New cruise ship management plan only adds confusion, outrage, anger

BAR HARBOR, Aug. 11, 2024 - There can be only one word to describe the hot mess left behind last week by the Town Council and its chair, Val Peacock.

Weird.

How did the council and a town manager with his highly lauded military career run a process with the most pressing issue facing the town with such sloppiness and confusion?

It started last Friday when he missed his promised deadline to deliver details of the council’s proposal to repeal and replace the land use ordinance governing cruise ship visits.

By Tuesday’s Town Council meeting, the town clerk was still handing out printed copies of the proposed new ordinance with missing parts.

On Thursday, at the first official hearing - in front of the Planning Board - the town attorney spent seven minutes to “clarify” the procedural updates which were coming more often than costume changes at a Lady Gaga concert. His “explanation” only sowed more confusion among board members and citizens in attendance.

Council chair Val Peacock: Parts of council proposal ‘still being worked through.’

The binary character of the meetings was striking. The council meeting Tuesday night was dominated by generally supportive businesses, including most of the board members of APPLL, which is suing the town. The Planning Board hearing Wednesday was dominated by citizens who opposed the council’s plan to repeal the ordinance to cap visiting cruise ship passengers at 1,000 a day.

Two of the 12 citizens who spoke in opposition told me later they felt the council was no longer a trusted place for public discourse.

They might have the same view of the Planning Board after Wednesday.

Planning chair Millard Dority was making up rules on the fly, trying to prevent speakers from engaging in a broader conversation about what the council was proposing to replace the complete repeal of the land-use ordinance.

He shut down questions after declaring the public hearing had ended even though there was no motion to enter into the public hearing and no motion to end it.

All sorts of misleading information were given by people who had no idea what was happening but spoke with gavel in hand like they knew.

Dority reinforced the false notion that the town recently began to fully enforce the citizens ordinance on cruise ship caps, when in fact it only began to seek a permit from Ocean Properties for operating its passenger dock at 55 West Street.

Dority obviously didn’t bother to read the council’s statement:

“The Council’s passage of the Cruise Ship Disembarkation Ordinance on June 18, 2024, does not supersede a previous press statement released on March 6, 2024. All cruise ship anchorage reservations confirmed on or before November 8, 2022, will allow for disembarkation for the 2024 season. However, pursuant to Section 125-77(H) and its rules and regulations, any property owner seeking to disembark passengers after July 18, 2024, is now required to obtain the necessary permits.”

OP said it would not comply, and town attorney Stephen Wagner said the town is exploring whether to seek relief in the courts.

There was plenty of conjecture proffered as fact from the council, the Planning Board chair, town attorney and the town manager such as the assertion that contracts with the cruise lines would end litigation.

This is one of the most notorious industries in the world which avoids taxes by flying foreign flags, pays huge fines for environmental violations as a cost of doing business and is a major cause of the over tourism epidemic around the the world.

There is only one word in its vocabulary - “growth.”

One could argue that arming cruise lines with contracts would actually invite more litigation.

Other claims which were half true included that talks leading to the proposed ordinance (Chapter 50) to replace the one in the land-use ordinance involved “all parties.” The council deliberately excluded citizen petitioner Charles Sidman and appears to have held talks only with the Cruise Ships International Association and APPLL (Association to Preserve and Protect Local Livelihoods).”

In reply to a question from council member Maya Caines, who expressed concern about Chapter 50, Wagner said it was “not a proposal from CLIA” and then in the same breath admitted that the terms already negotiated “would be acceptable to the cruise lines.”

Planning Director Michele Gagnon on Wednesday apologized for the “very confusing process.” She directed people to the special Town Council meeting Thursday when Chapter 50 would be taken up.

But come Thursday, council chair Peacock said nope, we’ll not taking that up. She allowed only comments on “disembarkation.”

At this point, the town will need to hire a UN interpreter to sort this out for public consumption. Even at this time, Chapter 50 as posted on the town’s website is an incomplete document.

(Here was Carrie Jones’s report of last week’ meetings which was less strident than mine.)

In the meantime, citizens are left with some major points to consider:

• What are the real implications of a cap of 3,200-passenger a day for 20 days in the months of September and October as proposed? The current operating rules allow the harbor master wiggle room to add another 200 passengers. Will this make the actual limit 3,400? Also, the council did not appear to take full measure of the impact of crew members who are not counted. Most cruise ships above 3,000 passengers carry at least 1,000 crew members. If half of them disembark, that would bring the total to 3,900. Chapter 50 would also exempt small cruise ships carrying 200 passengers or less. How many of those would be in town on the same day? Does this add up to a “meaningful reduction” of cruise ship passenger visits which is a stated goal of the council. (Aug. 27 is the day the council has scheduled as the final public hearing. Ironically, that’s the same day the town will be visited by the Enchanted Princess with a capacity of 3,660 passengers and 1,343 crew members.)

• New Planning Board member Teresa Wagner asked multiple questions Wednesday and Thursday including why rush for a replacement when the town hasn’t even tried to enforce the LUO cap? (Wagner is a refreshing new light who isn’t afraid to ask tough questions and appears to have an independent mind.) Many questions went unanswered with Peacock only saying they will be considered. But when? The council is on a fast track to post the Chapter 50 question on the ballot in November. More public vetting will only be a drag on that tight deadline. Teresa Wagner did get Stephen Wagner to admit that the town may go to court to seek a cease and desist order to close down a belligerent party like Ocean Properties. Andrew Geel, owner of the Thornhedge Inn, told the council, “If you don't have the stomach for it, or if you somehow feel conflicted, then resign or get out of the way.”

Can the council redeem itself in the public’s eye?

“For the love of all things real - we must stop being so aggressive/defensive and do the right thing,” stated a text from a former town board member. “The town council has terrible communicators and get angry when they are misunderstood.”

Not disclosed in any of the hearings and public comments were written communications to the council, including this from appeals board member Cara Ryan:

“We need to end this drama & move on. Throwing out citizen intent, the baby with the bath water, is not the way. 

“It's a misinterpretation of the 2022 election to suggest citizens voting in a 1,000 daily passenger cap was really a vote for 180,000 passengers over a 6 month cruise season, let alone 365,000 annually.

“For council to suggest voters approved such numbers and then pretend to merely rearrange the distribution with monthly caps & "cruise-free days" is disingenuous & insulting. Daily is daily, per day, just as noise ordinances set a bar of so many decibels, above which noise is not acceptable. We don't bundle 80 decibel limits and tell residents they only have to endure 150 or 300 dBAs every other day. We knew in 2022 that most of the ships coming to BH carried more than 1,000 passengers, and 58% of voters still said No, we don't want them. The alternatives were so unconvincing that a majority of residents, despite credible threats of litigation, voted for this ordinance, with this low, d a i l y cap.”

In another letter, recently departed Planning Board member Elissa Chesler wrote:

“One of the three major stated goals of the second track to cruise ship management was to ensure a meaningful reduction of visitation. The Citizens of Bar Harbor have endorsed this goal. A second goal was to avoid litigation. Moreover, there is a need to provide businesses with predictability and time to adjust to changes. The proposed amendments to LUO and town code neither limit visitation to the level endorsed by citizens, nor does it provide stability to businesses. Rather, they allow for the possibility of minimal or no regulation of visitation and subject cruise ship management to the vagaries of annual council elections, rather than stabilizing cruise ship management and freeing citizens and council to focus on Bar Harbor's other major challenges.”

All the cruise ship information and presentations may be accessed here on the town’s website.

FOOTNOTE: Climate change has remade the calendar. November is now the new October, and April is the new May. Several APPLL members pleaded with the council to expand cruise ship days in April and November. So why not? Land-based tourism barely exists then. That’s the new shoulder season. Acadia National Park opens April 15 and closes Nov. 30. Would APPLL and citizens make that bargain? Accept the 1,000-a-day cap in September and October in exchange for 3,200 each day in April and November? It if were up to me (I’m grateful it’s not), I’d make that trade. I’d even throw in the first week of May and the last week in October. The public works department could be fortified for those added days by using the cruise ship fund to hire temps.