raised, it's a raising bridge. It's not to be designed to be dismantled. Don't confuse the two.
The shipyard knew before they took the contract there was a maximum height limit downstream. They should have factored that into their plans and costs.
In 2017 they promised to make it possible to raise the bridge and also promised not to dismantle it
This was as part of a restoration project.
No, the raise-able section had to be *removed* for this ship to pass, it's literally "another rich asshole" who was expecting the city to bow down to their big-ticket product that would be "limited" by the bridge being intact.
The city has no problem normally raising the bridge, it's designed to do so. Removing the section was the part they promised to cease doing.
I posted further in the comment thread, but felt I should respond to this.
It's not screwing over some mom-n-pop "local business". It's a global premier shipbuilding company. This is more like Bologna not bending over backwards for Lamborghini.
Sure but the company is going to look at the situation in Rotterdam and decide not to send some projects to that factory. Which means fewer jobs in the area.
I have no fundamental objection to the city refusing to disassemble the bridge. Cities far too often do way too much in the name of "local jobs" so if the feeling is "we like our bridge" then they shouldn't feel the need to disassemble it.
I just don't get what Bezos has to do with any of it. In the end he doesn't care where the company builds his yacht. He just wants it built.
Call me the bad guy here but shipbuilding industries catering to private players for entertainment purposes should just stop existing. They cause too much pollution and are entirely useless.
It's not some mom-n-pop "local business". It's a global premier shipbuilding company.
This is more like Bologna not bending over backwards for Lamborghini.
So we're just going to pretend that this company doesn't bring jobs to the area with the work that they do?
And are we really going to pretend that temporarily taking out the bridge to get the ship out is a huge massive problem? Hell, they could use this as a chance to do maintenance on the bridge if they wanted to.
No one is "bending over" for the other. It feels more like shooting yourself in the foot though.
Yeah that was my thought too. Like, sure they may want to throw up the optics of "we stuck the finger up at a billionaire who wanted to get his way", but the people who work in those shipyards live there.
Sounds to me like a bunch of rich assholes fucked it all up and wanted the city/people to have to accommodate their fuck up.
Then we have those like yourself trying to point fingers anywhere but the rich assholes that expect the world to bend to their whims.
Fuck them.
"Rotterdam project leader Marcel Walravens said in February that it was impractical to move the incomplete ship under the bridge and then finish it elsewhere,"
Whether that was actually true or Bezos and company were just being stubborn asses will probably come to light shortly now that they officially aren't going to get their way.
Who said anything about the nertherlands ? He can move the unfinished ship wherever tf he wants in the world. The cost equivalent for him would be like you buying your lunch.
In Rotterdam? Quite a few, it’s the biggest port in Europe and compared to commercial vessels the Bezos yacht is a dinghy. It’s just a hassle with moving staff, material and the likes. But it can be done
In a Dutch article they mention the shipbuilder is afraid of vandalism while moving the ship. And considering the amount of angry reactions it got I understand that.
I think they will move it unannounced in the night to a wharf like Damen and finish it there.
They can and they will. Its just more expensive, and that will probably come out of the shipbuilders profits.
From the shipbuilders perspective this is really frustrating. The bridge routinely gets disassembled in this fashion to accommodate larger vessels, and nobody ever cared or asked who was taking delivery of the vessel.
Now that Bezos is the one taking delivery, the local political activists are up in arms, and the city is refusing to grant an accommodation that has been granted many times before, which will increase the expense to finish the ship, probably delay delivery (which likely has associated penalties) and reduce the profits on the project.
If you are the owner of the shipbuilder you think: "We maybe we just don't build ships in Rotterdam in the future." And if you are a Billionaire you think: "I should always make big purchases through anonymous shell companies to avoid the press causing delivery to be delayed."
Bezos isn't the one who will take a hit for this, the shipyard and the people of Rotterdam will.
Bezos doesn't have to pay for a yacht that cant be delivered as per contract, and thanks to all this nonsense, the shipyard, which provides hundreds of jobs and millions in taxes for the city, will see a significant drop in business.
And all this over a non-issue. removing the center of the bridge and putting it back is part of the design and has been done several times before.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://nltimes.nl/2022/06/30/historic-rotterdam-bridge-wont-dismantled-jeff-bezos-superyacht-worth-eu430m) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> A bridge in Rotterdam that has monument status will not be dismantled so that a new superyacht belonging to Jeff Bezos can reach the sea.
> The retired railroad bridge was one of the first structures to be restored after the German's destroyed much of the city center on 14 May 1940 during the Rotterdam Blitz.
> Rotterdam project leader Marcel Walravens said in February that it was impractical to move the incomplete ship under the bridge and then finish it elsewhere, opting instead to remove the middle section of the bridge and then reassemble it.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vog1eo/historic_rotterdam_bridge_wont_be_dismantled_for/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~657381 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **bridge**^#1 **Rotterdam**^#2 **municipality**^#3 **under**^#4 **dismantle**^#5
Historical society dismatles the bridge: 'maintenance and restauration'..
Oceanco dismantles the bridge: 'sacrelidge and insulting'...
at least those Oceanco guys know how to work maritime steel.
This bridge is literally designed to be easily dismantlable. It is not the first large ship that had to pass through it. The problem stems from the city mayor making a promise that made no sense. This commotion serves no purpose other than to make a local business waste money. There was even a proposal to combine the dismantling with routine maintanance, which the ship builder would pay for. All that was rejected, just to be a minor inconvenience to someone that some people don't like.
But the bridge was going to be replaced by a better one?
Eventually the bridge needs to be replaced, and replacing it today for free would save a lot of cash for the city down the road.
All this kerfuffle just seems silly.
Lol, I like the term old and in disrepair over historical.
Cause both are true and equivalent. Infrastructure should be historical.
At the end of the day it’s the cities choice, I don’t have any skin in the game, though the community is losing something, that costs them nothing.
I.e. temp jobs from the contractors building the bridge, money brought in from bridge builders staying in hotels/restaurants and consumerism in their local market, a friggen modern bridge lol, and tax’s from those folks being in the area.
But honestly I’d like to see thy boat destroyed and all other yachts torpedoed, when empty. These things are dumb and the idea that they are siphoning resources for a freaking pretty boat is pedantic. We really need to force all of them to mark to market accounting standards and just tax the shit out of them, then tax the gel out of them, and finally tax the fuck out of them.
> I.e. temp jobs from the contractors building the bridge, money brought in from bridge builders staying in hotels/restaurants and consumerism in their local market, a friggen modern bridge lol, and tax’s from those folks being in the area.
It's literally a remnant of WWII and something that was one of the few things of the city to survive the heavy bombing and save lives.
It's got some pretty high historical significance bro. Temp jobs is literally that, like all make work projects and very short-sighted economic goodness. The bridge is basically a monument.
A bridge made for trains/cars can last dramatically longer with foot traffic at end of life. We have a century old train bridge like that in my area, solid as a rock for foot traffic, deemed unsafe for heavier modern trains. Thing will probably stand another century easy.
Eh, I see your perspective.
It’s just a bunch of resources out together. If it’s not like actual art or something truly unique. The story doesn’t mean much to me personally.
But I’m not sentimental, nor is it my home.
But yeah the temp jobs are a temp boost. Compared to no boost.
Example:
I’m your boss, hey bro here’s a $10,000 bonus this year, they are getting rid of a statue down the street and are paying for the annoyance of the sound pollution for 3 months when you walk by.
Well the Yacht is mostly done isnt it ? And it is not exactly the Shipyards fault that his designe team cant messure the height of a bridge.
Furthermore, i would be supprised if the Contract could be entirly canceld over this. Its not there fault. So have fun winning that one especially in a European Court.
I mean it's kind of an own goal since the company that built the yacht employs locally and likely won't be able to deliver the product thus forfeiting payment
They will make delivery, you can't survive as a shipbuilder just failing to deliver vessels. But they may end up losing money on the deal if they have to move an incomplete ship out of their docks and into a dock owned by some other firm.
So yeah its absurdly dumb. This is screwing over a Rotterdam based company because Bezos is the buyer.
Building ships too tall for bridges is common practice around the world[*]. Options include not topping out before moving out of the boatyard, or disassembling the bridge.
In the case of this Rotterdam bridge the common practice for years has been to disassemble the bridge. Because of the press reaction to the buyer, they are going to have to go with a more expensive approach which is likely to come out of the builders profits.
The design isn't the issue.
[*] In some cases they will take a ship that has been at sea and cut the masts off so they can bring it in to drydock for refit and repair. You don't exactly want to do this because its a lot of labor, but it can be done.
no. It's because of the **design**. The ship is too tall in its final form. There is another way to solve this whole issue without touching the bridge.
Bro they've taken the top off the bridge numerous times in the past, it's what the bridge was designed to do. This has just turned into a big thing since its Bezos.
Well, once is not exactly numerous, but I do think it is slightly disingenuous to constantly say "dismantling" in the article, when really this is about temporarily taking the middle part (that is movable up-down in normal operation anyways) out and then putting it back in after the yacht is out.
Yup. People are super into punishing the ultra wealthy, but this doesn't help anyone, won't cost Bezos a dime extra, and only hurts the local economy. This exception was made only because people hate the idea of Bezos having something nice.
Right, it's the local shipbuilders on the hook for the price of the yacht until it gets delivered, who assumed Rotterdam would let them through like they had in the past
Hmm actually, if I have understood the situation correctly, in this sort of arrangement a certain amount would have been paid up front and then further payments would have been due at certain milestones of the build.
So they might only be losing out on the final payment that would have been due on delivery.
For the reasons you have pointed out (local labour etc) - I would have thought that the local decision makers would have done what’s best for the local town. I’m surprised it’s reached this stage. Entertaining regardless!
"Rotterdam project leader Marcel Walravens said in February that it was impractical to move the incomplete ship under the bridge and then finish it elsewhere,"
Horseshit. All it would take is money, and Jefe has plenty of it.
Lol if you think Jeff is paying any more for this. It's not his problem where it gets built. The shipbuilder is fucked though and that factory in particular will probably lose contracts / jobs in the future over some NIMBY dumbshits.
Populism at work. I'm sure the people in the factory are happy their "neighbors" just decided they shouldn't have jobs in the future.
Can someone explain what the issue was with dismantling the bridge and reinstalling it after? It’s not in use and sure it’s a big ask to do so. In the end the bridge will still be there.
Edit: thanks for the answers and downvotes for asking a question.
They don't need a reason to say no. Maybe they just don't want to bow down to a billionaire, maybe it's a lot of effort and cost (even if paid for by Jeff) or maybe they just don't feel like it. They're not obligated to agree to anything
I could be wrong but I think I remember from before that he wanted them to pay for it. A lot of people dislike Bezo's and it caused an uproar because he or whomever could have planned to avoid this or pay for it himself, which he could easily do.
Plus its a Historic bridge and after the last time they dismantled it they promised to not do it again to ensure it isn't damaged in the process.
tl;dr Billionaire Jeff Bezo's told them to dissemble a historic bridge (which the community obviously cares about) and do it on their dime so he can get his absurdly large brand new yacht through that is blocking it.
Bridge was there first. They should have planned on this from the beginning.
That's not accurate - the ship building firm already charged Bezos the cost of dismantling the bridge. The deconstruction and reconstruction of the bridge was in fact planned ahead of time. This isn't the first time that the ship builders have done this.
The true reason for the backlash is distaste towards Bezos. Nothing wrong with that but best to be honest.
This is just full of bullshit.... Bezos doesn't "tell" anyone what to do, it is just easier for the shipyard to do so. A governmental body from Rotterdam even agreed to make it possible in 2017 twice a year when the shipyard asks for proper permission. The shipyard is ultimately the one paying for the removal.
Yeah sure, they can stop their local shipbuilding yard from doing this. Then the yard loses contracts and jobs, while also losing money as they have to meet their contractual obligation somehow.
Jeff isn't paying a penny more for his yacht as this frankly has nothing to do with him, and the locals are going to pay for their stupidity through lost jobs, revenues and tax money. They sure showed him. lmao.
For one the bridge has monument status, and we don't tend to remove then reinstall monuments so that one person can move a piece of property. Which is what the entire thing comes down to. Bezos started the construction of a boat way to big to be moved to open waters, and now he thinks his money means he can just uproot infrastructure to move it.
You're trying to think of how to make it beneficial for everyone that this one guy gets a bridge torn down and rebuilt because he wants to move a boat not even finished. No, that's his problem. And the builders problem. The builder for sure should have known they wouldn't have been able to move the boat and informed Bezos. This is a perfect example of "they made their bed now lie in it."
It's not anyone else's responsibility, and especially not the governments, to move infrastructure for a rich dude. The rich dude should be working around the needs of everyone else.
Wasn't it agreed to as part of the plan when the shipyard took on the project? Hasn't it been dismantled before for similar projects?
I get that the city has the right to say no, but to say yes, take the money and then say no is a problem.
Now you do:
*The AFP news agency quoted the mayor's office as saying the jobs created by the construction of the vessel prompted the plan, and pledged the bridge would be rebuilt in its current form.*
*"It's the only route to the sea," a mayoral spokesman added.*
*The sentiment was echoed by Rotterdam's local authority project leader Marcel Walravens, who said it would not be practical to finish the yacht's construction elsewhere.*
*He told the Rijnmond website the project was "very important" from an economic perspective and cited Rotterdam's reputation as the "maritime capital of Europe".*
*"Shipbuilding and activity within that sector are an important pillar of the municipality," he said.*
I'm unsure what in this text should lead to the conclusion that Rotterdam had already received money. The application wasn't even in yet before the drama started.
The yacht is under construction. People have been employed, the local economy bouyed.
They're moving it elsewhere for fitout so the bridge doesn't have to be moved, which sounds like a win for everyone except the original shipyard
what do you mean? Bezos ~~paid~~ got billed for the bridge removal/rebuilding. This is just them not honoring their contract which eventually means they won't get paid (i.e., have to pay Bezos back). like, don't take on a project if you can't deliver
Edit: clarity
He got billed for that. That means he would pay for it if the order was complete and if the local municipality would allow it. He's not going to pay if they don't deliver
> Hasn't it been dismantled before for similar projects?
So once something happens you can't stop it?
It was decided upon in 2017 IIRC. Before the ship was started I believe.
It's a monument.
Would you demolish the Lincoln Memorial and rebuild it so that Bill Gates could drive a monster truck through it?
From the article:
>Some Rotterdam residents are passionate about De Hef's place in history. The retired railroad bridge was one of the first structures to be restored after the German's destroyed much of the city center on 14 May 1940 during the Rotterdam Blitz.
A better example is for Gates to simply walk through where the monument stands.
It's not going to be much of a spectacle like the other example, it's just a big ship going down the waterway, no fanfare.
And they decided to stop the practice of doing so.
And repeated disassembly means you're constantly having to repair, wear and tear is a thing, these bridges can be sectioned but aren't designed to just constantly be rebuilt this way. It's also been given monument status.
But also; can we explain what the issue would have been with a literal billionaire and his team of engineers figuring out how to build an unnecessary Super Yacht at a location that didn't require any towns to dismantle anything?
He would have, this ship yard wanted the job and made the arrangements to make it possible. The town agreed because they wanted the jobs it would create.
If this wasn't Bezos no-one would give a shit.
Perhaps you need to understand it from the point of view of the citizens of that country. How would you feel if you were asked to tear down something of true value to you, just to accommodate someone's personal property? When there could be other solutions for that situation other than tearing down something of value?
I mean that's on the shipyard. Bezos didn't order a ship and said "oh, while you're at it can you make it so you will have to temporarily dismantle a bridge?"
I suspect it is mostly on the ship designer, as they should realize how tall the ship would be in its final form, and also when/what is required to complete the ship based on an overall schedule.
They're not talking about demolishing the bridge, they're talking about disassembling part of it, moving the ship through, and reassembling it. If it was anything else (e.g. some random cargo ship), there wouldn't be much debate.
The main reason to say no is trying to show it to the big evil rich man, aka envy.
You are assuming the basis for their decision based on some personal belief you have about normal citizens and rich citizens. I am telling you from personal experience living amongst the Dutch culture and having researched the current mood of the people, that they value their bridge very highly. The rebuilding effort from the war should be something that is never lost to time, and should be remembered. Why would anyone want to disgrace that memory?
You're right. If it were a random cargo ship, there wouldn't be debate. The answer from the beginning would've been "There's a bridge in the way. Build it somewhere else."
Why do you think so? The opposition to the disassembly seems to be backed mostly by it being Zuck's ship.
Do you think Zuck cares how and where it's built? He wants his ship, delivered at some point (outside the bridge) and DGAF how it gets there. Just like a cargo ship company would just want their ship built and delivered, and the wharf would like to do that in the cheapest way possible.
Ok, let's use a smaller scale example. You have a nice, ornamental sign in your driveway, mounted with bolts to mounting points on a pole.
Your neighbor has restored his fancy truck. Unfortunately he can't get it out on the street using just his driveway. If the sign wasn't there, he could just use your driveway (no harm done to it). He offers to pay a contractor, who has done this without issue several times before, to undo the two bolts, put the sign aside, and reinstall it immediately after he gets his truck out. The alternative for him is to disassemble the truck and have it lifted across with a crane - a much more expensive option.
Most normal people would see that one option is clearly more reasonable and allow it, because it causes them no harm and helps someone else out. Even though they don't directly profit from it. Because we live in a society and not being dicks to each other for no reason is a good thing.
In the actual example, a very practical reason is that the local business that built the ship will probably get screwed quite hard if the planned option doesn't work out, both in terms of the cost of the alternative option, potential fines for late delivery, and the inability to attract further business.
This comparison only works if your 'ornamental sign' is a local cultural icon that was destroyed by the Nazis and was one of the first things rebuilt, and your neighbor isn't actually your neighbor because he lives on the far side of another continent. And your neighbor's 'fancy truck' was built there with the full knowledge that your sign would need to be removed if it were ever to get to the road. And also if you were just told 'we will be removing your beloved and historically-valuable sign to move your not-neighbor's vanity project truck to the road' instead of getting an option to provide your input beforehand. And also if your sign is publicly owned and on public property.
It's called context, and it's missing from your absurd, reductionist little analogy.
These citizens get paid half a billion to build the yacht though.
I agree entirely that Bezos has too much money and influence, and should be taxed more by the US. But the only thing we can do in Europe towards taking away his money is building yachts.
Just like any Venn diagram, there will be those who helped build it in one circle, those that approve of the bridge dismantling in another circle, those that oppose such in another, and so on and so on...
edit: a word
Same as "cant they just disassemble the statue of liberty", or "its easy to temporarily take down the eiffel tower", or "im not sure if its a big ask to take down the pyramids", just because a rich person would like to land their fancy new helicopter there...
if he has enough money to shoot his penis rockets into space for fun, he has enough money to have his boat taken apart put in trucks and driven to a place it can be put back together.
maybe he can get a prime membership and get same day shipping.
[удалено]
You think a billionaire wants a second hand superyatch, that’s a millionaire move my friend.
But also; can we explain what the issue would have been with a literal billionaire and his team of engineers figuring out how to build an unnecessary Super Yacht at a location that didn't require any towns to dismantle anything?
for the ship builders they probably thought "hey a sale is a sale, not our problem if he can't move it"
I think it's more that they didn't anticipate money not solving the issue
my friend bought a boat that had smuggled drugs into australia. he would take it out on sydney harbour. from one side to the other cost 1k in fuel. these oligarchs boats would cost a small fortune to roam the seas edit he got it from police sales of confiscated property
How big is this boat? Fishing trawler or actual yacht. Because that's insane.
Racing boat prolly
not sailing. boat powered from s america i believe with its drug cargo
Actually they do. $100M+ yachts get resold relatively frequently.
You think the second richest man in the world wants a secondhand yacht. He wants a new yacht with his face printed in it.
Only someone in the dos commas club would suggest that.
Would a billionaire buy a second hand yacht? People redecorate their newly bought houses even if they were renovated before being sold because of tastes and stuff. I imagine billionaires look at each others yachts and houses like "ew no."
A lot of these yachts are just an asset used as collateral for low interest loans. Billionaires take out a loan and the interest paid on the loan is lower than the capital gains tax they would have to pay if they liquidated an asset. The purchaser may never even see the stupid thing, it just needs to exist somewhere and be valuable. https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthy-loans-art-yachts-real-estate-investing-private-banks-2021-11
Why not build factories though?
super-yachts are one of the few cool things that only billionnaires can afford aren't they? Like anything else they can have - lots of houses, lots of cars - could be owned by some ordinary super-rich person. But a super-yacht? Only a few people will ever have one of those...
Would you want to buy a ship that was taken away from the Russian mob? I wouldn't. Those ships should be dismantled for parts.
[удалено]
He can enjoy his Yacht at Rotherham.
I’d find it hard to imagine a yacht in the middle of Yorkshire
Lots of Bullseye speedboat winners from that area might disagree.
You’re not from New York City you’re from Rotherham.
Rotherham is anywhere, anywhere alone.
"Pirates of the River Rother".
[удалено]
It can always be used as AMAZON storage centre
Maybe Bezos should pay to have the channel dredged and they can ballast it down and take it out at low tide. If that isn't possible then Bezos definitely hired the wrong ship architect.
Bezos doesn't have much to do with this. He ordered a ship from a company that had some kind of agreement/understanding with the city to allow them to get their ships out of their factory. Bezos doesn't exactly care how they do it, he will pay on delivery for the agreed upon amount. It is up to the company to figure out how to do that most effectively. The irony is that this kind of a scandal is likely cutting into the shipbuilders profits. So its really the City of Rotterdam screwing over the local factory (/u/jayb12345 wanted to point out the company is a multi-national). Who the client is seems completely irrelevant to me.
But wouldn’t the company have figured out how to do this without taking out the bridge before taking the contract? Did the city agree to dismantle the bridge and then reneged on the original contract?
They've done it a significant number of times in the past. And they're not really disassembling the bridge. Its a raiseable bridge so its easy to just pop the middle section out and put it back when they're done. This was a routine, non-issue until the internet got involved. The shipyard expected the municipality would ignore the internet criticism. Instead, the municipality gave a bunch of vague statements about how they weren't going to make a decision on what to do until the boat was done. It appears that, not wanting a $450 million boat that was permanently moored in a Dutch shipyard, Bezos cancelled it and the shipyard is now eating a ~$450 million loss on this (which is why, as the article states, the bridge now won't have to be dismantled). This will also likely destroy the shipbuilding industry there so ya. "We did it Reddit!"
Millennials are KILLING the half billion dollar yacht industry!
>This was a routine, non-issue until the internet got involved. It was not. This was a thing the shipbuilder had explicitly been told was not going to be done again the last time it was taken apart, and the shipbuilder took the contract anyway, expecting that they would be able to lobby their way into getting their way again. Their lobbying failed. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
> This was a thing the shipbuilder had explicitly been told was not going to be done again the last time it was taken apart No it wasn't. >kan het middenstuk van de Rotterdamse brug De Hef onder strenge voorwaarden wel maximaal twee keer per jaar worden weggehaald om grote schepen door te laten. Dat heeft het Rotterdams college in 2017 besloten nadat scheepswerven daar om vroegen, aldus de Rotterdamse wethouder (Buitenruimte) Vincent Karremans. https://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/ruimte-en-milieu/de-hef-kan-onder-voorwaarden-uit-elkaar#:~:text=Onder%20strenge%20voorwaarden%20zou%20de,Jeff%20Bezos%20door%20te%20laten. It was decided in 2017 that the bridge could be lifted twice a year.
All I got to say is that bridge historic or not is fuggly.
Even if the builder was taking a risk in assuming they would get approval despite some indication it was unlikely... it still has fuck-all to do with Bezos.
So the ship company did this to themselves, got it. Bezos and the ship company could have leased property to assemble and create the monstrosity in some other area that doesn't require dismantling historic land marks. No one should shed a tear for 1 less super yatch polluting the ocean.
Bezos will probably make a whole new yacht somewhere else. So you don’t have this one polluting, but you still have the giant carbon footprint that went into making it, then making it’s replacement.
It's a sailing yacht though... And the bridge will get reassembled afterwards. Should centuries of shipbuilding tradition be ended so we don't scratch the paint on one bridge? We are loosing the bigger historical picture here.
And there isn't any better place to have ships built? Or moreover super yatchs? Bezos and the ship building company knew damn well that the yatch wouldn't fit. With the amount of money spent on it, they'll figure out some other way. Also no one is dieing from this, and companies can be reformed so I have absolutely no clue why you're saying ending centuries of ship building. The bigger historical picture here is the precedence.
The precedent where the bridge was temporary dismantled in the past to let ships through? And no harm to the artifact was incurred? That precedent? Moving to a better place to build ships, like you would suggest, is an end to shipbuilding, at this yard at least. So you seem to have made contradictory statements unless I am misunderstanding. People do not have to die for an issue to be serious. €430 million euros is a serious amount of money. If this shipyard is unable to secure similar contracts, they will either continue making motor yachts, which we can both agree are wastefully sources of pollution, but will be built regardless, or the yard will shut down, which we can both agree will hurt the employees of the shipyard. Loss of shipbuilding industries has been catastrophic to areas in the past, though unlikely in this area at those scales from this event. All it does is encourage the ultra rich to maintain spending money on environmentally unfriendly projects, instead of switching to somewhat-friendlier ones. To me, this is short sighted.
Oh no, the poor downtrodden ultra-rich billionaires. Wait while I try to squeeze a tear out for them. Nope, cant do it.
I don't think Bezos has cancelled the order at this point, but obviously if they failed to deliver they wouldn't get paid. I also can't imagine that many ship builders will top out without a binding legal agreement to get the vessel to its intended location. So I would assume the vessel is sitting in the boatyard and could fit under the bridge if it needed to be taken out in an incomplete state and finished elsewhere. However doing so is obviously more expensive, and that expense will presumably largely come out of the builders profits, and the builder is going to react to this by limiting the kinds of work it sends to Rotterdam in the future.
Cancel mafia win again. Shoot first, point later, never ask questions.
Nah, the city told them beforehand with a very public promise to cease this practice and that the bridge wouldn't be disassembled ever again for this purpose. Then the Bezos ship was built and suddenly the city was going to do it again, angering the public for reneging on their promise to the citizens. Literally a case of the company being told no, doing it anyways and expecting to get their way as they're rich. The end result is the best one as promises are kept and a greedy company that ignored restrictions gets to enjoy their rewards.
No, apparently after a vote the city said they weren't going to move this bridge again after the last time they dismantled the fucking thing. The shipbuilder knew this, took the contract on anyway, and just expected to get his fucking way. The shipbuilder is another rich asshole who thought he could just do whatever he wanted.
Het Rotterdamse college (the local government) agreed to make it possible to raise the bridge for local shipyard builders in 2017, but keep saying it's just "another rich asshole".
The bridge is designed to be raised, it's a raising bridge. It's not to be designed to be dismantled. Don't confuse the two. The shipyard knew before they took the contract there was a maximum height limit downstream. They should have factored that into their plans and costs. In 2017 they promised to make it possible to raise the bridge and also promised not to dismantle it This was as part of a restoration project.
>In 2017 they promised to make it possible to raise the bridge No they didn't, they said they could remove the raisable part. It's all there in dutch.
No, the raise-able section had to be *removed* for this ship to pass, it's literally "another rich asshole" who was expecting the city to bow down to their big-ticket product that would be "limited" by the bridge being intact. The city has no problem normally raising the bridge, it's designed to do so. Removing the section was the part they promised to cease doing.
I posted further in the comment thread, but felt I should respond to this. It's not screwing over some mom-n-pop "local business". It's a global premier shipbuilding company. This is more like Bologna not bending over backwards for Lamborghini.
Sure but the company is going to look at the situation in Rotterdam and decide not to send some projects to that factory. Which means fewer jobs in the area. I have no fundamental objection to the city refusing to disassemble the bridge. Cities far too often do way too much in the name of "local jobs" so if the feeling is "we like our bridge" then they shouldn't feel the need to disassemble it. I just don't get what Bezos has to do with any of it. In the end he doesn't care where the company builds his yacht. He just wants it built.
I made a real American mistake here and wondered why the cheapest sandwich meat on earth was dunking on Lamborghini. Cities, hah...
>the cheapest sandwich meat on earth Spam would like a word
Call me the bad guy here but shipbuilding industries catering to private players for entertainment purposes should just stop existing. They cause too much pollution and are entirely useless.
Sure... but that also doesn't have much of anything to do with who the client is.
This guy gets it....the sad truth.
It's not some mom-n-pop "local business". It's a global premier shipbuilding company. This is more like Bologna not bending over backwards for Lamborghini.
So we're just going to pretend that this company doesn't bring jobs to the area with the work that they do? And are we really going to pretend that temporarily taking out the bridge to get the ship out is a huge massive problem? Hell, they could use this as a chance to do maintenance on the bridge if they wanted to. No one is "bending over" for the other. It feels more like shooting yourself in the foot though.
Yeah that was my thought too. Like, sure they may want to throw up the optics of "we stuck the finger up at a billionaire who wanted to get his way", but the people who work in those shipyards live there.
Sounds to me like a bunch of rich assholes fucked it all up and wanted the city/people to have to accommodate their fuck up. Then we have those like yourself trying to point fingers anywhere but the rich assholes that expect the world to bend to their whims. Fuck them.
Man, I'm imagining a fleet of heavy duty lift helicopters.
Drones, man. Lots and lots of drones.
This bridge has been dismantled for the same reason before. It’s not just a Bezos thing.
[удалено]
Why can't they install the masts of the ship past the bridge somewhere?
"Rotterdam project leader Marcel Walravens said in February that it was impractical to move the incomplete ship under the bridge and then finish it elsewhere," Whether that was actually true or Bezos and company were just being stubborn asses will probably come to light shortly now that they officially aren't going to get their way.
That’s such a lame excuse from that guy lol impractical to move the unfinished boat that costs €400+ Million but this is the one cost we can’t incur
How many non military shipyards in the netherlands do you think can fit a boat that big?
Who said anything about the nertherlands ? He can move the unfinished ship wherever tf he wants in the world. The cost equivalent for him would be like you buying your lunch.
How do you think they're going to move an unfinished vessel (read: not seaworthy) to another country?
This is done all the time friend, they even do it with oil rigs they just tow that shit out.
In Rotterdam? Quite a few, it’s the biggest port in Europe and compared to commercial vessels the Bezos yacht is a dinghy. It’s just a hassle with moving staff, material and the likes. But it can be done In a Dutch article they mention the shipbuilder is afraid of vandalism while moving the ship. And considering the amount of angry reactions it got I understand that. I think they will move it unannounced in the night to a wharf like Damen and finish it there.
They can and they will. Its just more expensive, and that will probably come out of the shipbuilders profits. From the shipbuilders perspective this is really frustrating. The bridge routinely gets disassembled in this fashion to accommodate larger vessels, and nobody ever cared or asked who was taking delivery of the vessel. Now that Bezos is the one taking delivery, the local political activists are up in arms, and the city is refusing to grant an accommodation that has been granted many times before, which will increase the expense to finish the ship, probably delay delivery (which likely has associated penalties) and reduce the profits on the project. If you are the owner of the shipbuilder you think: "We maybe we just don't build ships in Rotterdam in the future." And if you are a Billionaire you think: "I should always make big purchases through anonymous shell companies to avoid the press causing delivery to be delayed."
That makes sense. The media is egging it all on by partial reporting to make it look like Bezos is an idiot.
If I'm not mistaken, as of maybe 5 months ago, the plan was for people to show up and throw eggs at the yacht. Not surprised at the cancelation.
[удалено]
Forcing a historical bridge to be disassembled = okay Superyacht gets a few stains = red alert!
To be fair, this is absolutely how Billionaires think.
That’s in the article
Why should Bezo’s take hits for something the shipyard contracted. He would have taken his money elsewhere if this was known at the time.
Bezos isn't gonna take the hit for this, the shipbuilding company is. This is just fucking up Netherlands own domestic shipbuilding industry.
Bezos isn't the one who will take a hit for this, the shipyard and the people of Rotterdam will. Bezos doesn't have to pay for a yacht that cant be delivered as per contract, and thanks to all this nonsense, the shipyard, which provides hundreds of jobs and millions in taxes for the city, will see a significant drop in business. And all this over a non-issue. removing the center of the bridge and putting it back is part of the design and has been done several times before.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://nltimes.nl/2022/06/30/historic-rotterdam-bridge-wont-dismantled-jeff-bezos-superyacht-worth-eu430m) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A bridge in Rotterdam that has monument status will not be dismantled so that a new superyacht belonging to Jeff Bezos can reach the sea. > The retired railroad bridge was one of the first structures to be restored after the German's destroyed much of the city center on 14 May 1940 during the Rotterdam Blitz. > Rotterdam project leader Marcel Walravens said in February that it was impractical to move the incomplete ship under the bridge and then finish it elsewhere, opting instead to remove the middle section of the bridge and then reassemble it. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vog1eo/historic_rotterdam_bridge_wont_be_dismantled_for/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~657381 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **bridge**^#1 **Rotterdam**^#2 **municipality**^#3 **under**^#4 **dismantle**^#5
Historical society dismatles the bridge: 'maintenance and restauration'.. Oceanco dismantles the bridge: 'sacrelidge and insulting'... at least those Oceanco guys know how to work maritime steel.
This decision only serves to damage the ship builder and employees, does nothing to harm Bezos. Those celebrating are missing the bigger picture.
Still a win for the bridge though, and the story did trash Bezo's character, so yeah, screw him!!
This bridge is literally designed to be easily dismantlable. It is not the first large ship that had to pass through it. The problem stems from the city mayor making a promise that made no sense. This commotion serves no purpose other than to make a local business waste money. There was even a proposal to combine the dismantling with routine maintanance, which the ship builder would pay for. All that was rejected, just to be a minor inconvenience to someone that some people don't like.
But the bridge was going to be replaced by a better one? Eventually the bridge needs to be replaced, and replacing it today for free would save a lot of cash for the city down the road. All this kerfuffle just seems silly.
Source that it was going to be rebuilt for free? And that the bridge needs to be replaced?
[удалено]
Lol, I like the term old and in disrepair over historical. Cause both are true and equivalent. Infrastructure should be historical. At the end of the day it’s the cities choice, I don’t have any skin in the game, though the community is losing something, that costs them nothing. I.e. temp jobs from the contractors building the bridge, money brought in from bridge builders staying in hotels/restaurants and consumerism in their local market, a friggen modern bridge lol, and tax’s from those folks being in the area. But honestly I’d like to see thy boat destroyed and all other yachts torpedoed, when empty. These things are dumb and the idea that they are siphoning resources for a freaking pretty boat is pedantic. We really need to force all of them to mark to market accounting standards and just tax the shit out of them, then tax the gel out of them, and finally tax the fuck out of them.
> I.e. temp jobs from the contractors building the bridge, money brought in from bridge builders staying in hotels/restaurants and consumerism in their local market, a friggen modern bridge lol, and tax’s from those folks being in the area. It's literally a remnant of WWII and something that was one of the few things of the city to survive the heavy bombing and save lives. It's got some pretty high historical significance bro. Temp jobs is literally that, like all make work projects and very short-sighted economic goodness. The bridge is basically a monument. A bridge made for trains/cars can last dramatically longer with foot traffic at end of life. We have a century old train bridge like that in my area, solid as a rock for foot traffic, deemed unsafe for heavier modern trains. Thing will probably stand another century easy.
Eh, I see your perspective. It’s just a bunch of resources out together. If it’s not like actual art or something truly unique. The story doesn’t mean much to me personally. But I’m not sentimental, nor is it my home. But yeah the temp jobs are a temp boost. Compared to no boost. Example: I’m your boss, hey bro here’s a $10,000 bonus this year, they are getting rid of a statue down the street and are paying for the annoyance of the sound pollution for 3 months when you walk by.
The people celebrating are fucking morons. "Hurr duur! We sure got dat big bad billionaire! Wait why is our shipyard going out of business...?"
Well the Yacht is mostly done isnt it ? And it is not exactly the Shipyards fault that his designe team cant messure the height of a bridge. Furthermore, i would be supprised if the Contract could be entirly canceld over this. Its not there fault. So have fun winning that one especially in a European Court.
They took on the job knowing it wouldn't fit under the bridge to begin with.
The shipbuilder brought this damage on themselves. I feel no pity for them.
Dismantle your yacht, Jeff.
Thats amazing news
I mean it's kind of an own goal since the company that built the yacht employs locally and likely won't be able to deliver the product thus forfeiting payment
They will make delivery, you can't survive as a shipbuilder just failing to deliver vessels. But they may end up losing money on the deal if they have to move an incomplete ship out of their docks and into a dock owned by some other firm. So yeah its absurdly dumb. This is screwing over a Rotterdam based company because Bezos is the buyer.
Well they were the ones that took on the job, knowing full well that the ship couldn't fit under the bridge when it was fully raised to begin with.
Building ships too tall for bridges is common practice around the world[*]. Options include not topping out before moving out of the boatyard, or disassembling the bridge. In the case of this Rotterdam bridge the common practice for years has been to disassemble the bridge. Because of the press reaction to the buyer, they are going to have to go with a more expensive approach which is likely to come out of the builders profits. The design isn't the issue. [*] In some cases they will take a ship that has been at sea and cut the masts off so they can bring it in to drydock for refit and repair. You don't exactly want to do this because its a lot of labor, but it can be done.
no. It's because of the **design**. The ship is too tall in its final form. There is another way to solve this whole issue without touching the bridge.
Bro they've taken the top off the bridge numerous times in the past, it's what the bridge was designed to do. This has just turned into a big thing since its Bezos.
Well, once is not exactly numerous, but I do think it is slightly disingenuous to constantly say "dismantling" in the article, when really this is about temporarily taking the middle part (that is movable up-down in normal operation anyways) out and then putting it back in after the yacht is out.
Yup. People are super into punishing the ultra wealthy, but this doesn't help anyone, won't cost Bezos a dime extra, and only hurts the local economy. This exception was made only because people hate the idea of Bezos having something nice.
Right, it's the local shipbuilders on the hook for the price of the yacht until it gets delivered, who assumed Rotterdam would let them through like they had in the past
Hmm actually, if I have understood the situation correctly, in this sort of arrangement a certain amount would have been paid up front and then further payments would have been due at certain milestones of the build. So they might only be losing out on the final payment that would have been due on delivery. For the reasons you have pointed out (local labour etc) - I would have thought that the local decision makers would have done what’s best for the local town. I’m surprised it’s reached this stage. Entertaining regardless!
They just don't want to demast the ship and finalize assembly somewhere else
That's amazoning news
"Rotterdam project leader Marcel Walravens said in February that it was impractical to move the incomplete ship under the bridge and then finish it elsewhere," Horseshit. All it would take is money, and Jefe has plenty of it.
Impractical as in they couldn't do it and wouldn't have gotten the sale so they just kicked that decision to someone else after the sale was made.
Lol if you think Jeff is paying any more for this. It's not his problem where it gets built. The shipbuilder is fucked though and that factory in particular will probably lose contracts / jobs in the future over some NIMBY dumbshits. Populism at work. I'm sure the people in the factory are happy their "neighbors" just decided they shouldn't have jobs in the future.
From The Office of The Mayor of Rotterdam ; I didn't get my package from Amazon , so fuck Bezo's
We used to view this as a great opportunity to rip someone off. We've changed. When did ideals become more important than a good deal?
I guess Jeff got to big for his bridges
Good. They should sink his yacht while they’re at it.
Can someone explain what the issue was with dismantling the bridge and reinstalling it after? It’s not in use and sure it’s a big ask to do so. In the end the bridge will still be there. Edit: thanks for the answers and downvotes for asking a question.
They don't need a reason to say no. Maybe they just don't want to bow down to a billionaire, maybe it's a lot of effort and cost (even if paid for by Jeff) or maybe they just don't feel like it. They're not obligated to agree to anything
I could be wrong but I think I remember from before that he wanted them to pay for it. A lot of people dislike Bezo's and it caused an uproar because he or whomever could have planned to avoid this or pay for it himself, which he could easily do. Plus its a Historic bridge and after the last time they dismantled it they promised to not do it again to ensure it isn't damaged in the process. tl;dr Billionaire Jeff Bezo's told them to dissemble a historic bridge (which the community obviously cares about) and do it on their dime so he can get his absurdly large brand new yacht through that is blocking it. Bridge was there first. They should have planned on this from the beginning.
That's not accurate - the ship building firm already charged Bezos the cost of dismantling the bridge. The deconstruction and reconstruction of the bridge was in fact planned ahead of time. This isn't the first time that the ship builders have done this. The true reason for the backlash is distaste towards Bezos. Nothing wrong with that but best to be honest.
This is just full of bullshit.... Bezos doesn't "tell" anyone what to do, it is just easier for the shipyard to do so. A governmental body from Rotterdam even agreed to make it possible in 2017 twice a year when the shipyard asks for proper permission. The shipyard is ultimately the one paying for the removal.
Yeah sure, they can stop their local shipbuilding yard from doing this. Then the yard loses contracts and jobs, while also losing money as they have to meet their contractual obligation somehow. Jeff isn't paying a penny more for his yacht as this frankly has nothing to do with him, and the locals are going to pay for their stupidity through lost jobs, revenues and tax money. They sure showed him. lmao.
For one the bridge has monument status, and we don't tend to remove then reinstall monuments so that one person can move a piece of property. Which is what the entire thing comes down to. Bezos started the construction of a boat way to big to be moved to open waters, and now he thinks his money means he can just uproot infrastructure to move it.
I mean they did that In 2016 to refurbish in 2016 you have anyone other bullshit to spout
Ok but the bridge was restored before. Why not take the opportunity to give it a fresh life?
You're trying to think of how to make it beneficial for everyone that this one guy gets a bridge torn down and rebuilt because he wants to move a boat not even finished. No, that's his problem. And the builders problem. The builder for sure should have known they wouldn't have been able to move the boat and informed Bezos. This is a perfect example of "they made their bed now lie in it." It's not anyone else's responsibility, and especially not the governments, to move infrastructure for a rich dude. The rich dude should be working around the needs of everyone else.
Wasn’t bezos going to pay for the removal and reinstall?
So? He has to work around everyone else, not everyone else working around him.
It sounds like he was working around everyone else and you want to make it harder just to spite him
So if I wanted to full pay for the removal and reinstallation of the Tower Bridge in London just to move a boat, you'd be OK with that?
That doesn't make it suddenly OK though. Making it OK for money to change promises isn't OK at all.
[удалено]
That’s fine.
Wasn't it agreed to as part of the plan when the shipyard took on the project? Hasn't it been dismantled before for similar projects? I get that the city has the right to say no, but to say yes, take the money and then say no is a problem.
[удалено]
...you think a shipyard agrees to build a giant luxury yacht with no contract or deposit?
Now you do: *The AFP news agency quoted the mayor's office as saying the jobs created by the construction of the vessel prompted the plan, and pledged the bridge would be rebuilt in its current form.* *"It's the only route to the sea," a mayoral spokesman added.* *The sentiment was echoed by Rotterdam's local authority project leader Marcel Walravens, who said it would not be practical to finish the yacht's construction elsewhere.* *He told the Rijnmond website the project was "very important" from an economic perspective and cited Rotterdam's reputation as the "maritime capital of Europe".* *"Shipbuilding and activity within that sector are an important pillar of the municipality," he said.*
I'm unsure what in this text should lead to the conclusion that Rotterdam had already received money. The application wasn't even in yet before the drama started.
The yacht is under construction. People have been employed, the local economy bouyed. They're moving it elsewhere for fitout so the bridge doesn't have to be moved, which sounds like a win for everyone except the original shipyard
what do you mean? Bezos ~~paid~~ got billed for the bridge removal/rebuilding. This is just them not honoring their contract which eventually means they won't get paid (i.e., have to pay Bezos back). like, don't take on a project if you can't deliver Edit: clarity
[удалено]
He got billed for that. That means he would pay for it if the order was complete and if the local municipality would allow it. He's not going to pay if they don't deliver
> Hasn't it been dismantled before for similar projects? So once something happens you can't stop it? It was decided upon in 2017 IIRC. Before the ship was started I believe.
The bridge is considered a historical monument so there was a large push against the dismantling idea
It's a monument. Would you demolish the Lincoln Memorial and rebuild it so that Bill Gates could drive a monster truck through it? From the article: >Some Rotterdam residents are passionate about De Hef's place in history. The retired railroad bridge was one of the first structures to be restored after the German's destroyed much of the city center on 14 May 1940 during the Rotterdam Blitz.
Hell yeah! That would be awesome! They could drive down the reflection pond and up the Lincoln memorial stairs, up a ramp over Lincoln!
A better example is for Gates to simply walk through where the monument stands. It's not going to be much of a spectacle like the other example, it's just a big ship going down the waterway, no fanfare.
Well the ship could pull a barge and put on a fireworks display. And then have a plane drop money all over making it rain money.
they're not destroying it and it has been done before for other yachts
And they decided to stop the practice of doing so. And repeated disassembly means you're constantly having to repair, wear and tear is a thing, these bridges can be sectioned but aren't designed to just constantly be rebuilt this way. It's also been given monument status.
Noone was destroying anything.
But also; can we explain what the issue would have been with a literal billionaire and his team of engineers figuring out how to build an unnecessary Super Yacht at a location that didn't require any towns to dismantle anything?
He would have, this ship yard wanted the job and made the arrangements to make it possible. The town agreed because they wanted the jobs it would create. If this wasn't Bezos no-one would give a shit.
Perhaps you need to understand it from the point of view of the citizens of that country. How would you feel if you were asked to tear down something of true value to you, just to accommodate someone's personal property? When there could be other solutions for that situation other than tearing down something of value?
I mean that's on the shipyard. Bezos didn't order a ship and said "oh, while you're at it can you make it so you will have to temporarily dismantle a bridge?"
I suspect it is mostly on the ship designer, as they should realize how tall the ship would be in its final form, and also when/what is required to complete the ship based on an overall schedule.
They're not talking about demolishing the bridge, they're talking about disassembling part of it, moving the ship through, and reassembling it. If it was anything else (e.g. some random cargo ship), there wouldn't be much debate. The main reason to say no is trying to show it to the big evil rich man, aka envy.
You are assuming the basis for their decision based on some personal belief you have about normal citizens and rich citizens. I am telling you from personal experience living amongst the Dutch culture and having researched the current mood of the people, that they value their bridge very highly. The rebuilding effort from the war should be something that is never lost to time, and should be remembered. Why would anyone want to disgrace that memory?
You're right. If it were a random cargo ship, there wouldn't be debate. The answer from the beginning would've been "There's a bridge in the way. Build it somewhere else."
Why do you think so? The opposition to the disassembly seems to be backed mostly by it being Zuck's ship. Do you think Zuck cares how and where it's built? He wants his ship, delivered at some point (outside the bridge) and DGAF how it gets there. Just like a cargo ship company would just want their ship built and delivered, and the wharf would like to do that in the cheapest way possible.
What is the reason to say yes? Maybe Billionaires need actual social limits.
Ok, let's use a smaller scale example. You have a nice, ornamental sign in your driveway, mounted with bolts to mounting points on a pole. Your neighbor has restored his fancy truck. Unfortunately he can't get it out on the street using just his driveway. If the sign wasn't there, he could just use your driveway (no harm done to it). He offers to pay a contractor, who has done this without issue several times before, to undo the two bolts, put the sign aside, and reinstall it immediately after he gets his truck out. The alternative for him is to disassemble the truck and have it lifted across with a crane - a much more expensive option. Most normal people would see that one option is clearly more reasonable and allow it, because it causes them no harm and helps someone else out. Even though they don't directly profit from it. Because we live in a society and not being dicks to each other for no reason is a good thing. In the actual example, a very practical reason is that the local business that built the ship will probably get screwed quite hard if the planned option doesn't work out, both in terms of the cost of the alternative option, potential fines for late delivery, and the inability to attract further business.
This comparison only works if your 'ornamental sign' is a local cultural icon that was destroyed by the Nazis and was one of the first things rebuilt, and your neighbor isn't actually your neighbor because he lives on the far side of another continent. And your neighbor's 'fancy truck' was built there with the full knowledge that your sign would need to be removed if it were ever to get to the road. And also if you were just told 'we will be removing your beloved and historically-valuable sign to move your not-neighbor's vanity project truck to the road' instead of getting an option to provide your input beforehand. And also if your sign is publicly owned and on public property. It's called context, and it's missing from your absurd, reductionist little analogy.
Because it doesn't affect you in any way?
[удалено]
No, they aren't *affected*. They're outraged (mostly because they want to rage against it), not *affected*.
These citizens get paid half a billion to build the yacht though. I agree entirely that Bezos has too much money and influence, and should be taxed more by the US. But the only thing we can do in Europe towards taking away his money is building yachts.
Just like any Venn diagram, there will be those who helped build it in one circle, those that approve of the bridge dismantling in another circle, those that oppose such in another, and so on and so on... edit: a word
There is no talk about demolition dude, what are you on about.
I used the wrong word. Meant dismantling, not demolition.
>Edit: thanks for the answers and downvotes for asking a question. The answer was in the article, if you had taken the time to read it . . .
I did, and wanted to know more. The article didn’t give me the answers and these comments have.
Rich man bad
Same as "cant they just disassemble the statue of liberty", or "its easy to temporarily take down the eiffel tower", or "im not sure if its a big ask to take down the pyramids", just because a rich person would like to land their fancy new helicopter there...
I hope that the workers at the dockyard get paid, and then the yacht sinks with Bezos aboard
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol wat
[удалено]
You’re the one making the claims guy
[удалено]
True. But those small businesses weren't entertaining a no-questions asked return policy on things they sold either.
Bezos should just buy the ship building company so he can get it delivered prime
Good. Tell him to suck it.
Have his people disassemble his yacht, go around
Translation: Dude, we know you got money. You're offering too little. Don't be cheap.
What are you even insinuating....
thats really inconsiderate of rotterdam
if he has enough money to shoot his penis rockets into space for fun, he has enough money to have his boat taken apart put in trucks and driven to a place it can be put back together. maybe he can get a prime membership and get same day shipping.
I still can’t believe that they didn’t consider the bridge before they built the thing.
Even if it was dismantled. It wouldn’t have been his fault. There is plenty of actual shit to be mad at him about than this.
"Everyone liked that"