Bar Harbor rejects Cruise Ships

[Hlitner]

Am posting this here for lack of a better place, but another small, charming port, has voted (in a big way) to ban large cruise ships and their passengers.  Yesterday, the voters of Bar Harbor, Maine voted to ban more than 1000 cruise ship passengers per day.  I would imagine that when RCI starting bringing over 5000 passengers to that charming town, the locals simply threw up their hands and said ENOUGH!   This is similar to the attitude we have seen in places like Key West, Charleston, Venice, Italy, etc.  

 

Hank

[slidergirl]

Good for them!!!   

 

rant on

Living in a resort town that doesn't have cruise ships but a ski season and a world-famous film festival, it doesn't take a whole lot for the locals to get fed up with way too many tourists. Too many tourists change a little town - once charming, it becomes a Main Street of cheesy souvenir and Tshirt shops and restaurants that the locals can't afford.  The restaurant problem isn't a cruise town issue (cruisers don't want to eat onshore since they have their meals"paid for" on the ship).  Mom & Pop shops close and cute little chain souvenir/jewelry shops take their place.  How many Diamonds International does the world need?  

 

rant off

[donaldsc]

Great!!  Hope that this policy spreads as we usually cruise on small cruise ships.

 

DON

[Mary229]

The massive numbers have been devastating for the National Park.
 

 1000 people is not enough to support an industry and likely not enough to support the personnel for the cruise ship logistics such as the U.S. customs service.  Some of the experts can clue me in on other services ships need in a tender port.  Unless modified I assume their tourist industry will likely collapse to a very modest level that will drive many merchants out of business.  Whether that is good or bad is a decision only the locals can make 

So we will see what happens.  

[whogo]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Yesterday, the voters of Bar Harbor, Maine voted to ban more than 1000 cruise ship passengers per day. 

Good for them. Main Street was tourism hell during our recent visit on Zaandam. I can't imagine what a megaship would do to the place, 1400 passenger Zaandam was the only ship in port.  Bar Harbor will be a more pleasant town for tourists and residents alike. I can not feel sorry for the tourist tat industry. 

 

I do not think it was cruise passengers who jammed popular Acadia National Park, lots of cars, it was hard to find a parking spot.

[slidergirl]

How a town is going to have enough people  and busses/minibusses to transport 6,000 people around town and on excursions  can be tough.  I know in Alaska, the local school busses are used.  In my town, we get a bunch of drivers from Alaska - they drive for the cruise industry up there in the summer and come down to winter resort towns in the winter.  

The carriage path in Arcadia NP can look like a LA traffic jam when ships are in town!!

[Mary229]

7 minutes ago, whogo said:

I do not think it was cruise passengers who jammed popular Acadia National Park, lots of cars, it was hard to find a parking spot.

Two things,  cruisers do rent cars and the Covid surge in national park visits as families looked for outdoor vacations.  This will be a double whammy as cruise traffic halts and national park numbers go down.  I am a long term national park visitor and have seen the pendulum swing.   Again, I have no true opinion and feel it is up to the locals to decide. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Mary229

[Hlitner]

25 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

The massive numbers have been devastating for the National Park.
 

 1000 people is not enough to support an industry and likely not enough to support the personnel for the cruise ship logistics such as the U.S. customs service.  Some of the experts can clue me in on other services ships need in a tender port.  Unless modified I assume their tourist industry will likely collapse to a very modest level that will drive many merchants out of business.  Whether that is good or bad is a decision only the locals can make 

So we will see what happens.  

Mary, I think you miss the point!  It is the overcrowding from cruise ship passengers that is destroying some of the tourist industry...not the other way round.  Consider that if DW and I decide to drive to Bar Harbor for a few days we would book into an upscale B&B.  We would be eating breakfast, lunch and dinner in the area, shopping, and doing all the usual tourist things.  We would also be paying a hefty price for our B&B!   But, if we knew there were going to be 3000 cruise ship passengers flooding the town there is no way we would go there for a few days.  We would simply go to another village where there are no cruise ships!  And I say this as a true cruise ship lover (so call me a hypocrite).   The many smaller towns (and some larger cities) that are restricting cruise ships are doing to save their tourist business.   One of the arguments used by those in Key West, when they voted against cruise ships, was that the ships spurred the opening of very tacky touristy/junk shops (i.e. T-shirts, Diamonds International, etc) and drove out some of the smaller cute boutiques.  Mallory Square was becoming more like a 3 ring tacky circus than a charming area.  When we stay in Key West we stay over 14 blocks from Mallory Square in a part of town that still has some charm.  The owner of our chosen hotel says that what saves his part of town is that most cruisers will not walk that far :).  I previously mentioned Charleston as a town that decided they did not want cruise ships....after the town had built a large pier downtown.  The local port authority finally decided to stop embarkation/debarkations from their cruise port and severely limit short day visits.  Bottom line was that having ships was seen as bad for business.

 

In the Caribbean there are some islands that have long understood that cruise ships could destroy the atmosphere that makes their island a popular place for folks willing to spend money.  Places like St Barts and Anguilla (both popular with upscale visitors) do not want ships although St Barts does allow some (mostly luxury ships) to stop for the day.  When one mass market ship managed to get permission to tender into St Barts the town's water/sewer system suddenly did not work (until after the ship had departed).  Folks found themselves in a town with no bathrooms :).  Cute.  On that island, those who vacation are happy to spend $150 for a light lunch.  Cruisers would just take up beach space and contribute very little to the local economy other than to drive away the jet setters.

[Mary229]

24 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Mary, I think you miss the point!  It is the overcrowding from cruise ship passengers that is destroying some of the tourist industry...not the other way round.  Consider that if DW and I decide to drive to Bar Harbor for a few days we would book into an upscale B&B.  We would be eating breakfast, lunch and dinner in the area, shopping, and doing all the usual tourist things.  We would also be paying a hefty price for our B&B!   But, if we knew there were going to be 3000 cruise ship passengers flooding the town there is no way we would go there for a few days.  We would simply go to another village where there are no cruise ships!  And I say this as a true cruise ship lover (so call me a hypocrite).   The many smaller towns (and some larger cities) that are restricting cruise ships are doing to save their tourist business.   One of the arguments used by those in Key West, when they voted against cruise ships, was that the ships spurred the opening of very tacky touristy/junk shops (i.e. T-shirts, Diamonds International, etc) and drove out some of the smaller cute boutiques.  Mallory Square was becoming more like a 3 ring tacky circus than a charming area.  When we stay in Key West we stay over 14 blocks from Mallory Square in a part of town that still has some charm.  The owner of our chosen hotel says that what saves his part of town is that most cruisers will not walk that far :).  I previously mentioned Charleston as a town that decided they did not want cruise ships....after the town had built a large pier downtown.  The local port authority finally decided to stop embarkation/debarkations from their cruise port and severely limit short day visits.  Bottom line was that having ships was seen as bad for business.

 

In the Caribbean there are some islands that have long understood that cruise ships could destroy the atmosphere that makes their island a popular place for folks willing to spend money.  Places like St Barts and Anguilla (both popular with upscale visitors) do not want ships although St Barts does allow some (mostly luxury ships) to stop for the day.  When one mass market ship managed to get permission to tender into St Barts the town's water/sewer system suddenly did not work (until after the ship had departed).  Folks found themselves in a town with no bathrooms :).  Cute.  On that island, those who vacation are happy to spend $150 for a light lunch.  Cruisers would just take up beach space and contribute very little to the local economy other than to drive away the jet setters.

No, I understand, I have been there numerous times as a hiker. There is a balance and I think the current wave of outdoor tourists will subside and they may be wishing for more cruise ships.  I agree there needed to be a limit but 1000 seems excessively low. Remember that is per day not per ship.  Consider not all ship passengers will debark, not all will spend much time in town and many will go directly to other locations like the park and never visit town but they will all be counted. I rarely visit town as it is such a zoo but it does bring a lot of revenue not only to merchants but also brings tax dollars.  Tourist tax dollars are a favorite tax among politicians as their constituents don’t care too much. 
 

it is not very comparable to Key West. It is fairly remote and has a very limited season

Edited November 9, 2022 by Mary229

[navybankerteacher]

This is a trend which seems to be spreading - I first noticed it when St. Barth’s. banned large ships.  It really makes sense for the communities involved — the mega ships not only inundate small ports with overwhelming crowds (many of whom contribute virtually nothing to the local economy, even returning to their ship for lunch) - the real damage they do  is in damaging the attraction the area has for preferred visitors who rent places and buy services - driving away valuable guests and replacing them with two dollar day-trippers. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by navybankerteacher

[Hlitner]

32 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

No, I understand, I have been there numerous times as a hiker. There is a balance and I think the current wave of outdoor tourists will subside and they may be wishing for more cruise ships.  I agree there needed to be a limit but 1000 seems excessively low. Remember that is per day not per ship.  Consider not all ship passengers will debark, not all will spend much time in town and many will go directly to other locations like the park and never visit town but they will all be counted. I rarely visit town as it is such a zoo but it does bring a lot of revenue not only to merchants but also brings tax dollars.  Tourist tax dollars are a favorite tax among politicians as their constituents don’t care too much. 
 

it is not very comparable to Key West. It is fairly remote and has a very limited season

I agree that 1000 seems unreasonably low.  The Town Council had originally passed a limit of around 3500 (and 3 ships) per day which was slightly modified depending on the month.  But many of the locals were not satisfied and got the referendum put on yesterday's ballot.  The measure was supported by 58% of the voters with 42% opposed.  What I find interesting is that the town council tried to limit the "damage" but were, in a sense, overruled by the voters.  Apparently, there are a fair number of locals who want a  complete ban.  Yesterday, Portland, Maine also had a similar measure on its ballet which failed by a significant margin.   But one wonders how quickly ships will replace Bar Harbor with Portland and alienate those locals.  The cruise industry does not seem to have the ability or willingness to police themselves and just invite this kind of opposition.

 

We once witnessed, first hand, the stupid thinking of the cruise industry.  Many years ago, DW and I were on the Grand Princess which was scheduled to dock in Venice during that city's well known Feast of the Redeemer Festival.  This involved a big boat parade (on the Giudecca Canal) a major fireworks show, etc.  The Grand Princess's Captain's brother was apparently very friendly with the Mayor and managed to get permission for our ship to dock right along the long pier that runs near St Marks Square.  While we had the best view in town, the huge ship blocked the view for hundreds of locals who lived in buildings whose view was blocked by our ship.  It was one of our favorite cruise evenings, ever, but caused a controversy in Venice (and apparently was never done again).  Things like this alienate locals, and in Italy, folks have long memories.  Now, decades later, they have finally managed to ban nearly all cruise ships from Venice!

 

Hank

[Mary229]

39 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I agree that 1000 seems unreasonably low.  The Town Council had originally passed a limit of around 3500 (and 3 ships) per day which was slightly modified depending on the month.  But many of the locals were not satisfied and got the referendum put on yesterday's ballot.  The measure was supported by 58% of the voters with 42% opposed.  What I find interesting is that the town council tried to limit the "damage" but were, in a sense, overruled by the voters.  Apparently, there are a fair number of locals who want a  complete ban.  Yesterday, Portland, Maine also had a similar measure on its ballet which failed by a significant margin.   But one wonders how quickly ships will replace Bar Harbor with Portland and alienate those locals.  The cruise industry does not seem to have the ability or willingness to police themselves and just invite this kind of opposition.

 

We once witnessed, first hand, the stupid thinking of the cruise industry.  Many years ago, DW and I were on the Grand Princess which was scheduled to dock in Venice during that city's well known Feast of the Redeemer Festival.  This involved a big boat parade (on the Giudecca Canal) a major fireworks show, etc.  The Grand Princess's Captain's brother was apparently very friendly with the Mayor and managed to get permission for our ship to dock right along the long pier that runs near St Marks Square.  While we had the best view in town, the huge ship blocked the view for hundreds of locals who lived in buildings whose view was blocked by our ship.  It was one of our favorite cruise evenings, ever, but caused a controversy in Venice (and apparently was never done again).  Things like this alienate locals, and in Italy, folks have long memories.  Now, decades later, they have finally managed to ban nearly all cruise ships from Venice!

 

Hank

I did follow the proposed ban that was done with city government, the cruise lines and the chamber.  It seemed quite reasonable and I supposed had timing elements  to accommodate road tourists.  I fear once they lose their auxiliary services - port workers, shore excursion outfits and so on they may find it is very hard to restart that industry and those who do come back will come back with trepidation.  (We are having a similar issue here in Texas with the oil industry, no one wants to commit to the investment when there is political risk).  
 

and there is always someone waiting in the wings ready to pounce on any opening an operation leaves. 
 

I think 1000 per day is very short sighted and probably they will pay dearly.  

[GTJ]

4 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Am posting this here for lack of a better place, but another small, charming port, has voted (in a big way) to ban large cruise ships and their passengers.

There are at least two basic concerns I have here. First is accessibility to Bar Harbor. Another person wrote about being able to drive themselves by private car to Bar Harbor, and the inconveniences imposed on them by other persons arriving by cruise ship. Not everyone is capable of driving themselves--doing so requires ability and resources. Many of us require public transportation to get to Bar Harbor. Overland, there is no meaningful public transportation access to Bar Harbor, Greyhound Lines having pulled its service many years ago. The only practicable public transportation available to Bar Harbor are the services offered by the several cruise lines. To deny cruise lines access to Bar Harbor is the imposition of a barrier: automobile drivers are okay, but public transportation users are unwanted. Second is the principle of travel freedom that ties together the several states into a federation. To permit a state to deny free ingress and regress besmirches the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

 

Limiting vessel size sounds appealing, at least initially. I don't like huge vessels myself. Yet fares on small vessels can be quite steep. To limit the ability to travel by cruise vessel to Bar Harbor to  only those persons able to afford the very high fares of small vessel operators would be unfairly exclusionary.

 

Fundamentally, the matter seems to be that a relatively small number of individuals desire to restrict access to a national park for themselves and those they approve. The park belongs to all of us, not the few who live in Bar Harbor.

[Mary229]

12 minutes ago, GTJ said:

There are at least two basic concerns I have here. First is accessibility to Bar Harbor. Another person wrote about being able to drive themselves by private car to Bar Harbor, and the inconveniences imposed on them by other persons arriving by cruise ship. Not everyone is capable of driving themselves--doing so requires ability and resources. Many of us require public transportation to get to Bar Harbor. Overland, there is no meaningful public transportation access to Bar Harbor, Greyhound Lines having pulled its service many years ago. The only practicable public transportation available to Bar Harbor are the services offered by the several cruise lines. To deny cruise lines access to Bar Harbor is the imposition of a barrier: automobile drivers are okay, but public transportation users are unwanted. Second is the principle of travel freedom that ties together the several states into a federation. To permit a state to deny free ingress and regress besmirches the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

 

Limiting vessel size sounds appealing, at least initially. I don't like huge vessels myself. Yet fares on small vessels can be quite steep. To limit the ability to travel by cruise vessel to Bar Harbor to  only those persons able to afford the very high fares of small vessel operators would be unfairly exclusionary.

 

Fundamentally, the matter seems to be that a relatively small number of individuals desire to restrict access to a national park for themselves and those they approve. The park belongs to all of us, not the few who live in Bar Harbor.

I am sorry but this really stretches the duties and responsibilities of a small community.  They are not responsible to get anyone to the park and do not have to serve as the gateway to a federal park.  As a matter of fact the NPS does not even mention transportation to the park by sea.    https://www.nps.gov/acad/planyourvisit/directions.htm

[GTJ]

8 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

I am sorry but this really stretches the duties and responsibilities of a small community. They are not responsible to get anyone to the park and do not have to serve as the gateway to a federal park.

Are you suggesting that the roads existing between Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park be torn up, so that Harbor is no longer used as a gateway to the park? The fact is that Bar Harbor is the closest community to Acadia National Park, and is, de facto, the gateway thereto. Obviously, the town itself need not be a  provider of transportation to and from the park (though it could decide that it is in its economic interest to do so), but that has little to do with the Bar Harbor being a de facto gateway to the national park.

[Mary229]

1 minute ago, GTJ said:

Are you suggesting that the roads existing between Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park be torn up, so that Harbor is no longer used as a gateway to the park? The fact is that Bar Harbor is the closest community to Acadia National Park, and is, de facto, the gateway thereto. Obviously, the town itself need not be a  provider of transportation to and from the park (though it could decide that it is in its economic interest to do so), but that has little to do with the Bar Harbor being a de facto gateway to the national park.

No, they can’t tear up federal or state roads but they could tear up their city roads.   If the park wanted a harbor and harbor facilities then they can build it.  A small community does not have to maintain harbor facilities for cruise ships.   They are under no legal obligation to do so and have only done so to provide benefit to their community.  They could tear down that harbor infrastructure at will.  Key West had issues only because they a

had accepted state funding for their port facilities and had to “discuss” their actions with the state.  Perhaps you haven’t been to many national parks, I have and communities have no obligation to provide you with access through their private property. 

[Charles4515]

58 minutes ago, GTJ said:

 

Limiting vessel size sounds appealing, at least initially. I don't like huge vessels myself. Yet fares on small vessels can be quite steep. To limit the ability to travel by cruise vessel to Bar Harbor to  only those persons able to afford the very high fares of small vessel operators would be unfairly exclusionary.

 

Fundamentally, the matter seems to be that a relatively small number of individuals desire to restrict access to a national park for themselves and those they approve. The park belongs to all of us, not the few who live in Bar Harbor.

 

They are restricting access to Bar Harbor not to the national park. 

[Mary229]

1 minute ago, Charles4515 said:

 

They are restricting access to Bar Harbor not to the national park. 

And that restriction is enforced by restricting use of their port infrastructure.  It will be interesting to see if the lines build their own facilities as they have done in some Alaskan locations 

[d9704011]

Just now, Mary229 said:

And that restriction is enforced by restricting use of their port infrastructure.  It will be interesting to see if the lines build their own facilities as they have done in some Alaskan locations 

That won't happen.  The cruise lines don't need BH that bad and they'd never get permission as long as the current opposition to large cruise crowds continues.

[Mary229]

2 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

That won't happen.  The cruise lines don't need BH that bad and they'd never get permission as long as the current opposition to large cruise crowds continues.

I do agree.  The locations in Alaska are on the lines private property.  BH has no say if they were to buy their own property 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Mary229

[slidergirl]

2 hours ago, Mary229 said:

I did follow the proposed ban that was done with city government, the cruise lines and the chamber.  It seemed quite reasonable and I supposed had timing elements  to accommodate road tourists.  I fear once they lose their auxiliary services - port workers, shore excursion outfits and so on they may find it is very hard to restart that industry and those who do come back will come back with trepidation.  (We are having a similar issue here in Texas with the oil industry, no one wants to commit to the investment when there is political risk).  
 

and there is always someone waiting in the wings ready to pounce on any opening an operation leaves. 
 

I think 1000 per day is very short sighted and probably they will pay dearly.  

Those auxiliary services and the workers are seasonal.  Just like the cruise business in Alaska, they don't work year-round.  There are seasonals everywhere - even outside of the cruise business, I'll bet those who work the summer hospitality in Bar Harbor are not all year-round/full-time.  I've people on my staff at a few hotels who worked the resorts on the New England Coast in the summer and then moved on to a winter location for work.  

[Mary229]

2 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

Those auxiliary services and the workers are seasonal.  Just like the cruise business in Alaska, they don't work year-round.  There are seasonals everywhere - even outside of the cruise business, I'll bet those who work the summer hospitality in Bar Harbor are not all year-round/full-time.  I've people on my staff at a few hotels who worked the resorts on the New England Coast in the summer and then moved on to a winter location for work.  

I have met quite a few who are local and are happy that they are able to stay in Bar Harbor because of the cruise-related job.    The seasonal job pays the bill so they can pursue the arts or other careers that don’t have consistent income.  My last private guide while there was indeed just such a local. 

[1025cruise]

Bar Harbor is already a tourist town. It doesn't need the cruise traffic. 

[joyandjerry]

We were there last month (3 October) and town was elbow to elbow, most not from the ship. We hiked in Acadia, which is the WDW of National Parks with the overcrowding. We were there September 2018, and it was not nearly as busy. Bumper to bumper traffic, full lots, packed trails. Even the buses could not move. 90+% of visitors enter Acadia by car, so that was hardly from the cruise pax. All day long we only met one other couple from the ship. There were tour buses filled with escorted tours from elsewhere in the US.

[GTJ]

5 hours ago, Mary229 said:

A small community does not have to maintain harbor facilities for cruise ships.

I think that you're getting confused as to the difference between property rights and the town's use of its police power.

 

Among the long-accepted rights bundled with property ownership is the right to exclude. A person who owns a road or a sea port can generally exclude others from using that real property (assuming no easements). And that property owner generally has no obligation to provide access (assuming no use of eminent domain, beach access obligations, etc.). Now there may be lawful limitations on how public entities may acquire and use property, but outside such specific limitations, there is no general obligation for Bar Harbor to provide roads, sea ports, or any other transportation facilities.

 

The real concern is not property rights but rather the police power. Consider an owner of property that desires to provide port facilities to operators of vessels, but the town steps in and, through its use of the police power exacts an ordinance prohibiting the property owner from using its own port facilities. This would have nothing to do with the town, itself, providing, or refusing to provide, port facilities.

 

In short, I think that you're arguing a point against which no one is taking a contrary position.