There is only one reason for this unseemly haste -- the council desperately wants there never to be a cruise ship season with a 1,000 per day cap, so that the voters will never actually experience the impact on the BH quality of life the voters enacted (be that good, bad or indifferent) , and then, if the impact is found positive, come to expect and demand the 1,000 per day level of visitation as normal.
The proposed ordinance purports to surrender the town's future exercise of its regulatory authority (including by voters) to amend the ordinance or reduce the visitor cap for the five-year period of the anticipated contracts with the cruise lines or disembarkation facilities. There is a real question as to whether the current council has the legal authority to so bind a future council or the voters. And it leaves the legislation subject to challenge as an unlawful attempt to contract away the town's regulatory authority. So the more prudent course would be expressly to make such contracts subject to future amendments of the ordinance by the council or voters, so as to preserve the town's authority.
"ARTICLE VIII Amendments of this Chapter § 50-18. Amendments This Chapter may be amended consistent with other Town ordinances, except that any amendments inconsistent with a cruise line contract pursuant to Articles III and V or coordination contract pursuant to 50-15B then in force shall not apply to the parties to such contracts unless and until such contracts expire or are terminated in accordance with their terms."
I urge everyone to do a deep dive into Chapter 50 and the Contract, Don't get lost in the cap numbers, as there is a LOT more to this than just the cap. Including a release of claims ending current litigation. But the decision is up to the residents in November, If you still think the Citizens Initiative is the way to go, Vote no and that will remain the law of the land, If you think Chapter 50 is the better way to go, Vote Yes.
Wait let me understand. You get to come in here and trash people with no substantive argument, but they don't get to respond because that's "bad form"? So you're not capable of an adult debate? Is that what we're to understand here?
A waste of energy is us having to vote for another cruise ship cap because the counsel (or should I say their handlers) didn’t like how the last vote went. I mean, how else do we read that.
One can only hope. Sidman has really done a disservice to the taxpayers. To all TAXPAYERS of Bar Harbor, just look at your new tax bill and realize how mush this town has lost with the 1000 passenger cap.
The problem is the CONNIVANCE between Bar Harbor cruise ship profiteers and the Bar Harbor politicians who love them, which has cost Bar Harbor taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars - taken from funds needed for essential and emergency services.
The problem was long term unmitigated expansion of cruise ship disembarkations. Exacerbated by the BH Town Council ignoring residents' concerns and instead engaging in cruise ship 'boosterism.' This situation was so bad that a Citizens Initiative was necessary to bring disembarkations back into an economically and environmentally sustainable balance. The Town Council fought it all the way.
Once residents voted Yes on the initiative - it was the Town Council's job to enforce the law and bring cruise ship profiteers into compliance. Instead former Town Manager Kevin Sutherland and the Town Council connived with the profiteers to obstruct the law. The current manager and town council are perpetuating the problem.
That is correct, the decision on the keeping the citizens initiative, or chapter 50 is 100% up to the residents. (as is raising or lowering the caps under the contract) I would urge you to read chapter 50 and the contract before making up your mind, as there is a lot more to this than simply daily passenger cap.
See you keep saying this but everyone is supposed to just trust you. You have no argument, certainly no proof for the argument you don't have....just...your word. Why am I listening to you and not the guy forming actual arguments and citing actual documents?
Doesn't it in fact show that they're asking your opinion? General corruptness by definition would be the lack of a vote. So again, I'm confused. You guys are VERY confusing.
Going through the formality of 'a vote' does not necessarily indicate or guarantee a lack of corruption.
Especially as 'the vote' proposed by the Town Council does not seem to be commensurate with the original vote on the Citizens Initiative. Which involved collecting signatures to get it on the ballot. The initial vote allowed for early voting and a full day of voting on Election Day. A recent town proposal was to vote at a town meeting. The more recent proposal moved on from that, but is not exactly clear on what voting protocol the manager intends.
Nothing on this planet guarantees a "lack of corruption". But you're not understanding that it's your claim? So the burden of proof is on you, not Mr. Hochman. It is not part of his job (or any elected official's job) to give endless attention to your conspiracy theories.
A town proposal is not a threat. It's a proposal. Stand up at the meeting and say you don't like the proposal. Pretend to be an actual citizen instead of the local Karen. Better still ask your local officials what their plan is for voting. Have you even done that? I've see Mr. Hochman answer questions in this very thread. What I've not seen is you ask any. Just wild assumptions all over the place.
Certainly you have a right to clarification. But ask for it! Don't just call people corrupt because you didn't ask any questions. That's absurd.
There is only one reason for this unseemly haste -- the council desperately wants there never to be a cruise ship season with a 1,000 per day cap, so that the voters will never actually experience the impact on the BH quality of life the voters enacted (be that good, bad or indifferent) , and then, if the impact is found positive, come to expect and demand the 1,000 per day level of visitation as normal.
ThankYou. Well said.
The proposed ordinance purports to surrender the town's future exercise of its regulatory authority (including by voters) to amend the ordinance or reduce the visitor cap for the five-year period of the anticipated contracts with the cruise lines or disembarkation facilities. There is a real question as to whether the current council has the legal authority to so bind a future council or the voters. And it leaves the legislation subject to challenge as an unlawful attempt to contract away the town's regulatory authority. So the more prudent course would be expressly to make such contracts subject to future amendments of the ordinance by the council or voters, so as to preserve the town's authority.
"ARTICLE VIII Amendments of this Chapter § 50-18. Amendments This Chapter may be amended consistent with other Town ordinances, except that any amendments inconsistent with a cruise line contract pursuant to Articles III and V or coordination contract pursuant to 50-15B then in force shall not apply to the parties to such contracts unless and until such contracts expire or are terminated in accordance with their terms."
Can you please send this comment via email to council@barharbormaine.gov
Done
I urge everyone to do a deep dive into Chapter 50 and the Contract, Don't get lost in the cap numbers, as there is a LOT more to this than just the cap. Including a release of claims ending current litigation. But the decision is up to the residents in November, If you still think the Citizens Initiative is the way to go, Vote no and that will remain the law of the land, If you think Chapter 50 is the better way to go, Vote Yes.
Matthew Hochman, Zero Credibility.
And you can quote me on that.
Yes. Instead we have a Town Council which is a mash-up of Mean Girls and MAGA.
Wrong on all that from first to last. Factually wrong and bad form for a town official. Par for the course and proves my point.
Wait let me understand. You get to come in here and trash people with no substantive argument, but they don't get to respond because that's "bad form"? So you're not capable of an adult debate? Is that what we're to understand here?
A waste of energy is us having to vote for another cruise ship cap because the counsel (or should I say their handlers) didn’t like how the last vote went. I mean, how else do we read that.
One can only hope. Sidman has really done a disservice to the taxpayers. To all TAXPAYERS of Bar Harbor, just look at your new tax bill and realize how mush this town has lost with the 1000 passenger cap.
Lol
The problem is the CONNIVANCE between Bar Harbor cruise ship profiteers and the Bar Harbor politicians who love them, which has cost Bar Harbor taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars - taken from funds needed for essential and emergency services.
The problem was long term unmitigated expansion of cruise ship disembarkations. Exacerbated by the BH Town Council ignoring residents' concerns and instead engaging in cruise ship 'boosterism.' This situation was so bad that a Citizens Initiative was necessary to bring disembarkations back into an economically and environmentally sustainable balance. The Town Council fought it all the way.
Once residents voted Yes on the initiative - it was the Town Council's job to enforce the law and bring cruise ship profiteers into compliance. Instead former Town Manager Kevin Sutherland and the Town Council connived with the profiteers to obstruct the law. The current manager and town council are perpetuating the problem.
So am I correct to assume voting no on this will maintain the 1000/day cap?
That is correct, the decision on the keeping the citizens initiative, or chapter 50 is 100% up to the residents. (as is raising or lowering the caps under the contract) I would urge you to read chapter 50 and the contract before making up your mind, as there is a lot more to this than simply daily passenger cap.
Nope. Voting no. You are giving the cruise ship industry a gift. The counsel as failed the citizens
Do not trust anything Hochman says. Check other sources to figure it out.
See you keep saying this but everyone is supposed to just trust you. You have no argument, certainly no proof for the argument you don't have....just...your word. Why am I listening to you and not the guy forming actual arguments and citing actual documents?
The fact you are making us vote again on this also shows the general corruptness of the board.
I guess when Appll members open their coffers to “help” non profits in town we need to be more willing to help them back
Doesn't it in fact show that they're asking your opinion? General corruptness by definition would be the lack of a vote. So again, I'm confused. You guys are VERY confusing.
Going through the formality of 'a vote' does not necessarily indicate or guarantee a lack of corruption.
Especially as 'the vote' proposed by the Town Council does not seem to be commensurate with the original vote on the Citizens Initiative. Which involved collecting signatures to get it on the ballot. The initial vote allowed for early voting and a full day of voting on Election Day. A recent town proposal was to vote at a town meeting. The more recent proposal moved on from that, but is not exactly clear on what voting protocol the manager intends.
Nothing on this planet guarantees a "lack of corruption". But you're not understanding that it's your claim? So the burden of proof is on you, not Mr. Hochman. It is not part of his job (or any elected official's job) to give endless attention to your conspiracy theories.
A town proposal is not a threat. It's a proposal. Stand up at the meeting and say you don't like the proposal. Pretend to be an actual citizen instead of the local Karen. Better still ask your local officials what their plan is for voting. Have you even done that? I've see Mr. Hochman answer questions in this very thread. What I've not seen is you ask any. Just wild assumptions all over the place.
Certainly you have a right to clarification. But ask for it! Don't just call people corrupt because you didn't ask any questions. That's absurd.