BAR HARBOR, May 21, 2023 - Even for a Town Council with a loose ethical canon, the behavior by one member at last Tuesday’s final meeting of the current body was a bridge too far.
Please be aware for errors of omission. As a person with a history degree and mariner by profession, l have to agree with Sally Aron on the historical housing question. l have worked as an old guy helper on a couple of homes along West St. and have viewed her problems first hand. The carpenter l was assisting explained what and how we're going to install new windows. My question was, "Why? These are old windows no doubt, but they don't need replacing." Then l was explained the law of the land. This to me was a major expense (reframing windows, expanding the opening and dealing with the siding afterwards) to the home owner that was not warranted. l wouldn't want the conditions that existed and caused the "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory (1911) fire. When one rents/owns a historic vacation rental, logic says it won't be "modern". Fine, rent something that fits one's expectations and expect things like not being able to get out a certain window when an unexpected action occurs.
It is the role of journalism to spotlight government - to speak truth to and truth about power. Denigrating the messenger does not invalidate the facts and concerns of the message. That there are serious questions about how the Bar Harbor Town Council operates. And evidence that councilors are not in compliance with the Town Charter Declaration of Policy. Aside from serving the town badly, the current council puts diligent and hardworking town employees at a disadvantage. Evidence demonstrates how well these employees work to best meet the needs of the entire community, while hobbled by the council's bent for special interests. This was amply demonstrated at the meeting reported here. As just one instance.
Stepping up to serve in government can have the most honorable intentions. Or not. Individually town councilors may be honorable. Or not. But the current Bar Harbor Town Council has a group dynamic which does not inspire public confidence in the integrity of the Town's government. It didn't have to take a Federal judge's reading of the evidence to tell us that as a body this council is not fair, not impartial, and not responsive to the needs of the people.
"Bar Harbor Town Charter 78-1
Declaration of policy.
The proper operation of democratic government requires that elected officials and their appointees be fair, impartial and responsive to the needs of the people and each other in the performance of their respective functions and duties; that decisions and policy be made in proper channels of the Town's governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that elected officials and their appointees maintain a standard of conduct that will inspire public confidence in the integrity of the Town's government. "
Your statement, “The “bed and breakfast” construct was the product of a previous Planning Board under St. Germain as chair”, is an outright lie. The Bed & Breakfast uses were adopted by the voters at the ballot box in June of 2010. Tom was not on the Planning Board until 2012.
That wasn’t the statement. I believe he was referring to the application for building as a “bed and breakfast” when in fact it was a Hotel. That application came when he was on the board. It appears the application was an attempt to skirt permitting requirements of hotels not applicable to bed and breakfasts.
That was the statement. My comment quoted it verbatim.
The building on Cottage Street meets all the permitting requirements of a hotel use or a B&BV use. The state fire Marshall considers it a hotel and permits it as such, so the life safety standard is identical. The lodging license is identical. Furthermore, Hotel is an allowed use on Cottage Street. Nothing needed be “skirted.” The applicant could’ve chosen hotel or B&BV; either would have resulted in approval.
All that aside, again, the statement that “the bed & breakfast construct is a product” of Tom is plainly false. The B&B construct was written and enacted into code entirely before Tom’s involvement. At that time in 2010 the town wanted B&Bs to be able to expand and do new construction. It was intentional that larger (no room limit, in fact), newer (including new construction) buildings be allowed under B&B use, and Tom had nothing to do with that.
Furthermore, as attorneys regularly point out, members of boards don’t cede their rights as individual citizens; Tom doesn’t lose his right to develop real estate simply because he was, at one time, on the planning board. Had this project required planning board approval he obviously would have recused. However it requires only site plan approval per the 2010 LUO changes. So he had no involvement in the making of the rules nor the permitting process that permitted this project.
Lincoln is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. He hates tourism and he hates the tourism industry. That’s fine. But he ought to simply state as much instead of writing the same misrepresentations of the facts week after week as if he’s reporting the news in an objective manor.
He should also spend a few hours consulting the Bar Harbor Land Use Ordinance, of which he regularly demonstrates a very poor comprehension both in its content and its history.
I read his comment differently so I’ll agree to disagree on its intent.
Since I’m not a mind reader I can’t attest to Lincoln’s hate of tourism but as a summer resident I do appreciate his attention to its affects on our communities, especially those folks that live on MDI year round. Disliking tourism isn’t the same as wanting more accountability and responsiveness to residents wishes as evidenced by their votes to restrict thousands of daily visitors by cruise ships. Bringing to light the business interests of board members in conflict with residents interests that don’t own businesses is simply good reporting. Is there a perspective? Sure, but links are provided & we can all avail ourselves of more public information if we choose to.
We can also provide other perspective by our comments here for all to see.
Mr. Linnane might keep in mind that, for a candidate to file to run for a particular office, a Petition containing signatures of town voters is required. The Petition and signature requirement acts as a gatekeeper against new residents who would seek to participate in Town elective positions, whether the School Board or the Town Council. Subtle, perhaps, but still a barrier to entry. No real surprise that the same people with their cadre of Petition signers continue to show up on the roster of candidates.
Your suggestion is intriguing; my further enhancement is that some form of I.Q. Test be required so that there is at least some semblance of intelligence in the candidate. I appreciate that that sounds elitist. Getting back to the issue of becoming a candidate, keep in mind that another problem (much less so in Town elections) is that today there is no sense of decorum or restraint, and opponents gleefully publish whatever embarrassments they can dig up on the candidate. Everyone has some skeleton in the closet; who wants to have their personal life, irrelevant to the position, dragged out for public schadenfreude? Sure acts as a damper on being a citizen volunteer.
Please be aware for errors of omission. As a person with a history degree and mariner by profession, l have to agree with Sally Aron on the historical housing question. l have worked as an old guy helper on a couple of homes along West St. and have viewed her problems first hand. The carpenter l was assisting explained what and how we're going to install new windows. My question was, "Why? These are old windows no doubt, but they don't need replacing." Then l was explained the law of the land. This to me was a major expense (reframing windows, expanding the opening and dealing with the siding afterwards) to the home owner that was not warranted. l wouldn't want the conditions that existed and caused the "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory (1911) fire. When one rents/owns a historic vacation rental, logic says it won't be "modern". Fine, rent something that fits one's expectations and expect things like not being able to get out a certain window when an unexpected action occurs.
It is the role of journalism to spotlight government - to speak truth to and truth about power. Denigrating the messenger does not invalidate the facts and concerns of the message. That there are serious questions about how the Bar Harbor Town Council operates. And evidence that councilors are not in compliance with the Town Charter Declaration of Policy. Aside from serving the town badly, the current council puts diligent and hardworking town employees at a disadvantage. Evidence demonstrates how well these employees work to best meet the needs of the entire community, while hobbled by the council's bent for special interests. This was amply demonstrated at the meeting reported here. As just one instance.
Stepping up to serve in government can have the most honorable intentions. Or not. Individually town councilors may be honorable. Or not. But the current Bar Harbor Town Council has a group dynamic which does not inspire public confidence in the integrity of the Town's government. It didn't have to take a Federal judge's reading of the evidence to tell us that as a body this council is not fair, not impartial, and not responsive to the needs of the people.
"Bar Harbor Town Charter 78-1
Declaration of policy.
The proper operation of democratic government requires that elected officials and their appointees be fair, impartial and responsive to the needs of the people and each other in the performance of their respective functions and duties; that decisions and policy be made in proper channels of the Town's governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that elected officials and their appointees maintain a standard of conduct that will inspire public confidence in the integrity of the Town's government. "
Your statement, “The “bed and breakfast” construct was the product of a previous Planning Board under St. Germain as chair”, is an outright lie. The Bed & Breakfast uses were adopted by the voters at the ballot box in June of 2010. Tom was not on the Planning Board until 2012.
That wasn’t the statement. I believe he was referring to the application for building as a “bed and breakfast” when in fact it was a Hotel. That application came when he was on the board. It appears the application was an attempt to skirt permitting requirements of hotels not applicable to bed and breakfasts.
That was the statement. My comment quoted it verbatim.
The building on Cottage Street meets all the permitting requirements of a hotel use or a B&BV use. The state fire Marshall considers it a hotel and permits it as such, so the life safety standard is identical. The lodging license is identical. Furthermore, Hotel is an allowed use on Cottage Street. Nothing needed be “skirted.” The applicant could’ve chosen hotel or B&BV; either would have resulted in approval.
All that aside, again, the statement that “the bed & breakfast construct is a product” of Tom is plainly false. The B&B construct was written and enacted into code entirely before Tom’s involvement. At that time in 2010 the town wanted B&Bs to be able to expand and do new construction. It was intentional that larger (no room limit, in fact), newer (including new construction) buildings be allowed under B&B use, and Tom had nothing to do with that.
Furthermore, as attorneys regularly point out, members of boards don’t cede their rights as individual citizens; Tom doesn’t lose his right to develop real estate simply because he was, at one time, on the planning board. Had this project required planning board approval he obviously would have recused. However it requires only site plan approval per the 2010 LUO changes. So he had no involvement in the making of the rules nor the permitting process that permitted this project.
Lincoln is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. He hates tourism and he hates the tourism industry. That’s fine. But he ought to simply state as much instead of writing the same misrepresentations of the facts week after week as if he’s reporting the news in an objective manor.
He should also spend a few hours consulting the Bar Harbor Land Use Ordinance, of which he regularly demonstrates a very poor comprehension both in its content and its history.
https://theqsjournal.substack.com/p/bar-harbor-style-zoning-if-it-quacks
I read his comment differently so I’ll agree to disagree on its intent.
Since I’m not a mind reader I can’t attest to Lincoln’s hate of tourism but as a summer resident I do appreciate his attention to its affects on our communities, especially those folks that live on MDI year round. Disliking tourism isn’t the same as wanting more accountability and responsiveness to residents wishes as evidenced by their votes to restrict thousands of daily visitors by cruise ships. Bringing to light the business interests of board members in conflict with residents interests that don’t own businesses is simply good reporting. Is there a perspective? Sure, but links are provided & we can all avail ourselves of more public information if we choose to.
We can also provide other perspective by our comments here for all to see.
Money drives, greed blocks conscience! Community collapses in front of our eyes!
Mr. Linnane might keep in mind that, for a candidate to file to run for a particular office, a Petition containing signatures of town voters is required. The Petition and signature requirement acts as a gatekeeper against new residents who would seek to participate in Town elective positions, whether the School Board or the Town Council. Subtle, perhaps, but still a barrier to entry. No real surprise that the same people with their cadre of Petition signers continue to show up on the roster of candidates.
Your suggestion is intriguing; my further enhancement is that some form of I.Q. Test be required so that there is at least some semblance of intelligence in the candidate. I appreciate that that sounds elitist. Getting back to the issue of becoming a candidate, keep in mind that another problem (much less so in Town elections) is that today there is no sense of decorum or restraint, and opponents gleefully publish whatever embarrassments they can dig up on the candidate. Everyone has some skeleton in the closet; who wants to have their personal life, irrelevant to the position, dragged out for public schadenfreude? Sure acts as a damper on being a citizen volunteer.