This format was advertised as a Q &A only giving 2 days notice. I spent much of those two days writing my question and was shocked to find out we were all muzzled and the moderator was allowed to read all the questions by himself and then combine, edit and manipulate the questions in his words before asking BRECHLIN , SMITH, WARFF and highly paid Attorney WAGNER. only questions scribbled down on index paper and collected by our marvelous Town Clerk who would hurry up and down the aisles to collect them during the meeting. No citizens were allowed to ask their question. No one was allowed to talk. It was the weirdest Q&A format I have ever seen. A number of people blurted out their disapproval to no avail. The COA moderator took my comment that I was expecting to personally read and ignored it. I hurriedly filled out 5 questions on 5 index cards and our Town Clerk scurried up and down the aisle to bring each one to the moderator. Only one was asked after the moderator threw half of it away by editing it. That sent me over the edge. I stood up and cried out my question was edited. To no avail.
The most important question I had was .
Who specifically had the idea to come up with huge ships of 3200?
The protocol you describe is exactly that used by former governor Paul LePage in his so-called Town Hall meetings. Public participation entirely scripted by LePage flacks. This is typical of authoritarian regimes where the empty shells of democratic protocols are preserved but used to forward antidemocratic efforts. Such a the Roberts Supreme Court, the McConnell Senate, and the Johnson House.
The index card method can work to present concise questions - but only when the public writes concise questions which are then read in their entirety without flack editing or editorializing. I feel terrible for our good town employees such as Liz Graves caught up in this mess.
My apologies, I was out of town for a few days over the past two weeks and lost track of the notifications. Is the ask: "if Chapter 50 was in place for 2024, what would that have done to the current reservations"? I'm happy to answer - and will do so here! - just want to make sure I'm understanding the question right.
Thank you for your thorough and straightforward coverage of this important issue. And thank you for calling out the Council for their clear bias toward an industry a majority of the townspeople have said they want controlled and restrained.
Fair enough, sir. I stand partially corrected...lol. I was doing my level best to remain polite. IMHO, there is a hierarchy of puppets within the gang of "Let’s disregard what we decide we do not like regarding the voters choices.". As for the Town Council...they are puppets, as you suggest, and they have puppets of their own. Still going with my original thought: Shameful.
It really doesn't make any difference if the voters fully understood what they were voting on. Imagine what would happen in political elections if an opponent could attack the result of a vote on the claim that the voters didn't really understand what they were voting on!
Bar Harbor Town Council to Bar Harbor Voters: You all are too friggin' stupid to know what you're doing, let alone what we are doing. Don't worry your empty little heads - we'll fix everything for you.
And *FIX* they will. If we let them.
The BH (BS) Town Clique echoes the Republican argument against Ranked Choice Voting - voters are just too damned stupid. Judge Lance Walker threw that out of court too.
I speak only for myself, but I definitely do not believe that our community members are stupid or misinformed. My perspective is pretty straightforward: that this whole area is incredibly complicated and that my job, as I understand it, is to do my best to put forward a plan that tries to minimize our risks while maximizing (and safeguarding) our gains. Reasonable folks can disagree on it - and should! - but no one should ever be made to feel that they're foolish or incorrect for doing so.
"My perspective is pretty straightforward: that this whole area is incredibly complicated and that my job, as I understand it, is to do my best to put forward a plan that tries to minimize our risks while maximizing (and safeguarding) our gains."
In its opposition, obstruction, and attempts to overturn a the law, the prior and this town council and APPL have connived endless complexities and exorbitant costs.
The council's job is to enforce the law. Period. It has not only purposefully failed to do that, it has increased the environmental, economic, social, and systemic risks to the town, its residents, and government itself. A focus on feelings instead of facts is a distraction.
I understand and hear your frustration! I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective:
We're currently - as a community - discussing the need to change and update our Transient Accommodation rules because they're ill-suited to the realities of today. Yet these rules only exist because they were approved by voters in the past - would updating those laws be an act of opposition, obstruction, or overturning? I would argue not - it's simply that we're listening to the communities needs and updating the existing rules to meet them better. We've amended the definition of "family" in our Land Use Ordinance 5 separate times in the past 20 years - were those amendments disenfranchising past voters who believed in a different, working definition of the term? I believe we'd agree that the answer is "no!" - and likely had more to do with keeping our definition legal and in-line with the rest of our code than anything else.
Yes, our job is absolutely to enforce the law - I agree with you, and we are! Enforcement is underway via Chapter 52 and it seems all but certain we'll be sending this violation to the state court system long before the November election - this is a fat, not a feeling. But another part of our job as Town Councilors is to try to make recommendations to laws and policies that we believe, to the best of our abilities, improve upon what exists or puts in what place what ought to exist. We're checked along the way by incredibly strong, democratic mechanisms: the elected Warrant Committee, the appointed Planning Board, the body of the Town Meeting, and the electorate that participates in our general elections. But it is part of our job.
I speak again, only for myself, but what I believe we're trying to do is legitimately protect the rights to manage and control cruise-ship based tourism in a way that is more legally defensible than what's in the LUO.
Thank you, as always, for your time and civic engagement.
You all (the town council) might try to at least see what a full season looks like with the Citizens initiative fully enacted before you try to shoehorn something else through. Considering what the former town manager and the cruise ship committee were caught on tape conspiring to do, you can’t blame anyone in this town for believing the local government is entirely corrupt.
For years the council has refused to enforce the clear, comprehensive, and constructive Citizens Initiative. In so doing, the Council has connived a new reality which you now claim the law cannot be applied to. In fact, if the Council had put as much effort into enforcing the law as you all have put into obstructing it, then Bar Harbor would be better off. There is no valid argument not to enforce the 1000 cap.
Lip service for residents' feelings cannot conceal your contempt for residents' rights.
Yesterday I was watching a Public TV documentary on the propaganda and authoritarian tactics used by Hitler and Mussolini in their power takeovers of their respective countries. Of course , we all know that muzzling the voices of their opponents, repeating the lies of their agenda, all while benevolently telling the people we are the supreme deciders of what is best were the strategies used by these dictators. So sad to see that the Q and A session was simply an A session, an Authoritarian strategy to tell the citizens not only what they must do, but that even their thoughts need to be reprogrammed to vote the right way in November.
Before the vote on the cruise ship ordinance crafted by Charles Sidman, and clearly passed by a significant majority of BH voters, I had numerous discussions with citizens who all clearly understood the 1,000 passenger cap. Both social and traditional media reflected people were clearly considering the 1,000 passenger cap. And, the citizenry clearly understands that they want the 1,000 cap, not a 3,200 cap , or more. Otherwise, they would have voted No.
Thank you for your information on Jamie McGowan, clearly a henchman brought in to shut down the voice and the vote of the majority of BH citizens. I agree, it’ s shameful.
Thank you, Lincoln. I certainly understood what I was voting for. Its not complicated.
ThankYou Tina!
This format was advertised as a Q &A only giving 2 days notice. I spent much of those two days writing my question and was shocked to find out we were all muzzled and the moderator was allowed to read all the questions by himself and then combine, edit and manipulate the questions in his words before asking BRECHLIN , SMITH, WARFF and highly paid Attorney WAGNER. only questions scribbled down on index paper and collected by our marvelous Town Clerk who would hurry up and down the aisles to collect them during the meeting. No citizens were allowed to ask their question. No one was allowed to talk. It was the weirdest Q&A format I have ever seen. A number of people blurted out their disapproval to no avail. The COA moderator took my comment that I was expecting to personally read and ignored it. I hurriedly filled out 5 questions on 5 index cards and our Town Clerk scurried up and down the aisle to bring each one to the moderator. Only one was asked after the moderator threw half of it away by editing it. That sent me over the edge. I stood up and cried out my question was edited. To no avail.
The most important question I had was .
Who specifically had the idea to come up with huge ships of 3200?
allowed to talk.
The protocol you describe is exactly that used by former governor Paul LePage in his so-called Town Hall meetings. Public participation entirely scripted by LePage flacks. This is typical of authoritarian regimes where the empty shells of democratic protocols are preserved but used to forward antidemocratic efforts. Such a the Roberts Supreme Court, the McConnell Senate, and the Johnson House.
The index card method can work to present concise questions - but only when the public writes concise questions which are then read in their entirety without flack editing or editorializing. I feel terrible for our good town employees such as Liz Graves caught up in this mess.
Good morning!
My apologies, I was out of town for a few days over the past two weeks and lost track of the notifications. Is the ask: "if Chapter 50 was in place for 2024, what would that have done to the current reservations"? I'm happy to answer - and will do so here! - just want to make sure I'm understanding the question right.
Bravo! Thank you for adding clarity to what the TC and others have been mucking up! I understood exactly what I was voting for.
Thank you for your thorough and straightforward coverage of this important issue. And thank you for calling out the Council for their clear bias toward an industry a majority of the townspeople have said they want controlled and restrained.
Shame on the Bar Harbor Town Council and their puppets.
The Town Council are the puppets - of APPL profiteers. Shocking to see that COA is too.
Fair enough, sir. I stand partially corrected...lol. I was doing my level best to remain polite. IMHO, there is a hierarchy of puppets within the gang of "Let’s disregard what we decide we do not like regarding the voters choices.". As for the Town Council...they are puppets, as you suggest, and they have puppets of their own. Still going with my original thought: Shameful.
ThankYou for setting a higher standard. You are correct to do so. I'll try to remember that.
Gadzooks! This TC is the best BH can do. Yikes!
Oops ...
It really doesn't make any difference if the voters fully understood what they were voting on. Imagine what would happen in political elections if an opponent could attack the result of a vote on the claim that the voters didn't really understand what they were voting on!
Are you the same Phil Worden who was the lawyer for the appeals board?
Yes
Bar Harbor Town Council to Bar Harbor Voters: You all are too friggin' stupid to know what you're doing, let alone what we are doing. Don't worry your empty little heads - we'll fix everything for you.
And *FIX* they will. If we let them.
The BH (BS) Town Clique echoes the Republican argument against Ranked Choice Voting - voters are just too damned stupid. Judge Lance Walker threw that out of court too.
Good morning Lin -
I speak only for myself, but I definitely do not believe that our community members are stupid or misinformed. My perspective is pretty straightforward: that this whole area is incredibly complicated and that my job, as I understand it, is to do my best to put forward a plan that tries to minimize our risks while maximizing (and safeguarding) our gains. Reasonable folks can disagree on it - and should! - but no one should ever be made to feel that they're foolish or incorrect for doing so.
"My perspective is pretty straightforward: that this whole area is incredibly complicated and that my job, as I understand it, is to do my best to put forward a plan that tries to minimize our risks while maximizing (and safeguarding) our gains."
In its opposition, obstruction, and attempts to overturn a the law, the prior and this town council and APPL have connived endless complexities and exorbitant costs.
The council's job is to enforce the law. Period. It has not only purposefully failed to do that, it has increased the environmental, economic, social, and systemic risks to the town, its residents, and government itself. A focus on feelings instead of facts is a distraction.
I understand and hear your frustration! I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective:
We're currently - as a community - discussing the need to change and update our Transient Accommodation rules because they're ill-suited to the realities of today. Yet these rules only exist because they were approved by voters in the past - would updating those laws be an act of opposition, obstruction, or overturning? I would argue not - it's simply that we're listening to the communities needs and updating the existing rules to meet them better. We've amended the definition of "family" in our Land Use Ordinance 5 separate times in the past 20 years - were those amendments disenfranchising past voters who believed in a different, working definition of the term? I believe we'd agree that the answer is "no!" - and likely had more to do with keeping our definition legal and in-line with the rest of our code than anything else.
Yes, our job is absolutely to enforce the law - I agree with you, and we are! Enforcement is underway via Chapter 52 and it seems all but certain we'll be sending this violation to the state court system long before the November election - this is a fat, not a feeling. But another part of our job as Town Councilors is to try to make recommendations to laws and policies that we believe, to the best of our abilities, improve upon what exists or puts in what place what ought to exist. We're checked along the way by incredibly strong, democratic mechanisms: the elected Warrant Committee, the appointed Planning Board, the body of the Town Meeting, and the electorate that participates in our general elections. But it is part of our job.
I speak again, only for myself, but what I believe we're trying to do is legitimately protect the rights to manage and control cruise-ship based tourism in a way that is more legally defensible than what's in the LUO.
Thank you, as always, for your time and civic engagement.
You all (the town council) might try to at least see what a full season looks like with the Citizens initiative fully enacted before you try to shoehorn something else through. Considering what the former town manager and the cruise ship committee were caught on tape conspiring to do, you can’t blame anyone in this town for believing the local government is entirely corrupt.
Keep telling yourself that.
For years the council has refused to enforce the clear, comprehensive, and constructive Citizens Initiative. In so doing, the Council has connived a new reality which you now claim the law cannot be applied to. In fact, if the Council had put as much effort into enforcing the law as you all have put into obstructing it, then Bar Harbor would be better off. There is no valid argument not to enforce the 1000 cap.
Lip service for residents' feelings cannot conceal your contempt for residents' rights.
Hochman is fairly quiet after his vulgar and unapologetic outburst on Sidman.
That would be funny. Except. Seriously. It isn't. Yikes
HaHa! Perfect!
I can hardly wait. I need a good laugh.
Yesterday I was watching a Public TV documentary on the propaganda and authoritarian tactics used by Hitler and Mussolini in their power takeovers of their respective countries. Of course , we all know that muzzling the voices of their opponents, repeating the lies of their agenda, all while benevolently telling the people we are the supreme deciders of what is best were the strategies used by these dictators. So sad to see that the Q and A session was simply an A session, an Authoritarian strategy to tell the citizens not only what they must do, but that even their thoughts need to be reprogrammed to vote the right way in November.
Before the vote on the cruise ship ordinance crafted by Charles Sidman, and clearly passed by a significant majority of BH voters, I had numerous discussions with citizens who all clearly understood the 1,000 passenger cap. Both social and traditional media reflected people were clearly considering the 1,000 passenger cap. And, the citizenry clearly understands that they want the 1,000 cap, not a 3,200 cap , or more. Otherwise, they would have voted No.
Thank you for your information on Jamie McGowan, clearly a henchman brought in to shut down the voice and the vote of the majority of BH citizens. I agree, it’ s shameful.
Thank you.
Thank you!!! ❤️❤️ so appreciate your reporting!!