Vote them out! They are all under the influence and in the pocket of the chamber of commerce and the cruise ship companies. Time for another referendum?
I rather suspect that the rushed ordinance to lift the existing disembarkation cap will meet the same fate at the hands of the voters as did Mount Desert's recent and rushed attempt to regulate vacation rentals.
A majority of voters should recognize that a so-called "contract" negotiated between a complicit municipality and the cruise lines would be a sham designed to abdicate the Town's regulatory authority and negate the citizens' long-established right to control the exercise of that authority.
Regulatory decisions are constrained by settled principals of administrative law, in particular the "substantial evidence in the record" and "arbitrary, capricious or abuse of discretion" standards; contract decisions are not. In addition, of course, regulatory decisions under the zoning or land use ordinance are reviewable at the municipal level by the Board of Appeals; contract decisions are not.
So in addition to its substantive provisions, the rushed ordinance is a cunning mechanism to remove important procedural elements of accountability to the citizens.
I agree with your assessment of the roll out of the Town Council’s newest plan to let the cruise ships continue to roll into Bar Harbor boldly, illegally, whatever they want. So, a lot of weight seemed to go to this “contract” with the parties as the best way to end the litigation expenses. If Ocean Properties and their lawyers have flaunted their intentions and actions to defy the current ordinance because they don’t like it, I think it would be highly unlikely they would sign a contract unless it had highly favorable terms they like. So, Big Cruise would become even more entrenched in Bar Harbor strengthened by a binding contract. Of course Charlie Sidman and the majority of citizens who voted for the 1,000 cap would not be at the negotiating table.
And, as I am going to continue pointing out , the only way to reduce Big Cruise in Bar Harbor is to vote NO on the Repeal and Replace and the Chapter 50 removal of the voters having votes in the future about cruise ship management. So, keep the comments coming and provide accurate information and analysis to your neighbors, particularly those who vote in Bar Harbor. Early voting is not that far off, and the Town will soon be using the citizens property taxes for their media and meetings propaganda to promote the Repeal and Replace and Chapter 50. Just vote NO.
Negotiations is how this needs to go, everyone needs to be open to this. The citizens say 1000, the cowardly council says 3200, how about meeting in the middle? 2000(average over the year) still allows some medium sized non US tax paying polluters but eliminates the 5000 passenger sewage tanks that tower over the amazing islands that many tourists come to see. I believe 1000 (when the kids are out of school) is what most of us want, 3000 on the shoulder seasons could be acceptable. Just throwing ideas out there...
"...the council was no longer a trusted place for public discourse."
That is an understatement. The level of dysfunction/corruption of recent Bar Harbor Town Councils and their town managers is truly offensive.
Let's pass an ordinance that fines large ships that discharge grey water and Diesel fumes into tiny Bar Harbor. Make this an environmental battle!
A fine is problematic to adopt and enforce; a tax on each gallon of effluent discharged and pound of carbon emissions released would be far better.
Vote them out! They are all under the influence and in the pocket of the chamber of commerce and the cruise ship companies. Time for another referendum?
I rather suspect that the rushed ordinance to lift the existing disembarkation cap will meet the same fate at the hands of the voters as did Mount Desert's recent and rushed attempt to regulate vacation rentals.
A majority of voters should recognize that a so-called "contract" negotiated between a complicit municipality and the cruise lines would be a sham designed to abdicate the Town's regulatory authority and negate the citizens' long-established right to control the exercise of that authority.
Regulatory decisions are constrained by settled principals of administrative law, in particular the "substantial evidence in the record" and "arbitrary, capricious or abuse of discretion" standards; contract decisions are not. In addition, of course, regulatory decisions under the zoning or land use ordinance are reviewable at the municipal level by the Board of Appeals; contract decisions are not.
So in addition to its substantive provisions, the rushed ordinance is a cunning mechanism to remove important procedural elements of accountability to the citizens.
I agree with your assessment of the roll out of the Town Council’s newest plan to let the cruise ships continue to roll into Bar Harbor boldly, illegally, whatever they want. So, a lot of weight seemed to go to this “contract” with the parties as the best way to end the litigation expenses. If Ocean Properties and their lawyers have flaunted their intentions and actions to defy the current ordinance because they don’t like it, I think it would be highly unlikely they would sign a contract unless it had highly favorable terms they like. So, Big Cruise would become even more entrenched in Bar Harbor strengthened by a binding contract. Of course Charlie Sidman and the majority of citizens who voted for the 1,000 cap would not be at the negotiating table.
And, as I am going to continue pointing out , the only way to reduce Big Cruise in Bar Harbor is to vote NO on the Repeal and Replace and the Chapter 50 removal of the voters having votes in the future about cruise ship management. So, keep the comments coming and provide accurate information and analysis to your neighbors, particularly those who vote in Bar Harbor. Early voting is not that far off, and the Town will soon be using the citizens property taxes for their media and meetings propaganda to promote the Repeal and Replace and Chapter 50. Just vote NO.
Negotiations is how this needs to go, everyone needs to be open to this. The citizens say 1000, the cowardly council says 3200, how about meeting in the middle? 2000(average over the year) still allows some medium sized non US tax paying polluters but eliminates the 5000 passenger sewage tanks that tower over the amazing islands that many tourists come to see. I believe 1000 (when the kids are out of school) is what most of us want, 3000 on the shoulder seasons could be acceptable. Just throwing ideas out there...