Letters submitted by BDN readers are verified by BDN Opinion Page staff. Send your letters to letters@bangordailynews.com
The recent federal trial of APPLL v. Bar Harbor, concerning a new ordinance reducing cruise ship visitation, ended with several subpoenaed witnesses not called to testify. We were disappointed, hoping to show the judge a different side of Bar Harbor — neither business owners suing for continued cruise ships, nor town staff diligently managing their impact.
I wanted to answer opposing counsel’s repeated question about Bar Harbor being a tourist town with a no, because it’s not all or even essentially what we are. We’re also a college and science town, a fishing and arts community, among many things. We may be struggling with the tsunami of “tourist town” pressures, but we still have the spine (and numbers) to vote against resignation. We want to grow and protect our year-round life.
I wanted to argue for scale. With a population barely over 5,000 and wide open to the millions who drive or fly here, we can’t also reasonably welcome as many cruise passengers as our population in daily disembarkations. The new limit ( 1,000 per day) is still, proportionately, generous.
The judge heard from a few residents that they avoid downtown because of crowds. I would have added that we aren’t alone in avoiding Bar Harbor. Friends from across the island and beyond now avoid our town. We’re being displaced and isolated by one of the most polluting forms of travel, sailing under foreign flags. That’s why, while so much of the world burns, we voted for change. We hope the law supports us.
Cara Ryan
Bar Harbor