Thank you Winston Shaw for your comments that highlight the hypocrisy of some of these BarHarbor business owners who imply they are living on saltine crackers so they can help Bar Harbor make sure Big Cruise can overwhelm and pollute our waters, downtown, and Park. It would be informative to know what houses and business they own (or have mortgaged), and the vehicles registered under their names or their corporate entities, including those out of state and country. This information might put their self pity in perspective. The woman I believe you may be referring to, once caught my attention with her comments at a public hearing: it struck me as odd comments that had no relation to the topic being discussed. She expressed some distress at having too big a house and too many children. At the time, I felt some compassion for someone who apparently was overwhelmed by life, and hoped her children were not aware of her comments. I wonder if town of Bar Harbor is at a similar place: a town of 5,000 that has taken on such a level of Uber tourism that it is just too much to reasonably deal with anymore, and desperate solutions are being promulgated without much thought to the future consequences.
You hit the nail on the head when you wrote "A palpable sense of entitlement"in relation to the attitude of far too many Bar Harbor businesses. One of my absolute favorite examples of this was the woman living in a house assessed at $1,237,700 dollars whose husband owns multiple Bar Harbor businesses (including a 44 room B&B) who claimed she was forced to illegally rent a room in her house weekly to "be able to afford to be a stay at home mom." Naturalist/novelist/activist Edward Abbey authored two quotes that fit modern day Bar Harbor to a T: 1) "We had a good thing in America (Bar Harbor) but got carried away, in a nation devoted to the proposition that too much is not enough..." and 2) "Growth for growth sake is the ideology of the cancer cell." Reading many of the comments made by local business people in defense of ever increasing cruise ship traffic it would be easy to assume that numerous bar harbor businesses are hanging by a thread when it comes to profits. Yet every time one turns around said businesses are building new buildings, expanding retail outlets and building themselves million dollar homes. To paraphrase Shakespeare, Me thinks the good businessmen of Bar Harbor protesteth too much!
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis of how the Bar Harbor electorate may respond to Warrant Article 4. I am hoping that the electorate will closely examine the full page ad paid for by APPLL in the October 17 issue of the MDIslander. Don’t worry, it won’t take long. …it is mostly white space, two large pictures of big cruise proponents , and a patronizing explanation of why every day residents of Bar Harbor must keep the members of APPLL , the mega cruise ship industry, and the bankers lending to some of these businesses afloat. There is absolutely no consideration that the majority of residents are fed up with the pollution , the congestion, the lack of voice before their so called Town Council, and the disenpowerment of the citizenry’s current legal power to vote directly on passenger caps if Article 4 passes.
In contrast, the recent flyer, Vote NO on Article 4, clearly points out the legal pitfalls , and how Article 4, if it passes, would give the legal and negotiating power primarily to the cruise lines and pier owners, and only a minimal role to the Town Council if they choose to even use it. The BH voter will be essentially cut out of any role in cruise ship disembarkation, pax caps, and permit requirements if Article 4 passes.
If you wantBH citizens to keep their legal right to vote directly on the size , influence, and power of Big Cruise in Bar Harbor, vote NO on Article 4.
Thank you Winston Shaw for your comments that highlight the hypocrisy of some of these BarHarbor business owners who imply they are living on saltine crackers so they can help Bar Harbor make sure Big Cruise can overwhelm and pollute our waters, downtown, and Park. It would be informative to know what houses and business they own (or have mortgaged), and the vehicles registered under their names or their corporate entities, including those out of state and country. This information might put their self pity in perspective. The woman I believe you may be referring to, once caught my attention with her comments at a public hearing: it struck me as odd comments that had no relation to the topic being discussed. She expressed some distress at having too big a house and too many children. At the time, I felt some compassion for someone who apparently was overwhelmed by life, and hoped her children were not aware of her comments. I wonder if town of Bar Harbor is at a similar place: a town of 5,000 that has taken on such a level of Uber tourism that it is just too much to reasonably deal with anymore, and desperate solutions are being promulgated without much thought to the future consequences.
You hit the nail on the head when you wrote "A palpable sense of entitlement"in relation to the attitude of far too many Bar Harbor businesses. One of my absolute favorite examples of this was the woman living in a house assessed at $1,237,700 dollars whose husband owns multiple Bar Harbor businesses (including a 44 room B&B) who claimed she was forced to illegally rent a room in her house weekly to "be able to afford to be a stay at home mom." Naturalist/novelist/activist Edward Abbey authored two quotes that fit modern day Bar Harbor to a T: 1) "We had a good thing in America (Bar Harbor) but got carried away, in a nation devoted to the proposition that too much is not enough..." and 2) "Growth for growth sake is the ideology of the cancer cell." Reading many of the comments made by local business people in defense of ever increasing cruise ship traffic it would be easy to assume that numerous bar harbor businesses are hanging by a thread when it comes to profits. Yet every time one turns around said businesses are building new buildings, expanding retail outlets and building themselves million dollar homes. To paraphrase Shakespeare, Me thinks the good businessmen of Bar Harbor protesteth too much!
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis of how the Bar Harbor electorate may respond to Warrant Article 4. I am hoping that the electorate will closely examine the full page ad paid for by APPLL in the October 17 issue of the MDIslander. Don’t worry, it won’t take long. …it is mostly white space, two large pictures of big cruise proponents , and a patronizing explanation of why every day residents of Bar Harbor must keep the members of APPLL , the mega cruise ship industry, and the bankers lending to some of these businesses afloat. There is absolutely no consideration that the majority of residents are fed up with the pollution , the congestion, the lack of voice before their so called Town Council, and the disenpowerment of the citizenry’s current legal power to vote directly on passenger caps if Article 4 passes.
In contrast, the recent flyer, Vote NO on Article 4, clearly points out the legal pitfalls , and how Article 4, if it passes, would give the legal and negotiating power primarily to the cruise lines and pier owners, and only a minimal role to the Town Council if they choose to even use it. The BH voter will be essentially cut out of any role in cruise ship disembarkation, pax caps, and permit requirements if Article 4 passes.
If you wantBH citizens to keep their legal right to vote directly on the size , influence, and power of Big Cruise in Bar Harbor, vote NO on Article 4.