Bar Harbor voters back tougher restrictions on cruise ships

[alfaeric]

28 minutes ago, RedIguana said:

Cruise, ferry, boat, paddleboard...all arrive by waterway to the Bar Harbor area, which is just chalk full of pavement not paid for by Bar Harbor, which just may go to a pretty famous National park. The problem is they want to restrict my access not even based on how I arrive, but how many others arrive via the same conveyance, with no regard to limiting access to others based upon their conveyance. How I arrive or how many others arrive with me should in no way restrict my rights as an American to freely travel all areas of the United States open to the general public, especially when it is a municipality trying to restrict those rights.

Now if they can find some way to actually restrict shipping, that is another story.

Must bother you even more that there are national parks out there that require reservations just to get into the park.  

 

But why can't a municipality do that?  I'm sure if they could limit the number of car passengers, they would but since the municipality controls the port, they have all the right to control what ships come and go from the port.   They can control shipping- it's their port.  They didn't build a shipping port there for a reason- and I'm sure they accept the high cost of some goods because it takes more effort to get there.

It's their home, they should be able to have *some* control over it.  They have rights, too- this isn't a one way street.

[bigeck]

3 minutes ago, nelblu said:

Did 4 of them and enjoyed them all.  Glad we did this itinerary.  When Royal replaced the Brilliance class with the Vision class, the balcony cabins pricing went thru the roof due to the lack of them.

I done it on Serenade in 2013. Sailed in at 2pm and out at 8.30pm just as it was getting dark.

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, Tree_skier said:

My hope for a replacement is Newport, RI.

 

I've never been to RI. It'll be great to check off another state on my list.

I did Newport, Portland and Bar Harbor on the same cruise. Newport and Portland are much larger than Bar Harbor. Newport was a better experience because there was only one ship and not overcrowded with cruise passengers. I was able to take the public bus to all the mansion locations and there is also a oceanfront walking trail. Bar Harbor was so overcrowded that getting a ticket for a tour into Arcadia was difficult.  Portland was having a festival which was nice and the lobster rolls were much cheaper than Bar Harbor. All in all a pretty nice itinerary. because the last port was two days in Bermuda. All the ports were positive experiences. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Charles4515

[RedIguana]

4 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

Must bother you even more that there are national parks out there that require reservations just to get into the park.  

Strict occupancy limits do not bother me, or reservations required. They are non-discriminatory, and have a valid purpose. 

A private run pier or dock by all means can restrict who they choose to do business with, assuming for a reason not covered under protected classes.

A government entity restricting access based upon how many others on on my means of transport is a different story. 

If it was a case of only so many people allowed in an area for safety, that would not be an issue, as how you arrived would not matter.

 

[Another_Critic]

5 minutes ago, RedIguana said:

Strict occupancy limits do not bother me, or reservations required. They are non-discriminatory, and have a valid purpose. 

 

They discriminate against the procrastinators.  😢

[mek]

40 minutes ago, RedIguana said:

 

Different country, different government structure. I cannot use the same statements for Bar Harbor as Venice, or any non-American port for that matter. It is the American municipalities that attempt to restrict tourists strictly by cruise ship conveyance vs overall numbers that slightly upsets me. I mean, as a native Floridian, I would have loved to have seen growth in Florida and The Keys shut down 40 years ago. But this is America, and citizens do have the right of travel and residency.

Oh please - not much different than other areas in the US, like Mackinac Island, that have restrictions.

[RedIguana]

22 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

It's their home, they should be able to have *some* control over it.  They have rights, too- this isn't a one way street.

I am not saying anyone has a right to their homes, just public areas. Public areas are not their home. I have lived through many special events that create traffic gridlock. Although it is a pretty good inconvenience, as an American I have to defend other Americans right of free travel.

[mek]

2 minutes ago, RedIguana said:

I am not saying anyone has a right to their homes, just public areas. Public areas are not their home. I have lived through many special events that create traffic gridlock. Although it is a pretty good inconvenience, as an American I have to defend other Americans right of free travel.

Seriously this is totally ridiculous - nobody is being prevented to travel to Bar Harbor.  They are not banning  Americans or anyone else from visiting.

[Mikew0805]

16 minutes ago, mek said:

Seriously this is totally ridiculous - nobody is being prevented to travel to Bar Harbor.  They are not banning  Americans or anyone else from visiting.

Isn't it amazing that so many Americans believe that their rights (real or percieved) can interfere with the rights of others. Mind blowing. The freedom we have to travel this country, across states lines does not mean we are not required to follow the laws of the jurisdiction(s) we are traveling to or through. Of course they can limit cruise ships, and in no way does that interfere with the rights of American's to travel this country. There is no right that says you must be allowed to arrive across state lines by plane, ship, automobile, bicycle, of any size or shape. Freedom is not a blank check. Too funny.

 

They should file a Constitutional Tort, and get back to us on the outcome of that. 

[jean87510]

5 minutes ago, Mikew0805 said:

Isn't it amazing that so many Americans believe that their rights (real or percieved) can interfere with the rights of others. Mind blowing. The freedom we have to travel this country, across states lines does not mean we are not required to follow the laws of the jurisdiction(s) we are traveling to or through. Of course they can limit cruise ships, and in no way does that interfere with the rights of American's to travel this country. There is no right that says you must be allowed to arrive across state lines by plane, ship, automobile, bicycle, of any size or shape. Freedom is not a blank check. Too funny.

 

They should file a Constitutional Tort, and get back to us on the outcome of that. 

Actually most of us Americans have other areas of the country that are far more majestic and beautiful than Bar Harbor.  And we have the ability to take a land vacation there to enjoy it more than a 6 hour cruise port stop.  The people that may be disappointed are non americans who may not have the ability and ease to travel to Bar Harbor or compromised individuals whose only means of travel is a cruise ship.  I personally would rather travel by land to Maine and enjoy the scenery at my leisure  rather than try to encompass it in a short time period.  It is how I felt about Alaska as well.  And if you want a good example of how us terrible Americans behaved in the past, consider the border being closed in the Skagway excursions back in May and June where the train which was the most popular excursion was unable to go to the farther spots.  Did the Americans carry on?  No.  On my cruise and others, we chose different excursions.  Yes we were disappointed but it was out of our control. 

[fenton04]

3 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

A possible natural disaster, like the pandemic should be built into business plans. Companies in other busness built up reserves to weather the crisis. 

I considered the great toilet paper shortage a disaster that no one can plan for.  

[John Reid]

1 hour ago, RedIguana said:

I am not saying anyone has a right to their homes, just public areas. Public areas are not their home. I have lived through many special events that create traffic gridlock. Although it is a pretty good inconvenience, as an American I have to defend other Americans right of free travel.

Tell me where you located this right to travel. In the Bill of Rights to Travel?

It's their town. What about their rights?

Soon as someone says "I'm an American," I assume I'm in for a load.

[alfaeric]

2 hours ago, RedIguana said:

I am not saying anyone has a right to their homes, just public areas. Public areas are not their home. I have lived through many special events that create traffic gridlock. Although it is a pretty good inconvenience, as an American I have to defend other Americans right of free travel.

As much as you don't think so, they do have control over other traffic.  If the city cut the number of hotel rooms available in half, it would also cut the road traffic.  Let alone there are controls of the number of cars based on the road widths and traffic control.

 

Controlling number of hotel rooms is close enough to controlling the number of passenger ships in port to me.

 

And I really don't see a constant summer of people flooding the town the same as the handful of items that are in Daytona each year.  IIRC, there have been some attempts to reign in spring breakers.  But if you don't have an issue with that, awesome.  Don't get angry at people who DO, though. 

 

BTW, which Amendment gives you the right to free travel?  Must have missed that one in civics class.

[DaKahuna]

I do not understand the debate here.  The citizens of this town has decided they do not want an uncontrolled, by them, number of tourist from cruise ships in their town.   Obviously they are willing to forego any business/revenue that the cruise ship passengers would bring.  There is nothing to debate.  

 

They have made their decision.  That's what they want and the way our laws work, that is what they shall get.  Decision made.  Live with it.  If you want to go to Bar Harbor, take something other than a cruise ship.  If you take a New England cruise, accept the fact that you will not be stopping in Bar Harbor. 

 

 

[torpeedo]

I read the below and I don't see a limitation of 1,000 per day exactly, it's a monthly limit.  It says they've reached an agreement with the cruise industry.   I'm sure there will be some kind of thing worked out with the cruise lines schedules but it appears 2023 is grandfathered in during the big months of Sept and Oct. Going forward there will probably less visits.  None in April or November except next year. 

 

The town council of Bar Harbor, Maine, on Tuesday officially approved an agreement with the cruise industry that places caps on cruiser arrivals during the tourist season of between 30,000 and 65,000 a month starting in 2023.

The agreement also bans cruise ship arrivals during the shoulder-season tourism months of April and November.

“We have had a clear message from the public that they want cruise ships decreased,” Bar Harbor town council member Erin Cough said Tuesday in advance of a five-to-two vote to sign off on the agreement. “At this point, we've been asked by our community to do something, and this is our best effort at doing something that is reasonable, and we should go for it."

For more cruise news, guides and tips, sign up for TPG's cruise newsletter

The vote took place during a televised town council meeting after a rigorous debate over whether the town council should first hold a public hearing on the specifics of the agreement. The council decided not to hold a public hearing before approving the agreement but voted to hold a question-and-answer session with the public in October to explain the agreement.

The agreement limits cruiser arrivals to 30,000 per month in May and June; 40,000 per month in July and August; and 65,000 per month in September and October. Those are the six months when cruise ships have traditionally visited Bar Harbor.

During the discussion, Bar Harbor city manager Kevin Sutherland noted the capacity of cruise ships currently booked to visit Bar Harbor in both September and October of 2023 already exceeds the new limits.

Sutherland said the excess ship arrivals would be allowed in 2023 because they were booked before the agreement was approved. However, he said the city had already begun telling cruise lines that moving forward it wouldn't take any new docking reservations for ship arrivals during those months.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by torpeedo

[pcur]

I thought Key West's solution was more reasonable:  I think they actually looked at ship capacity and decided on 1,500 passengers, knowing that RCCL's smaller ships would still stop.  In Bar Harbor's case, they might have snipped of their nose to spite their face.  The merchants may have issues with all the lost business.

 

I think some of the suggestions in this thread are good for substitute ports.

[Another_Critic]

24 minutes ago, pcur said:

I thought Key West's solution was more reasonable:  I think they actually looked at ship capacity and decided on 1,500 passengers, knowing that RCCL's smaller ships would still stop. 

RCI's smallest ship is Grandeur with a 1,992 (double berth) passenger capacity.  And Empress was over 1,500.

 

Is the KW 1,500 limit for passengers only or passengers + crew? 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Another_Critic

[pcur]

8 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

RCI's smallest ship is Grandeur with a 1,992 (double berth) passenger capacity.

 

Is the KW 1,500 limit for passengers only or passengers + crew? 

 

It's supposed to be passengers, but there's ongoing litigation, so cruise ships are still going there. RCCL has several ships stopping there.

 

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/cruise-to/key-west-florida?&country=USA

 

[time4u2go]

1 hour ago, DaKahuna said:

I do not understand the debate here.  The citizens of this town has decided they do not want an uncontrolled, by them, number of tourist from cruise ships in their town.   Obviously they are willing to forego any business/revenue that the cruise ship passengers would bring.  There is nothing to debate.  

 

They have made their decision.  That's what they want and the way our laws work, that is what they shall get.  Decision made.  Live with it.  If you want to go to Bar Harbor, take something other than a cruise ship.  If you take a New England cruise, accept the fact that you will not be stopping in Bar Harbor. 

 

 

Exactly!  Let the people of a city decide what's best for themselves, and not be controlled by external forces/desires.

[pcur]

1 minute ago, time4u2go said:

Exactly!  Let the people of a city decide what's best for themselves, and not be controlled by external forces/desires.

I agree in sprit. 

 

However, there are a large number of businesses (as in Key West) that suffer with the loss of passenger purchases.  The 60% voting majority, I'm guessing, is local residents.  If you asked the businesses I think they have a different opinion.  If those businesses have to close up for lack of customers due to decreased cruise passengers, then the local resident customers lose, also.

 

Double-edged sword.

[flamingos]

6 hours ago, Another_Critic said:

Had a tender stop at Qaqortoq, Greenland.

 

Town population = ~3000

Voyager of the Seas population = ~3000 (passengers and crew for the sailing) 

And they have a dozen or so cruise ships a year?  Not one almost every day, sometimes 2, for months.

[Another_Critic]

3 minutes ago, flamingos said:

And they have a dozen or so cruise ships a year?  Not one almost every day, sometimes 2, for months.

They didn't seem to have any tourism infrastructure, but they did have at least 3 grocery stores.  😄

[fenton04]

My question if companies had natural disaster plan why did (Washington post oct.5th 2020) the government need a 6 trillion dollar bailout.  It still did not revive the economy.  On a up note the toilet paper shortage was solved and not a minute too soon!

Edited November 10, 2022 by fenton04
Spelling

[Keksie]

4 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

I did Newport, Portland and Bar Harbor on the same cruise. Newport and Portland are much larger than Bar Harbor. Newport was a better experience because there was only one ship and not overcrowded with cruise passengers. I was able to take the public bus to all the mansion locations and there is also a oceanfront walking trail. Bar Harbor was so overcrowded that getting a ticket for a tour into Arcadia was difficult.  Portland was having a festival which was nice and the lobster rolls were much cheaper than Bar Harbor. All in all a pretty nice itinerary. because the last port was two days in Bermuda. All the ports were positive experiences. 

I am very surprised that you gave such a "greedy corporation" your money.  I would think with the way you feel about the cruise industry you would vote with your wallet and take a different type of vacation.

[flamingos]

38 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

They didn't seem to have any tourism infrastructure, but they did have at least 3 grocery stores.  😄

We had a great time walking around, but the few restaurants they had were full of ship's tasting tours for the first 3 hours.  We got snacks and tea/coffee from the high school kids who set up a booth.  Who doesn't want to support a bunch of industrious kids who got to skip school to practice their English on us?   But the grocery stores were great, and I wish I had known we could have taken our passports to the Post Office to get stamped from Greenland!