We lost. As one of the appellants in this matter, I attended in person the hearing conducted in Augusta today by the Maine Bureau of Environmental Protection (note the word "protection") to consider our appeal.

I was interested to learn that the BEP considers Rockland's harbor to be a "large commercial harbor."

Of course, I'm originally "from away" and once lived in New York City, which, I would agree is a "large commercial harbor."

In case you're not from Maine, you might not know that Rockland's population is about 7,200 persons, so when you talk about "large" and "commercial," keep that in mind (and remember that the entire state of Maine has a population of 1.3 million persons).

"Safe" Harbor Marina's proposed expansion was characterized in today’s hearing as a "slightly larger marina"  — but it will more than double the number of berths currently offered by "Safe" Harbor for boats less than 60-70 feet in length, and will add two entirely new docks to accommodate private "mega" yachts, which today must anchor in the outer harbor because no docks in the inner harbor can accommodate them.

"Safe" Harbor anticipates "most" of these mega vessels will be between 70 and 200 feet in length — will some be larger? – and, although their attorney didn’t state this explicitly, most could be 30-plus feet wide and 25-30 feet or more in height.

I found particularly egregious the statement that the Department of Environmental Protection — the governmental entity that proposed granting "Safe" Harbor the license which we appealed — stated that they determined that "Safe" Harbor's proposed expansion is "consistent with the existing character of the harbor."

Today, there are no privately owned "yachts" of 200-plus feet in length docking within the inner harbor.  

The license granted to “Safe” Harbor will permit 5-6 (or more?) vessels up to 2/3 the length of a football field to enter and exit the harbor via the channel (regularly used by ferries to/from nearby islands, our local lobster fishing fleet, locally owned and visiting pleasure boats, and small watercraft like kayaks), and dock for unspecified periods of time at "Safe" Harbor's "slightly" expanded marina – this, I would argue (as did our appeal), is certainly inconsistent with our harbor's "existing character."

Here's the thing: "Safe" Harbor Marina's proposed expansion offers no benefits to the residents of Rockland. It is a private facility. It was granted certain tax benefits so it will not boost our property tax base in any significant way.

Unlike cruise ships, whose numbers and timing of visits the City of Rockland has regulated, "Safe" Harbor Marina's mega yacht customers will not transfer boatloads of tourists to our town to eat in local restaurants, shop in our stores, and visit local sites.

The additional vessels using "Safe" Harbor's “slight” expansion will clog the public channel, possibly causing delays or interference with fishing boats and ferries and making recreational use of the harbor by kayakers, paddle boarders, and small sailboats more difficult if not dangerous. Perhaps worst of all, the mega yachts' dock will be located only 100 feet (less than half the length of one of these vessels) from the only public beach in Rockland, a noted destination which locals and tourists visit to take in the view and often to go swimming. 

We appellants lost today, but much more importantly, Rockland lost and the state of Maine lost.   When you drive into Maine you might see a sign that says: "Welcome to Maine, the Way Life Should Be."  Nope, at least not today.   Laurence Coe lives in Rockland