Key West Voter Referendum to Limit Daily Passengers and Ship Size

[Cienfuegos]

My wife and I have visited Key West several times.  It's a nice long weekend trip from the Treasure Coast.

 

Many innkeepers, restaurant owners, etc are very opposed to the tsunami of cruise ship passengers.  Flooding the streets, buying a $19 T shirt and a $15 Margarita, then going back on the boat.   It's amazing after the ships depart how much less frenetic the streets are. The usual drunks, slobbering party goers, etc are around, but that's part of the charm.

 

The dive shop community and many people linked to that business are very opposed to the large ships. Even at low speeds, the belief is they damage the sea bottom, increase turbidity in the water, wreck the beaches, etc.  Same arguments that are made in Venice,  and much of the world.

 

It's likely the Florida legislature will step in and "clarify" what the voters really meant. They did something similar  after the state's voters passed a resolution restoring voting rights to felons who had completed their sentences. It seems what the voters really meant was "and paid all restitution, fees, fines, and penalties" before they could vote again.  Not the plain language of the amendment.

[Hlitner]

3 hours ago, BNBR said:

 

I tend to find these arguments from the locals kind of ridiculous.  Ever been to Key West on a busy evening?  The streets are FLOODED with drunk, obnoxious tourists.  Multiples more condensed, busy, and obnoxious than even the busiest cruise day.  The island has virtually nothing other than tourism.  The only people on the streets are generally tourists.  It's not a quiet, quaint, town.  It's a fairly loud party town.  So cutting off a ton of tourism seems short-sighted to me in the name of "preserving our quaintness".

 

As a land tourist, I guess I don't mind less crowds during the day, in my own selfish way....  But this does seem kind of silly for the island to vote for it.  A bunch of selfish jackasses who aren't directly reliant on the cruise tourism, screwing their neighbors out of jobs.

WOW!  I guess you would likely apply those same thoughts to places like the New Orleans French Quarter, many parts of Paris, parts of NYC, etc.  Each to their own.  But this senior looks forward to soon being back in KW and joining the other "drunk, obnoxious tourists" in enjoying the restaurants, bars, strolling along the streets, etc.  In my adventurous travel world I view fun loving folks (in the streets) as part of the fun, charm and atmosphere.  To those who prefer to quietly walk in cemeteries there are certainly plenty of options all over the world.

 

Hank

[keywester33]

6 hours ago, BNBR said:

 

I tend to find these arguments from the locals kind of ridiculous.  Ever been to Key West on a busy evening?  The streets are FLOODED with drunk, obnoxious tourists.  Multiples more condensed, busy, and obnoxious than even the busiest cruise day.  The island has virtually nothing other than tourism.  The only people on the streets are generally tourists.  It's not a quiet, quaint, town.  It's a fairly loud party town.  So cutting off a ton of tourism seems short-sighted to me in the name of "preserving our quaintness".

 

As a land tourist, I guess I don't mind less crowds during the day, in my own selfish way....  But this does seem kind of silly for the island to vote for it.  A bunch of selfish jackasses who aren't directly reliant on the cruise tourism, screwing their neighbors out of jobs.

you are choosing to stereotype an entire island by a few blocks of Duval Street.  Most locals don’t even go there.  We are busy raising families, working and living our lives.  This referendum passed for many reasons.  Our nearshore water has never looked better since cruise lines shut down.  There was a strong environmental factor in the vote.  Many people here feel like we need to focus on the long stay visitors who represent the bulk of our tourism industry.  Many people avoid cruise ports, especially those as busy as Key West.  Cruise ships represent about 8 percent of our tourism economy and 50 percent of our visitors.  This statistic is accepted by both sides of the debate.  Cutting back on these visitors will reduce congestion, encourage fewer “cruise ship” oriented businesses, and the majority here believe it will improve out tourism industry and attractiveness to the people who make up 92 percent of our tourism business.  Sorry to say this, but you calling 60-80 percent of Key West residents who voted for these referendums  “selfish jackasses” really shows your lack of understanding of the vote, or our island.  P.S.  feel free to pick up a copy of our local paper.  There are dozen of jobs here and there hasn’t been a ship here in 8 months.  Business owners are struggling to find help. No one who wants to work here needs to be out of a job.

[BNBR]

14 hours ago, keywester33 said:

you are choosing to stereotype an entire island by a few blocks of Duval Street.  Most locals don’t even go there. 

 

Isn't that where the cruise passengers go?!!  Lol.  That was pretty much my entire point.  So I'm glad we agree.  Most locals don't even go there, but voted to screw shops and operators that rely on that tourism.

[BNBR]

17 hours ago, Hlitner said:

WOW!  I guess you would likely apply those same thoughts to places like the New Orleans French Quarter, many parts of Paris, parts of NYC, etc.  Each to their own.  But this senior looks forward to soon being back in KW and joining the other "drunk, obnoxious tourists" in enjoying the restaurants, bars, strolling along the streets, etc.  In my adventurous travel world I view fun loving folks (in the streets) as part of the fun, charm and atmosphere.  To those who prefer to quietly walk in cemeteries there are certainly plenty of options all over the world.

 

Hank

 

Wow, I didn't realize someone could completely misrepresent what I wrote to this extent.  Congrats.

[keywester33]

5 hours ago, BNBR said:

 

Isn't that where the cruise passengers go?!!  Lol.  That was pretty much my entire point.  So I'm glad we agree.  Most locals don't even go there, but voted to screw shops and operators that rely on that tourism.

you must have missed the part where I said 92 percent of our tourism revenue has nothing to do with cruise ships.  Yes, there are some businesses that took a hit from the lack of cruise ships, but most of that already happened due to Covid.  There hasn’t been a ship here in 8 months and I doubt we will see any before next year with or without a referendum. Key West runs at over 90 percent hotel occupancy practically year round.  We have some of the highest average room rates in Florida.  The island will be fine without large ships.  Thanks for your concern.

[BNBR]

1 hour ago, keywester33 said:

you must have missed the part where I said 92 percent of our tourism revenue has nothing to do with cruise ships.  Yes, there are some businesses that took a hit from the lack of cruise ships, but most of that already happened due to Covid.  There hasn’t been a ship here in 8 months and I doubt we will see any before next year with or without a referendum. Key West runs at over 90 percent hotel occupancy practically year round.  We have some of the highest average room rates in Florida.  The island will be fine without large ships.  Thanks for your concern.

 

 

The 92% number is irrelevant, and highly misleading.  Considering the high cost of lodging in Key West, it's safe to say a huge portion of that 92% is going to corporate owners and right off the island. Does it account for airfare as well?  But it's a cute number if you want to believe it and pretend it matters.  I would venture that restaurants and stores on Duval, the trolley's, Hemmingway house, tour/excursion operators, etc... they are certainly going to get hit with more than an 8% dip in revenue.

 

As I've said, fine with me.  Key West is a lousy cruise destination and we try and avoid cruises that go there.  In a selfish way, this benefits me.  But it's certainly unfair to quite a few people who will be negatively impacted because people like you, who brag about never even going downtown where the cruisers are, voted to ban a significant revenue source for them.

Edited November 11, 2020 by BNBR

[CT Sean]

21 hours ago, keywester33 said:

you must have missed the part where I said 92 percent of our tourism revenue has nothing to do with cruise ships.  Yes, there are some businesses that took a hit from the lack of cruise ships, but most of that already happened due to Covid.  There hasn’t been a ship here in 8 months and I doubt we will see any before next year with or without a referendum. Key West runs at over 90 percent hotel occupancy practically year round.  We have some of the highest average room rates in Florida.  The island will be fine without large ships.  Thanks for your concern.

Do you have a source for your statistics?  I could not the 92% of revenue and hotel occupancy is closer to mid 80s according to this (see page 6):

https://www.keywestchamber.org/wp-content/themes/divi-child/pdf/demographics_and_economy_update_2020.pdf

 

If the 92% stat is accurate, and we'll need to source to confirm that - that means 27% of visitors are only contributing 8% to revenue. If this is actually true, then it makes all the sense in the world to limit cruisers.

[BNBR]

1 hour ago, CT Sean said:

Do you have a source for your statistics?  I could not the 92% of revenue and hotel occupancy is closer to mid 80s according to this (see page 6):

https://www.keywestchamber.org/wp-content/themes/divi-child/pdf/demographics_and_economy_update_2020.pdf

 

If the 92% stat is accurate, and we'll need to source to confirm that - that means 27% of visitors are only contributing 8% to revenue. If this is actually true, then it makes all the sense in the world to limit cruisers.

 

 

Thanks for sharing.  A few interesting stats.

 

Cruise passengers make up well under half of the visitors to Key West.

 

Also, lodging makes up more than 50% of the tourism revenue.  Which really continues to point out how unbelievably misleading the "8% of revenue" number really is.  What would be relevant is what percentage of revenue do cruise passengers account for at the restaurants, bars, tours, etc.  How will the affect the aquarium?  How will it affect the Hemingway House?  Trolley operators?   Downtown retailers, parasailing tours, fishing tours, etc.

 

Saying cruises only contribute 8% is insanely misleading.  Heck, as you wrote, saying 27% of visitors only contribute 8% of revenue... factor in 50% of the revenue is lodging, and it makes that number a heck of a lot more interesting.  Just some mental math (PLEASE correct me if I'm way off)... but wouldn't this suggest that 27% of visitors (cruisers) contribute about 20% of non-lodging tourism revenue?  Considering they are not there breakfast/lunch/dinner.... this would actually suggest the cruisers spend more money per hour on the island than non-cruisers.  Plus, the cruisers are filling the streets in the daytime with tourist dollars while overnight visitors are often relaxing at the pool, beach, hotel, etc... since staying in Key West is largely about the nightlife anyways.

Edited November 12, 2020 by BNBR

[Hlitner]

I think the debate about tourism dollars is over!  The locals have spoken with a very clear voice.  The only remaining question is whether folks that live in a town should be allowed to have a say whether that town should be overrun with cruisers.   Ultimately, the courts (heaven help us all) and possibly State government will need to weigh in on the referendums (now part of the city Charter).   I would add that it is no surprise that there would be many on CC who think the voters where wrong or ill advised :). 

 

I do think that cruise lines and cruise passengers (or at least those that love cruising) need to look inward as to why there is this growing anti-cruise trend around the world.  Rather then making excuses or trying to rationalize behavior (i.e. voting) it makes more sense to deal with the issues that have created this negativism regarding cruise ships.   Personally, I think trying to force megaships onto small communities is a huge mistake that is now causing backlash.  Megaships should generally confine themselves to major ports and large cities that have the infrastructure to handle the vessels and crowds.  Nobody is talking about banning ships from places like Barcelona, Civitavecchia, NYC, Miami, etc.  But should 3000+ passengers ships be going into places like Newport, Bar Harbor, or even Catalina Island?   Just consider that a single cruise ship now carries more passengers then the entire population of Bar Harbor!  

 

As to the environmental referendum issue in KW, it is easy to understand the sentiment of the locals.  All they have to do is pick up the Miami Herald and read about the CCL problems with a local Federal Judge who has levied fines and restrictions (which apply to all CCL companies) for a long time pattern of environmental violations.  Folks can certainly argue about these violations, but the deeds speak for themselves and have made many environmentalists anti cruise ship.  And the damage down to the waterways, seabed, and nearby infrastructure by monster ships is worthy of more research.   This issue has been a major topic in Venice, Italy and the cruise industry lost the battle to convince folks that their vessels caused little or no damage.

 

Hank

 

Hank

[BNBR]

8 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I think the debate about tourism dollars is over!  The locals have spoken with a very clear voice.  The only remaining question is whether folks that live in a town should be allowed to have a say whether that town should be overrun with cruisers.   Ultimately, the courts (heaven help us all) and possibly State government will need to weigh in on the referendums (now part of the city Charter).   I would add that it is no surprise that there would be many on CC who think the voters where wrong or ill advised :). 

 

I do think that cruise lines and cruise passengers (or at least those that love cruising) need to look inward as to why there is this growing anti-cruise trend around the world.  Rather then making excuses or trying to rationalize behavior (i.e. voting) it makes more sense to deal with the issues that have created this negativism regarding cruise ships.   Personally, I think trying to force megaships onto small communities is a huge mistake that is now causing backlash.  Megaships should generally confine themselves to major ports and large cities that have the infrastructure to handle the vessels and crowds.  Nobody is talking about banning ships from places like Barcelona, Civitavecchia, NYC, Miami, etc.  But should 3000+ passengers ships be going into places like Newport, Bar Harbor, or even Catalina Island?   Just consider that a single cruise ship now carries more passengers then the entire population of Bar Harbor!  

 

As to the environmental referendum issue in KW, it is easy to understand the sentiment of the locals.  All they have to do is pick up the Miami Herald and read about the CCL problems with a local Federal Judge who has levied fines and restrictions (which apply to all CCL companies) for a long time pattern of environmental violations.  Folks can certainly argue about these violations, but the deeds speak for themselves and have made many environmentalists anti cruise ship.  And the damage down to the waterways, seabed, and nearby infrastructure by monster ships is worthy of more research.   This issue has been a major topic in Venice, Italy and the cruise industry lost the battle to convince folks that their vessels caused little or no damage.

 

Hank

 

Hank

 

 

Have you been in Key West, as an overnight visitor, when cruise ships are in town?  I think the issue is overstated, personally.  I mean, sure, I prefer less crowds, but it's not THAT bad during the day. It's kind of fun having a cocktail and watching the cruises leave, then enjoying the sunset celebration.

 

Heck, I've been to Key West dozens of times as a daytime visitor (not cruiser) when I had my plane. It was just a total non-issue. I never felt it was overrun or out of control.

 

The reality is that cruisers are not overrunning the town.  And that Key West is a town that is all about crowds and fun (at least downtown where the cruisers are), so they fit right in.

 

But whatever, voters spoke, and apparently the majority can act as tyrants towards the minority.  I feel bad for the businesses and workers who will suffer from this.

Edited November 13, 2020 by BNBR

[Hlitner]

3 minutes ago, BNBR said:

 

 

Have you been in Key West, as an overnight visitor, when cruise ships are in town?  I think the issue is overstated, personally.  I mean, sure, I prefer less crowds, but it's not THAT bad during the day.  Heck, it's kind of fun having a cocktail and watching the cruises leave, then enjoying the sunset celebration.

 

Heck, I've been to Key West dozens of times as a daytime visitor (not cruiser) when I had my plane. It was just a total non-issue. I never felt it was overrun or out of control.

 

The reality is that cruisers are not overrunning the town.  And that Key West is a town that is all about crowds and fun (at least downtown where the cruisers are), so they fit right in.

 

But whatever, voters spoke, and apparently the majority can act as tyrants towards the minority.  I feel bad for the businesses and workers who will suffer from this.

Tyrants?  Come on man!  The general public are "tyrants" for simply voting their wishes?  And yes, we have been to KW when there are ships and when there are no ships?  I prefer walking around the Mallory Square end of Duval Street when there are no ships in port, but that is simply my own preference.  

 

I will admit that all this anti-cruise talk is difficult for me to accept.  DW and I have spent far more then 1200 days on cruise ships (6 continents) and would have spent another 90+ days in 2020 except for Covid cancelations.  But even as a cruise lover (for over forty years) I accept that mega ships have left a trail of negative feelings at numerous ports.  I would never be so arrogant as to call the locals in ports "tyrants" because they want to be rid of these monster ships and their hoards.  

 

Hank

[Hlitner]

Just now, Hlitner said:

Tyrants?  Come on man!  The general public are "tyrants" for simply voting their wishes?  And yes, we have been to KW when there are ships and when there are no ships?  I prefer walking around the Mallory Square end of Duval Street when there are no ships in port, but that is simply my own preference.  

 

I will admit that all this anti-cruise talk is difficult for me to accept.  DW and I have spent far more then 1200 days on cruise ships (6 continents) and would have spent another 90+ days in 2020 except for Covid cancelations.  But even as a cruise lover (for over forty years) I accept that mega ships have left a trail of negative feelings at numerous ports.  I would never be so arrogant as to call the locals in ports "tyrants" because they want to be rid of these monster ships and their hoards.   

 

Hank

 

[BNBR]

4 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

 

 

Yes, absolutely tyrants.  I'm not a fan of majority rule.  I mean, just on this thread you can see a local proudly proclaiming how they never go downtown anyways... but heck, they sure voted to remove visitors from downtown.  We can just agree to not agree on that one 🙂

 

I do agree that some ports, in some cases, would be overwhelming - especially European ports.  But Key West, eh, I just don't see it. The cruisers are in the part of town that is HOPING for big crowds!  It's not like overrunning Santorini...  In fact, Mallory and Duval are busier AFTER the cruises leave...

 

Many places are being clobbered by tourists and it's not just the cruises...  To me, Key West isn't one of them.

Edited November 13, 2020 by BNBR

[CT Sean]

11 hours ago, BNBR said:

 

Yes, absolutely tyrants.  I'm not a fan of majority rule.

 Lot of that going round lately.  So who, in place of the majority, should "rule"?

[BNBR]

8 hours ago, CT Sean said:

 Lot of that going round lately.  So who, in place of the majority, should "rule"?

 

I'm betting these posts will get deleted for going too far off-topic, lol.  But we already have protections against majority rule.  For example, every State, regardless of population, has 2 senators.

 

Anyways, recognizing something isn't working right doesn't mean I have to have all the answers when it comes to fixing it.  But simply, there should be limits on what voters get to impose on others - and in MY opinion, this is an example of it.  It went too far.  If you started your dream business and it happened to rely heavily on cruise tourists in Key West, you may feel the majority are tyrants as well.  And that's not right.

[Silvery Seas Cruiser]

We've sailed into Key West many times and spent many happy times there when we drove to the Keys and stayed a few days. For us there are distinct advantages either way. I can see why residents of Key West might resent the cruise ships that tower over the piers and unload passengers by the thousands during the day time. But we will miss being on those ships if they really never can dock in Key West anymore.

But my understanding was the main issue was the environmental impact of the big ships, It has been said the water has cleared up beautifully since no cruise ships have arrived. Key West did allow a considerable number of impressive power boats to dock there this week end, Nov 11 to 15, even though the annual power boat races were canceled & replaced with a toned down Poker Run. 

While I do appreciate the environmental arguments, I do feel that the economic impact of this decision will have a great impact on many businesses in the Old Town area where more cruise ship passengers visit.  It may take quite a while to deal with the fallout, but Key Westers did get a preview of what will happen because of the lengthy COVID-19 lockdown. They knew how hard it was on businesses and employees, but chose to limit cruise ships anyway. 

 

[CT Sean]

On 11/13/2020 at 6:10 PM, BNBR said:

 

I'm betting these posts will get deleted for going too far off-topic, lol.  But we already have protections against majority rule.  For example, every State, regardless of population, has 2 senators.

 

Anyways, recognizing something isn't working right doesn't mean I have to have all the answers when it comes to fixing it.  But simply, there should be limits on what voters get to impose on others - and in MY opinion, this is an example of it.  It went too far.  If you started your dream business and it happened to rely heavily on cruise tourists in Key West, you may feel the majority are tyrants as well.  And that's not right.

The Senate is an example of why states need to have individual rights - which they do - because that is an example where "tyranny of the majority" can actually exist. That is a majority at a national level over-ruling a majority at a state level.

 

Individual residents directly voting on a referendum for their own town is at the most granular level available (and probably the most pure form of democracy there is). The only additional level would be to somehow limit the vote to residents who benefit from (or are harmed by) cruise traffic. I see is as wildly unfair to say "you get a vote because you personally profit from cruisers" and "you don't get a vote because your concerns over traffic from tour buses and scooter rentals are not valid"

 

[Hlitner]

6 minutes ago, CT Sean said:

The Senate is an example of why states need to have individual rights - which they do - because that is an example where "tyranny of the majority" can actually exist. That is a majority at a national level over-ruling a majority at a state level.

 

Individual residents directly voting on a referendum for their own town is at the most granular level available (and probably the most pure form of democracy there is). The only additional level would be to somehow limit the vote to residents who benefit from (or are harmed by) cruise traffic. I see is as wildly unfair to say "you get a vote because you personally profit from cruisers" and "you don't get a vote because your concerns over traffic from tour buses and scooter rentals are not valid"

 

Your constant use of the term "tyrannical" completely distorts the definition.  Tyranny via election (peoples choice) is not tyranny but simply the voice of the people   If you read the dictionary definition of tyranny it is generally used in terms of a tyrannical government or a tyrannical ruler.  Twisting definitions to fit one's agenda just ignores the meaning of the word you use.  It is like arguing that the sky is green because you decide to use the word green.  

 

Hank 

[Hlitner]

Just now, Hlitner said:

Your constant use of the term "tyrannical" completely distorts the definition.  Tyranny via election (peoples choice) is not tyranny but simply the voice of the people   If you read the dictionary definition of tyranny it is generally used in terms of a tyrannical government or a tyrannical ruler.  Twisting definitions to fit one's agenda just ignores the meaning of the word you use.  It is like arguing that the sky is green because you decide to use the word green.   Distorting definitions means you have no common language.  It is similar to all this talk about fascism when the word "fascism" has absolutely nothing to do with what folks are trying to say.  

 

Hank 

 

[CT Sean]

8 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Your constant use of the term "tyrannical" completely distorts the definition.  Tyranny via election (peoples choice) is not tyranny but simply the voice of the people   If you read the dictionary definition of tyranny it is generally used in terms of a tyrannical government or a tyrannical ruler.  Twisting definitions to fit one's agenda just ignores the meaning of the word you use.  It is like arguing that the sky is green because you decide to use the word green.  

 

Hank 

I feel like you should re-read what I wrote, and probably some of the other comments to understand why I wrote tyranny in quotes.  I've also used the word tyranny exactly once (excluding this comment) and it was in response to the person that actually claimed an election, at the most granular level of US government, is "tyranny of the majority".

[BNBR]

5 hours ago, CT Sean said:

The Senate is an example of why states need to have individual rights - which they do - because that is an example where "tyranny of the majority" can actually exist. That is a majority at a national level over-ruling a majority at a state level.

 

Individual residents directly voting on a referendum for their own town is at the most granular level available (and probably the most pure form of democracy there is). The only additional level would be to somehow limit the vote to residents who benefit from (or are harmed by) cruise traffic. I see is as wildly unfair to say "you get a vote because you personally profit from cruisers" and "you don't get a vote because your concerns over traffic from tour buses and scooter rentals are not valid"

 

 

If a majority of neighbors voted to bulldoze your house and provide you with no restitution for your life's work... would that just be "the most pure form of democracy there is"?  Or would you say there should be limits on what they can impose on you?  Just curious where the limit is on what the majority can vote for... or is there no limit?  It's just fine for you if the neighbors vote to destroy your business, livelihood, and your ability to feed yourself and take care of your family?  Super granular?  All good?!

 

Also, there is a reason why we are not a true democracy, and instead a representational democracy with strong constitutional protections.  Putting stuff like this to voters if often a recipe for disaster.  Remember California voters decided, overwhelmingly, to ban gay marriage and it took a court to overturn it?

Edited November 16, 2020 by BNBR

[PTC DAWG]

4 minutes ago, BNBR said:

 

If a majority of neighbors voted to bulldoze your house and provide you with no restitution for your life's work... would that just be "the most pure form of democracy there is"?  Or would you say there should be limits on what they can impose on you?  Just curious where the limit is on what the majority can vote for... or is there no limit?  It's just fine for you if the neighbors vote to destroy your business, livelihood, and your ability to feed yourself and take care of your family?  Super granular?  All good?!

Good point and thank goodness we aren’t a Democracy. 

[Silvery Seas Cruiser]

Doesn't the state of Florida have some say in this? Gov. DeSantis placed strict limitations on municipalities to impose restrictions on behavior such as COVID-19 mask mandates, curfews, closures of certain businesses, etc.  The state of Florida has other limitations on municipal powers reserving that certain rulings can be made only at the state level. I don't know if anyone in Tallahassee has weighed in on the cruise ship limitations approved in Key West.  I do wonder if the municipality of Key West does enjoy unrestricted ability to make such a broad policy.  

[Cienfuegos]

It's possible the legislature will step in and "clarify" the intent of the referendum.  They've taken that step as recently as last year.  The voters chose to restore the vote to felons who had completed their sentences. The legislature clarified that to mean that all fines and restitution had to be paid before voting rights could be considered.  In spite of the fact that some counties had no way to determine what, if any, fines and restitution remained.

 

If the city leaders and the powerful hospitality industry in Key West seek to overturn the referendum, I'd say the odds of the legislature becoming involved are pretty good.

 

The legislature resumes activity in March 2021, I believe.