"But APPLL now has the support of the Town Council..."
APPL has always had the support of the Bar Harbor Town Council. BH Town Manager Sutherland and the Town Council in effect sent vested interests an engraved invitation to sue. If APPL had not coalesced on its own - and I am not certain it did - the Town Council would have instigated some other entity to obstruct the will of BH voters.
It might be helpful to also look at the differences between regulating cruise ships by contract rather than by the LUO. Contracts put the cruise ships on an equal basis with the town and allows it to sue for money damages if it claims the town breached the contract.
I am sure Val Peacock and her council members are reading this Quietside post and will get the flyer.
They should be ashamed of their lack of respect for the wishes of their residents who elected them. Hopefully they will not be reelected and Bar Harbor and MDI can be saved from the overcrowding and pollution from massive cruise ships and their passengers. The public will decide their fate.
If anyone believes that the Key West experience of state government preempting local authority over cruise ships is too far-fetched to happen here in Maine, they should remember that Ocean Properties partners' have included former U.S. Senate majority leader George Mitchell and Bob Baldacci, the brother of former governor John Baldacci, and of current State Senator from Bangor Joe Baldacci.
One hopes that none of these connections would influence state policy, but as the following article notes, it’s up to the public and the media to keep their existence in the open, just to be sure.
Cruise ships are wanton polluters at the worst possible time in human history and one thousand is one thousand too many. But a civics lesson is in order. The U.S.A. is a republic, a limited democracy where we elect fellow citizens to do what's best for us. Tricky to say the least. The popular vote is not always the final answer otherwise Gore and Hillary, (Tilden too) would have been president. What the council did was well within the framework of our republic and to say this council’s action has no place in governing, is a serious error in fact ergo they are league with the cruise industry raises emotions to a fever pitch. There’s a hateful name for that I’ll not mention because good people wholeheartedly support deep sixing these belching monstrosities. Meanwhile, rejecting Article 4 sends us back to court where there’s no guarantee Judge Walker’s decision will be upheld. In court only three things are possible, you win, or you lose and justice stands on the sidelines saying let me in but too often doesn’t get to play. We can’t take the risk of losing round two. Under normal circumstances municipalities avoid being defendants, almost always a losing outcome, thanks to Charlie Sidman we won and assuming we keep on winning it’s a drain on Bar Harbor taxpayers many of whom are cash strapped by this year’s 15% increase that’s the new benchmark and many are forced to sell turning a blessing into curse. What we won was the right to implement a one thousand limit that’s not as straight forward as just a number and sure to find aggrieved parties challenge how its administered. Staying out of court is not to be dismissed. The best approach is to harness the anger and work with the council. They know how we feel and several feel the same way. A community committee to counter APPLL’s efforts is a lot more work than taking pot shots that ultimately may see us regret what we wished for.
Thank you for highlighting that BH citizens are working hard to preserve what the majority of residents and the Island and global community who have suffered from the excesses of Big Cruise want…sensible caps on the number of cruise ship passengers in their respective harbors and towns. The citizen produced flyer spells it out clearly and accurately about the imperative need to vote NO on Article 4. The stakes for BH voters are much larger than just maintaining the 1,000 pax cap.
As many residents at the so called public meetings pointed out, it is about preserving American democracy for all our citizens. The Town Manager ‘s and Town Council’ s collaboration with Ocean Properties, APPLL, and Big Cruise has resulted in this slap in the face to the voters of Bar Harbor known as Chapter 50/ Article 4. If Article 4 wins, Ocean, APPLL, and Big Cruise will not only continue to flood and pollute Bar Harbor and its neighbors, but they will have effectively banned ,legally, the citizens of Bar Harbor from voting on passenger caps directly or having legally protected ways of voicing their concerns to their so called Town government. This is not American democracy, so vote NO on Article 4.
Thank you for highlighting that BH citizens are working hard to preserve what the majority of residents and the Island and global community who have suffered from the excesses of Big Cruise want…sensible caps on the number of cruise ship passengers in their respective harbors and towns. The citizen produced flyer spells it out clearly and accurately about the imperative need to vote NO on Article 4. The stakes for BH voters are much larger than just maintaining the 1,000 pax cap.
As many residents at the so called public meetings pointed out, it is about preserving American democracy for all our citizens. The Town Manager ‘s and Town Council’ s collaboration with Ocean Properties, APPLL, and Big Cruise has resulted in this slap in the face to the voters of Bar Harbor known as Chapter 50/ Article 4. If Article 4 wins, Ocean, APPLL, and Big Cruise will not only continue to flood and pollute Bar Harbor and its neighbors, but they will have effectively banned ,legally, the citizens of Bar Harbor from voting on passenger caps directly or having legally protected ways of voicing their concerns to their so called Town government. This is not American democracy, so vote NO on Article 4.
"But APPLL now has the support of the Town Council..."
APPL has always had the support of the Bar Harbor Town Council. BH Town Manager Sutherland and the Town Council in effect sent vested interests an engraved invitation to sue. If APPL had not coalesced on its own - and I am not certain it did - the Town Council would have instigated some other entity to obstruct the will of BH voters.
It might be helpful to also look at the differences between regulating cruise ships by contract rather than by the LUO. Contracts put the cruise ships on an equal basis with the town and allows it to sue for money damages if it claims the town breached the contract.
I am sure Val Peacock and her council members are reading this Quietside post and will get the flyer.
They should be ashamed of their lack of respect for the wishes of their residents who elected them. Hopefully they will not be reelected and Bar Harbor and MDI can be saved from the overcrowding and pollution from massive cruise ships and their passengers. The public will decide their fate.
Thanks to who wrote that flyer which was beautiful.
If anyone believes that the Key West experience of state government preempting local authority over cruise ships is too far-fetched to happen here in Maine, they should remember that Ocean Properties partners' have included former U.S. Senate majority leader George Mitchell and Bob Baldacci, the brother of former governor John Baldacci, and of current State Senator from Bangor Joe Baldacci.
One hopes that none of these connections would influence state policy, but as the following article notes, it’s up to the public and the media to keep their existence in the open, just to be sure.
http://www.workingwaterfrontarchives.org/2007/08/01/maines-ruling-family/
Cruise ships are wanton polluters at the worst possible time in human history and one thousand is one thousand too many. But a civics lesson is in order. The U.S.A. is a republic, a limited democracy where we elect fellow citizens to do what's best for us. Tricky to say the least. The popular vote is not always the final answer otherwise Gore and Hillary, (Tilden too) would have been president. What the council did was well within the framework of our republic and to say this council’s action has no place in governing, is a serious error in fact ergo they are league with the cruise industry raises emotions to a fever pitch. There’s a hateful name for that I’ll not mention because good people wholeheartedly support deep sixing these belching monstrosities. Meanwhile, rejecting Article 4 sends us back to court where there’s no guarantee Judge Walker’s decision will be upheld. In court only three things are possible, you win, or you lose and justice stands on the sidelines saying let me in but too often doesn’t get to play. We can’t take the risk of losing round two. Under normal circumstances municipalities avoid being defendants, almost always a losing outcome, thanks to Charlie Sidman we won and assuming we keep on winning it’s a drain on Bar Harbor taxpayers many of whom are cash strapped by this year’s 15% increase that’s the new benchmark and many are forced to sell turning a blessing into curse. What we won was the right to implement a one thousand limit that’s not as straight forward as just a number and sure to find aggrieved parties challenge how its administered. Staying out of court is not to be dismissed. The best approach is to harness the anger and work with the council. They know how we feel and several feel the same way. A community committee to counter APPLL’s efforts is a lot more work than taking pot shots that ultimately may see us regret what we wished for.
Diverse or not who are the sponsors? The issues go much deeper than one or two lines.
Thank you for highlighting that BH citizens are working hard to preserve what the majority of residents and the Island and global community who have suffered from the excesses of Big Cruise want…sensible caps on the number of cruise ship passengers in their respective harbors and towns. The citizen produced flyer spells it out clearly and accurately about the imperative need to vote NO on Article 4. The stakes for BH voters are much larger than just maintaining the 1,000 pax cap.
As many residents at the so called public meetings pointed out, it is about preserving American democracy for all our citizens. The Town Manager ‘s and Town Council’ s collaboration with Ocean Properties, APPLL, and Big Cruise has resulted in this slap in the face to the voters of Bar Harbor known as Chapter 50/ Article 4. If Article 4 wins, Ocean, APPLL, and Big Cruise will not only continue to flood and pollute Bar Harbor and its neighbors, but they will have effectively banned ,legally, the citizens of Bar Harbor from voting on passenger caps directly or having legally protected ways of voicing their concerns to their so called Town government. This is not American democracy, so vote NO on Article 4.
Thank you for highlighting that BH citizens are working hard to preserve what the majority of residents and the Island and global community who have suffered from the excesses of Big Cruise want…sensible caps on the number of cruise ship passengers in their respective harbors and towns. The citizen produced flyer spells it out clearly and accurately about the imperative need to vote NO on Article 4. The stakes for BH voters are much larger than just maintaining the 1,000 pax cap.
As many residents at the so called public meetings pointed out, it is about preserving American democracy for all our citizens. The Town Manager ‘s and Town Council’ s collaboration with Ocean Properties, APPLL, and Big Cruise has resulted in this slap in the face to the voters of Bar Harbor known as Chapter 50/ Article 4. If Article 4 wins, Ocean, APPLL, and Big Cruise will not only continue to flood and pollute Bar Harbor and its neighbors, but they will have effectively banned ,legally, the citizens of Bar Harbor from voting on passenger caps directly or having legally protected ways of voicing their concerns to their so called Town government. This is not American democracy, so vote NO on Article 4.