We urge Rockport residents to vote no on Articles 3 and 4 in  the upcoming election. These articles are a misguided effort to thwart the will of the voters expressed in the citizens’ petitions relating to the Rockport Harbor Hotel. Voters resoundingly approved these two petitions in August 2020, during the height of the pandemic. 

One limited the hotel to 20 rooms, to reduce its potential impact on Rockport’s very small and largely residential downtown. The developer Stuart Smith originally proposed this size when securing the ordinance changes required to allow a hotel in downtown Rockport in the first place. The second petition required Town officials to seek and review an independent traffic study before waiving parking requirements or granting other parking exceptions for a developer. 

Unfortunately, our Town officials refused to enact these petitions, spending a significant amount of taxpayer dollars in an unsuccessful attempt to overrule the will of their voters. The Maine Superior Court ultimately required Rockport to uphold the petitions. A building permit was issued for 20 rooms and the Smiths paid for an independent traffic study. Residents expressed relief that the dispute finally had been resolved. But now the Town has inexplicably rekindled it with Articles 3 and 4! Here we go again.

In Article 4 the Town is proposing to eliminate the 20 room maximum for the hotel.  If this article passes, the Smiths could double the number of rooms up to a maximum of 40. In fact,  their original application was for 35 rooms, which sparked the public outrage that led to the petitions in the first place! The building remains the same size it was with that proposal, so 35 rooms could easily fit.

As for Article 3, most residents agree that traffic congestion, limited public parking and pedestrian safety are significant issues downtown.  That is why it is critical to require our Town decision makers to seek independent traffic studies before granting developers parking waivers or exceptions to ensure they don’t worsen these issues for residents.

But the Town wants to make requring these studies discretionary,  even though the developers will be paying for them. Why wouldn’t our decisionmakers want to seek and review the most current and objective information relating to the potential impact of such requests in order to make an informed and balanced decision? 

Please help ensure more balance between developer interests and those of Rockport residents by upholding our previous vote.  Vote NO on Articles 3 and 4.

Clare Tully, President, Friends of Rockport