Letter From a Reader.
Charles Sidman.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY
We always welcome letter submissions to The Bar Harbor Story.
For details on our policy, please visit our about page and scroll down or just visit here.
As with all newspapers, the beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints expressed by the writers of letters to the editor and included here do not necessarily reflect the beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints or official policies of The Bar Harbor Story.
Similarly, we do not fact check those beliefs, opinions, or viewpoints that are espoused in letters to the editor.
We do not have an exclusive submission policy. That just means if your letter is published here, it is fine by us if it’s also published in other places and vice versa. We will print letters related to local elections only up to one week prior to that election.
All the past letters to the editor can be found on the Substack site here.
This Year’s Local Election
I write to Bar Harbor neighbors to summarize my views about current issues in our town, and how these might affect their choices in the upcoming Town Council election. I see, and have been actively engaged in, the following major issues currently on our table.
First is the long-running saga of cruise ship limitations, that recently received an unexpected bump in the road with Federal District Court Chief Judge Walker’s abrupt about-face at the direction of the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Numerous avenues exist to continue our struggle for town independence and self-direction, but the present Council’s pusillanimous recent statement strongly hinted that they may not vigorously defend our citizens’ several votes for deeper limitation and more direct control than councilors have historically favored. If the town does not join me (defendant intervenor) in further legal action in this case, one avenue of recourse will get more difficult, ultimate expenses higher and time for final resolution (and thus uncertainty for everyone) longer. The recent position statement was made in all councilors’ names and authority, and cannot be disavowed by them.
Second, the Town has now hired a second law firm (Verrill Dana of Portland, in addition to Rudman Winchell locally) in its opposition to our Public Utilities Commission complaint against the new water rates, that still lead to a private citizen’s flushing of his or her toilet costing half again as much as that of a hotel in town. In other words, our town government, assisted by all but one (David Kief) of the present councilors, still considers it “fair and equitable” for residents to subsidize and support the bottom lines of commercial and other large water users. The expense, and sheer arrogance, of this ongoing stance might concern resident voters.
Third, the Town has attempted “lawfare” (disputing “legal standing” rather than dealing with the merits) to avoid my Board of Appeals complaint for their not following the established Land Use Ordinance (LUO), by tendering cruise passengers to the Town (Ells) Pier in the same improper district as Golden Anchor’s similar activity. Maine’s District Court affirmed my standing to have this issue examined, and the case continues with unnecessary cost and uncertainty to citizens. It is especially galling that the Town has had two years to resolve this matter simply by asking citizens to amend the relevant LUO, but has taken the position that it needs not listen to its residents or follow the same rules that everyone else lives by.
Fourth, this year’s uncharacteristically limited budget and tax increase was partially produced by raiding reserves, that will ultimately have to be rebuilt, to avoid even higher immediate taxes. The present council simply cannot say “no” to requested expenses, a pattern that continues to make our town ever more unaffordable for anyone other than the wealthy, commercial or non-profit.
And I don’t even get into the much-discussed fundamental housing crisis in our town, that councilors regularly bemoan but have not the slightest concept of how to address. With my background in entrepreneurship, innovation, and finance, I do have pertinent ideas.
In summary, this year we are fortunate to have seven candidates for three open town council seats. Two are incumbents (Caines and Kief), who must be held fully or largely responsible for the above, that I frankly regard as misbehavior, dereliction of duty and lack of judgement. Two others are newbies (Sidman and Young) who have extensive records of activity in and knowledge of our town, and made the effort to respond to all requests for their views in the election run-up (while others did not.) Finally, there are three new faces (Lambert, Saltysiak, and Vickers), honorable citizens all, who have no record of involvement in town affairs or expressed ideas of how to practically move forward. I will go out on a limb and suggest that electing Sidman, Young, and Kief has the greatest chance of producing a town council that can move ahead productively for our citizens. As always, however, the voters will decide.
Charles Sidman
Bar Harbor
This letter serves as a great guide of who not to vote for on election day.