BREAKING NEWS: Cruise ship trade group files court brief to support APPLL after negotiations with council
BAR HARBOR, Aug. 28, 2024 - Just before the Town Council held its public hearing Tuesday on the agreement negotiated with the Cruise Lines International Association to replace the current 1,000-passenger visitation cap, that trade group had filed a court brief in support of the APPLL businesses suing the town, the town announced.
“Over the objections of the Town of Bar Harbor and intervenor Charles Sidman, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has granted Amicus status to Cruise Lines International Association and Pioneer Public Interest Law Center in the APPLL et al vs. Town of Bar Harbor appeal,” the town stated on its website.
“Amicus status grants an individual or organization, not a party to the case, the right to assist the court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case.”
Amicus curae brief of Cruise Lines International Association filed August 23, 2024
Amicus curae brief of Pioneer Public Interest filed August 23, 2024
Order granting motion to file amicus curae briefs filed August 23, 2024
For other documents in the APPLL litigation, see the Cruise Ship Information page.
The QSJ asked the council negotiating team of Town Manager James Smith, chair Val Peacock and Joe Minutolo whether they knew CLIA was filing such an action on behalf of the Association to Preserve and Protect Local Livelihoods during their negotiations.
They have not replied yet.
Smith had rejected Sidman’s demands for talks unless Sidman withdrew his legal actions against the town. Sidman sued after the town refused to enforce the visitation cap adopted by voters and approved by federal judge Lance Walker after a trial last July.
Tuesday night, an overflow of residents and businesses packed the council chamber and an outer room which broadcast the proceedings.
Sidman presented a two-page fact sheet to the council stating his objections to the proposed repeal of the ordinance approved by voters Nov. 8, 2022.
In part, it stated, “Chapter 50 fails all of the Town’s stated purposes – a voter-acceptable reduction in cruise ship traffic (1,000 vs. almost 5,000 per day), a solution that reduces litigation (not likely), and consensual regulation of cruise ship tourism (shared governance with Council is evidently just not feasible.)
“For further clarity, additional and real two-way discussions will be organized by citizens between now and the election, and signatures for potential charter provisions allowing citizen to recall Town Councilors and dismiss employees will be collected for a later ballot.”
Thank you, Lincoln Millstein, thank you Gary Friedman, and thank you Charles Sidman for your varied and all important roles in supporting the majority of Bar Harbor citizens who want the passenger caps of 1,000 continued in the Land Use Ordinance , and clearly do not want much of the now exposed legal and enforcement weaknesses of the proposed Chapter 50. As anticipated ,the majority of Town Councilor sided with Big Cruise over the majority of citizens in their vote last night.
The voters ‘ only way to stop the ever growing chokehold that Big Cruise and OPI and APPLL,and now their new Friend of the Court ally, CLIA , is to vote NO in November. So many dedicated citizens inthe community of BH, including Charles Sidman, made it clear they might consider higher passenger caps , and tweaking the enforcement regulations as long as it remains in the LUO, so the voters have a legally protected direct right to amend the LUO themselves through a citizen’s petition, and a direct voice and vote at annual Town meeting on cruise ship regulation.
Otherwise, the voters, likeCharles Sidman pointed out, will have to find legal alternatives to achieve their objectives of reducing mega cruise ship congestion and pollution. Sadly, this might mean voting in a recall system for Town Councilors who fail effecting a lawful ordinance in a timely manner, and negotiate for the cruise industry’s interests, and not the citizens.
I was deeply disappointed, if not surprised, that the Council voted to put the “amended” Cruise Ship limitation Ordinance on the November ballot. I have also been very disappointed that the Council has so readily acquiesced to the bullying of the cruise ship industry and its land-side beneficiaries.
Those of us who are privileged to live in this unique and beautiful place between the mountains and the sea are imbued with a sacred trust to preserve and protect its fragile environment for the benefit of those who will come after us. To sell it out to the highest bidder for the financial gain of a relatively few and at great long-term environmental and social cost to the many is an abrogation that duty and trust.
We are all entitled to make a living, as generations before us have done, but not at the expense of the integrity of this special place we all treasure. I can only hope that the voters will not be duped and will, as I suspect, vote again for greatly reduced cruise ship tourism.