Ellen Dohmen. Brad Jordan. Cara Ryan. Charles Sidman.
Mar 08, 2026
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 means if your letter is published here, it is fine by us if it’s also published in other places and vice versa.
All the past letters to the editor can be found on the Substack site here.
Our Wonderful Secretary of State – and Next Governor?
I met Shenna Bellows in 2013 when I attended a meet-and-greet gathering to introduce her. I had never heard of her, but knew I was interested in seeing a change in Maine’s national representative to the Senate. After Shenna gave her initial comments, she opened the floor to a question-and-answer session. A woman raised her hand and asked why, when, as she felt, Collins had represented Maine well and fairly, we should be looking for someone new. Shenna, who was not at that time in any elected position, started going through different individual pieces of legislation which had come before the Senate, giving their exact numbers, what they were about, and why she would have voted differently from Senator Collins. As she listed and explained these, I started counting on my fingers. When she got to 8, she stopped and none of the about 30 of us could believe what we’d just heard. Her detailed knowledge, understanding and command of the information was astounding. I signed up to have a house party for her, and over the years have gotten to know her well.
Growing up without much money, living without electricity or running water until she was in fifth grade, Shenna nonetheless learned from her family a deep sense of the value of hard work, of moral commitment to what is right, and a strong sense of community. In other words, she was a true Mainer and remains dedicated to these principles. Working through high school, putting herself through college, working in the Peace Corps in Panama, and as director first of the ACLU in Maine for 8 years and then as executive director of the Holocaust and Human rights Center of Maine, Shenna has always championed human rights, the value of honest history, and protection of those whose voices may not be heard by those in power. During her time at the ACLU, Shenna was one of the leaders working tirelessly to guarantee the passage of the marriage equality act in 2012. She always said she would not get married until every other person in Maine could marry the person of their choice, and she and her husband got married after this law passed in Maine.
While she did not win the 2014 national election for Senator from Maine, Shenna ran and won three times for State Senate in a district that also voted for Trump. Her constituents recognized early on that she represented them as Mainers, not members of a particular political party. In the Senate, she won property tax relief for her constituents, safe drinking water guarantees for children, equal pay for equal work, and paid sick leave for workers.
She has also always been a strong supporter of women’s rights, reproductive justice, health care for all, and has been a vigilant proponent for equal rights for all, regardless of race, religion, sexual preferences, gender identification, or political affiliation.
As our first female Secretary of State, Shenna has worked diligently for our rights. Early on in her role as head of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, she was interested in finding out what kind of experiences people had at offices around the state. When she found out that Somali naturalized citizens were treated differently from others at one of the offices, Shenna immediately hired an immigration lawyer, and also instituted training for all those employed by the motor vehicle department, to ensure equal and fair treatment for all. She also implemented voter registration at the BMV as well, making it easier for all our voices to be heard at the polls.
But her role as Secretary of State has not been without significant tests of her mettle and strength. When, after long and arduous study of the facts and of constitutional law, Shenna disqualified Trump from the Maine ballot for inciting insurrection on January 6, 2021, she was doxxed, swatted, and had threats on her life. And even when her decision was overturned by the Supreme Court, Shenna has never backed down from her commitment to the rule of law.
Again, this year when the DOJ tried to interfere with Maine elections, demanding voter records and personal information, Shenna refused to comply. She also paused the use of undercover license plates for ICE operations. Because of these strong stands for the rights of all Mainers to privacy and protection from secret operations, she has been sued and threatened with impeachment.
Through all this, Shenna has never backed down. Nor has she shown anything but a spine of steel and the determination of a true patriot. She not only fights for the rights of Mainers, but she stands steadfast in her deep commitment to each of us as an individual. She stands up for each of us and cares for us as people whom she is entrusted to represent, whose rights are her most cherished value.
Shenna is the only candidate in the campaign for governor who has faced this real test of how she will stand up for our rights and values. And she’s shown us how to fight and to win. She is exactly the person we need to lead our state as governor. I look forward to Shenna Bellows, Governor of Maine!
Ellen Dohmen
Guides just want to have fun—and be treated fairly, too.
Visitors have been hiring local boatmen and guides to take them onto the waters and into the mountains around Mount Desert Island since the mid-1800s. Guiding on this island predates the creation of Acadia National Park itself. Early visitors explored the coastline, mountains, and surrounding waters with local guides long before there were roads, marked trails, or park infrastructure.
That culture of guided outdoor exploration helped establish Mount Desert Island as a national destination for nature tourism and contributed to the conservation movement that ultimately led to the creation of Acadia National Park. Maine later formalized this tradition in 1897 with the first registered guide in the country, Cornelia “Fly Rod” Crosby.
This ordinance* recognizes traditional working waterfront industries like commercial fishing and aquaculture. And we see those uses every day at Hadley Point. Lobstermen, oyster farmers, and other commercial users park vehicles or trailers in order to access the water and conduct work that generates revenue for their businesses. Those activities are rightly recognized as historic waterfront uses.
But guiding is also a historic Maine waterfront tradition. In fact, guiding predates oyster and mussel aquaculture in Maine by nearly a century.
We understand the ordinance is written around trailers and staging. But in practice, restricting the ability to park a trailer where guides safely access the water effectively restricts the guiding activity itself. Other waterfront industries rely on vehicles or trailers to access the water while conducting their work, so it’s important that similar waterfront uses are treated consistently.
It’s also important to consider the scale of the impact being addressed. At present, this conversation involves two kayak trailers occupying two parking spaces at a location that, outside of occasional sunset evenings, rarely reaches parking capacity during the summer. Without an impact study showing that those spaces are preventing public access, it’s difficult to justify singling out one activity for restriction.
Hadley Point is also uniquely important. It is one of the few locations on Mount Desert Island that provides consistently safe water access for youth programs and adaptive paddlers in a wide range of weather conditions.
If the goal is to protect the working waterfront and public access, then the guiding industry—one of Maine’s longest standing outdoor traditions—should be treated with the same fairness as other historic water-dependent uses.
And we would simply encourage the Council to ensure that the ordinance treats similar waterfront activities consistently.
Regulations that recognize some commercial waterfront uses while restricting others without clear evidence of impact can become difficult to enforce fairly.
Bar Harbor’s tourism economy didn’t begin with cruise ships or aquaculture leases.
It began with guides.
We’re simply asking for consistent treatment of similar waterfront activities.
Thank you.
Brad Jordan/Maine State Sea Kayak
*The ordinance (Chapter 94 in Bar Harbor) Jordan mentions is explained here.
Don’t Support The Chamber’s Community Events Via the Community Events Line in the Bar Harbor Budget
At the June 2023 town meeting, when the Chamber of Commerce had just joined APPLL in its lawsuit against Bar Harbor, voters expressed their frustration with the town’s financial relationship with the Chamber by voting to deny at least some of the money they expected. Because the July 4th celebration was imminent, it was thought best to leave their fireworks & other “community events” funding untouched. Here we are, three years later, and we still have $24,000 in our budget earmarked for the Chamber as if they’re a good-faith partner providing services we somehow must rely on them to provide. But this logic is starting to show cracks as alternatives are discussed. When recently asked by an elected town official, the Chamber spokesperson dismissed the inquiry about their relation to APPLL with a “none of your business” response. The Warrant Committee, with a 9 to 3 vote, decided enough is enough, and now recommends to the Council that no funding be given to the Chamber this year.
This issue has two levels: one is optics, the other is money for desired events. APPLL wanted the Chamber for the optics, not for its small annual dues. Their membership lends credibility to APPLL’s cause, no doubt to the chagrin of many Chamber members. The town also needs to think about optics. What does it say about town leadership when it pays out huge legal fees to defend its LUO against attacks while simultaneously funding a key member of the litigant group as if it’s a good-faith partner?
The Warrant Committee isn’t trying to cancel any celebrations—it’s merely proposing we keep the $24,000 for “community events” out of the Chamber’s pockets. If that amount falls short of the fireworks projected cost, we can, as Councilor Kief suggested, raise more funds through a community drive. There’s still time and, I believe, both the money and the will. I know my husband and I will be glad to donate what we used to give to the Chamber for fireworks. And what’s to say the Chamber, in a true show of partnership, can’t also contribute money to this fund? But first the town council needs to stand up for itself and its voting taxpayers, and not accept bad deals. We’re proud of our July 4th celebration and need Bar Harbor to live up to its spirit of independence.
Finally, as has been said repeatedly, there is another solution—if the Chamber publicly withdraws from APPLL, we can re-establish our partnership, on better terms. The Chamber simply has to stop biting the hand that feeds them because ultimately the real apples comes from taxpayers.
Cara Ryan
“Here We Go Again”
Here we go again, with the Town of Bar Harbor self-centeredly thinking it can do whatever it wants without regard to fairness (water rates, anyone?), consistency or other moral or legal safeguards. Specifically, I refer to proposed modifications to Chapter 94 of our Town Code, dealing with commercial use of public property. The recently suggested (at a 3/2/26 Town Council Workshop) and soon to be publicly presented changes were ostensibly formulated in response to concerns about “staging” commercial equipment on public property such as Hadley’s Point Beach. Nonetheless, the proposed changes and prior text have the following problems that should be addressed in any rewrite.
First is consistency—if making and fulfilling commercial transactions are to be banned on public property, what about the Town’s ongoing use of its Ells Pier for dis- and re-embarking cruise ship passengers? The cruise lines certainly (as well as the Town) make money from this practice, so how is it different from other commercial uses that the Powers-That-Be do not similarly favor or share? Consistency is important, and none of the above-cited commercial uses is analogous to the non-profit Rotary’s July 4th on the ball field. If commercial equipment “staging” is the issue, then legislate against this explicitly without invoking inconsistent and hard-to-interpret overall bans on commercial use of public property.
Second, vesting both enforcement and appeal powers in the same officials (Town Council and Code Enforcement Officer, or CEO), and then allowing but trusting these individuals’ stated intention not to abuse them (like the past, and since properly abandoned, proposal to permit the CEO’s ad hoc inspection of private premises to guard against improper residency claims), seems very unwise. If the Town is both enforcer and final arbiter, where is the established democratic principle of checks and balances? We supposedly have an Appeals Board for this.
Finally, Chapter 94 currently claims to forbid aerial advertising over our town. However, internet AI reports that “The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates all navigable U.S. airspace, maintaining exclusive authority over air traffic, safety, and flight regulations. While local governments cannot control, ban, or set flight altitudes, they may impose limited, non-aeronautical restrictions (e.g., land use). … Local governments cannot regulate the sky, but they can control where drones take off and land (land use).” Our Town clearly feels that it reigns supreme at all levels, not acknowledging any other authorities or preemptions.
In summary, another observer characterized the existing and proposed Chapter 94 with the following: “I’m all for kicking the merchants out of the temple, but see real problems with a self-appointed deity, who is also a merchant, dictating which merchants are allowed to remain.” When is our Bar Harbor town government going to accept that “Sauce for the Goose Is Sauce for the Gander”? Why not get it right for once, rather than poorly thought out, incrementally and repeatedly wrong?
Charles Sidman
Discover more from Bar Harbor Story
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.