20 Comments
User's avatar
Donna Karlson's avatar

Besides the possibility the BH Town Council and Town Manager will use their major bully pulpit advantage and their resources (I.e. the people’s property taxes that pay for media materials, staff time to tell the voters to reject the 1,000 passenger cap ) to let the cruise ship industry fill up our harbor with towering white hulks, there is the pollution problem that only a few people keep persistently bringing up. Thank you Jim, Ted, and other courageous citizens who want to not only mitigate the visual pollution, but are concerned about the air and water pollution. Ted, several of us have wondered why COA, FOA, and ANP are not raising concerns about cruise pollution….not only in our waters, but globally. I would add CETF to the alphabet soup: this is an official committee of the Townof Bar Harbor. The letters stand for Climate Emergency Task Force. Its bylaws include the objective of “reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by December 31, 2030”. Not too far off considering cruise ship reservations are made several years ahead. I believe many cruise ship passengers also fly to reach their cruise ship home port. It all adds up. …to more and more reasons to vote NO on the repeal of the 1,000 passenger cap LUO amendment and Chapter 50 municipal code ordinances.

Expand full comment
Ted Leisenring's avatar

Pollution is the bigger issue that nobody talks about.

Besides the issue of passengers what about the pollution created by these ships running diesel generators 24/7 in the harbor, spewing particulates and CO2 that hang over the harbor on windless days. These ships dump , grey water ,oily bilge water, and ballast water from the systems onboard that serve thousands of people. Our local environmentalists; Friends of Acadia, College of the Atlantic and most of all the National Park Service should be drawing attention to this. They have the power of their membership. Let's stop this pollution. Pass new laws and ordinances limit the size of ships in tiny Bar Harbor.

Expand full comment
Jim O’Connell's avatar

Nicely put Ted

According to the EPA the distance for safe dispersal of diesel fumes from burning 1000ppm Shipping fuel should not be closer than 12 miles to a populated area.

The EPA says 1000 feet for 15ppm on land trucking diesel. And limits that to 5 minutes.

Expand full comment
Lincoln Millstein's avatar

There is a count but being ignored by the council, which chose to include all the ships Kevin signed up after March 17, 2022. So the 200,000 passengers this year is the baseline for future years as proposed. We agree on that fact.

Expand full comment
kylescotshank's avatar

Good afternoon all,

As always, I'd be happy to discuss the proposed Chapter 50 ordinance with your readers! I would, however, like to offer a few clarifications and/or thoughts:

1. There is no passenger count for this season, at least as it pertains to annual / monthly tallies. The ordinance as it is currently written provides only for a single daily cap - 1,000 disembarked passengers per day. If we use the same period of time that the proposed Chapter 50 uses (198 days between April 25th and November 9th), that equals approximately 198,000 passengers, which is equivalent to the 200,000 passengers you quoted in the article as being a component of Chapter 50 (forgive me if I may have misunderstood your point here). It is worth noting, however, that the current ordinance does not bound the season at all - so, in theory, the maximum total allowable visitation is actually 365,000 (which, to be fair, is totally farcical, I just wanted to highlight this point).

2. Just to remind everyone: the current LUO rules have now gone into effect, so the citizen's initiative is currently being implemented. I expect that, if not this meeting, then the next one, we will receive our first notice of violation from the Code Enforcement Officer as it relates to section 125.

3. I'm very confused as to why any kind of anti-democratic language is being levied against the town council or the planning board: nothing can, or will, change absent a vote in the affirmative this November. While I speak only for myself and do not represent the Council at large - the only reason we're moving forward with "track 2" is to try and find ways to end current litigation, as well as to avoid future litigation, while delivering on the goals people so clearly articulated at the ballot box in November of 2022: better control of cruise ship disembarkation.

As always, thank you for your reporting and happy to discuss further with you or your readers!

Expand full comment
Winston Shaw's avatar

The yearly cruise ship season is almost totally constrained by the weather. Not to worry please about the season being extended to 365 days. In fact due to the effects pollution is having upon Maine's weather patterns (pollution in part caused by the dirty fuel cruise ships burn) it is likely that if anything Bar Harbor's cruise ship season may be shortened at some point in the near future.

As to your puzzlement regarding charges that an anti democratic process is being followed by the Town Council there is more than enough evidence that the Town Council is far more concerned with cruise ship dollars than with cruise ship "sense." And local citizen's desire to reclaim the "livability" of the downtown ofttimes, to quote Rodney Dangerfield, "Don't get no respect!" Furthermore hardly a week goes by that citizens aren't warned that the town needs the cruise ship harbor fees to balance the ever escalating town budget. Yet to the best of my understanding monies collected from cruise ships are only to be spent on things directly benefitting...drum roll please...the cruise ships themselves. My guess is whoever negotiated that agreement with the cruise ship lobby does not have a bright future in the used car business.

This laying down and letting the cruise ship industry run over you is not new in Bar Harbor. Back in the 1990s I was the primary author of an extensive report on Bar Harbor's marine resources required for the Comprehensive Plan. A section of that report took a close look at the fees then being charged cruise ships. If memory serves it was $250 per visit...an amount that I defined as being "excessively reasonable." A phone call to NYC revealed a substantially larger fee being charged there. Yet when I suggested that the fee be greatly increased I was told that if we charged more the cruise ships might stop coming to Bar Harbor. Caught between laughter and tears I pointed out that the cruise ships need us far more than we need them. Nothing against Portland you understand but my guess is that a stop there is not the highlight of the average cruise ship passengers vacation. As a friend from California pointed out to his wife during a visit some years ago, "Gift shops and art galleries are a dime a dozen wherever you go. We came here to experience the incredible beauty of one of America's most scenic National Parks." I'll bet that selling a cruise ship ticket based upon a visit to the Old Port is a far tougher proposition than selling a ticket based on a visit to Acadia National Park.

As far as your rationale for compromiseing local citizen's desire for a greatly reduced cruise ship presence in order to "reduce future litigation" it is not for nothing that many nations throughout the world follow a policy of not giving in to extortion demands made by terrorists. As the FBI has long maintained if you pay a ransom the bad guys will just keep coming back for more.

The enemy here is not the Bar Harbor citizen's desire for a more livable downtown during the summer months. The enemy is a wealthy corporation with a long record of using their economic might to bully the town into giving them a free hand. What is truly needed is a restructuring of a legal system all but guaranteeing that whoever has the deepest pockets wins.

Expand full comment
Ted Leisenring's avatar

Who wrote this comment?

Its not signed.

Expand full comment
Ted Leisenring's avatar

Who's kylescotshank?

Expand full comment
AnIslander's avatar

Kyle is a member of our town council

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Aug 4
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
kylescotshank's avatar

Good afternoon!

We agree - it's completely farcical! - which is why I said as much. That said, it is still technically correct, which highlights a deficiency in the current ordinance (do daily caps alone solve the problem? do we need annual monthly caps as well? do we want days off, do we want no ships on holidays?).

I think the more important part is using what is current allowed - 198,000 annual disembarkations - as a reference point.

Expand full comment
AnIslander's avatar

Most of us wouldn’t care if 1000 people arrived by cruise ship every single day in January

Expand full comment
Mdi Life's avatar

We need 1000 people per day. That’s all that’s needed. We don’t need to complicate it with days off, monthly totals, etc. all parsing is just gonna give loop holes to exploited.

Is this an example the plan? Ships 5 days per week (20/month) with a total of 30k/month (the 1000k/day) but now the town will allow banking of passengers so we get an effect of 1500/day to account for the off days?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Aug 4
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
kylescotshank's avatar

I think these are exactly the kinds of conversations we're trying to have!

I'm sorry that these don't feel as though they're in good faith - but I assure you, they are. I think part of that feeling may be due to the necessity of how closed-lip the council has had to be due to the ongoing litigation - things we say or do in public settings can, and often will be, used against the town in the ongoing lawsuits, so we've had to be very careful about how we've discussed things in public settings. That, combined with a huge, growing, and - often! - justified erosion of trust in public institutions across the notion does very little to help make a community feel heard.

Frankly, that's why I make it a priority to dialogue with folks here. It's pretty clear how much distrust some of our citizens have of the Town Council, and the only thing I can personally do to help combat that is at least come out here, share my thoughts, and dialogue with folks who may (or may not) agree.

To round that out: if you are able, I'd highly encourage you to join any of the public hearings scheduled over the next month to share your views and hear out other councilors, as well as the views of your fellow citizens.

Expand full comment
Lincoln Millstein's avatar

Dear Kyle, I appreciate your willingness to engage. You have been a consistent, good listener no matter how harsh the council has been criticized. Thank you again.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Aug 4
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Donna Karlson's avatar

I can actually hear the pops as the champagne bottles are being opened by Ocean Properties, APPLL, and the Chamber. These folks have successfully bullied the Town Manager and Town Council into writing regulations that simply allow the colossal cruise ship industry to swamp Bar Harbor’s actual harbor and town and Park ……as always. The proposed regulations are a cuter and fussier version of what the Town Council always had before Charlie Sidman and the majority of Bar Harbor voters said NO. The voters of Bar Harbor clearly wanted to regulate the number of passengers to land daily to a 1,000 in the Land Use Amendment because any change to the LUO would have to go directly to the voters, not the easily manipulated Town Council and Town Manager.

Again, I implore the citizens of this wonderful town to go to the public hearings, use social and traditional media, analyse every word of these proposed ordinances before giving even a larger key to our small town to this behemoth cruise ship industry. It is hard work, but the results could be the saving of our small town from tourism glut. Lincoln Millstein makes a cogent point: the vacation rentals are regulated through the LUO. It is effective in limiting overgrowth of STRs. And, the majority of voters will control future changes, not the Town Council. I am no longer on the Warrant Committee, but from what I have seen to date, I would recommend voting NO to these proposed LUO changes and Chapter 50 .

Expand full comment
Jim O’Connell's avatar

I do not agree that Charles Sidman’s should agree to change or modify the number of passengers that the voters approved.

It is the TC and Town Manager that need to follow the law.

Only a majority vote by the citizens can change a LUO. That is why it was voted in as a LUO by the citizens. It is not the job of the TC to hound the citizens to change their minds. It is up to them to implement the law and quit trying to surrender the Town to irresponsible dirty tourism.

Expand full comment
Ted Leisenring's avatar

The Council men and women were elected to represent the people not the cruise ship industry.

This action is an abomination. Vote against them and vote them out. Let's hope people show up and let them know how wrong this it.

Expand full comment
Jill Constantine's avatar

Methinks the importance of victory currently far exceeds the will of the Bar Harbor Town Council to honorably serve voters and residents. Time was when voters were the Rulers and the Town Council was their servant.

Expand full comment
lin•'s avatar

"The late Art Greif was the activist lawyer who was a persistent and consistent thorn in the sides of the council and the cruise ship industry."

Arthur Greif is sorely missed. ThankYou to all who carry on the work. Charles Sidman and all his supporters. Investigative journalists Lincoln Millstein (editorial) and Carrie Jones (reporting) each in their very different ways keeping us informed. Et al.

The odious Kevin Sutherland who personified the BH Town Council. And whose egregiously bad deeds the Bar Harbor Town Council has exponentially amplified. As I said - a mash up of Mean Girls nasty and MAGA hollowing out the institutions of government while perverting government protocols in order to overturn the law. Our own little despots with their own little Project 2025

Expand full comment