The vote on Aug. 12, 2014, by the Camden Select Board to not send the Windward House amendment to the November ballot was not a "travesty," but rather an example of the Select Board doing its job. It was not the result of "community bullies" (as reported by one publication), but rather the Select Board having an open mind to hear civil and thoughtful testimony from varying points of view, all of which were concerned about what is best for all of Camden, not just one business owner. It is the role of the Select Board to look at the bigger picture, to weigh the singular interests of the proponent against those of the community as a whole.

How does this proposal help the economic vitality of Camden? It does not. A pro-business approach would be support a strategic plan that supports all segments of our business community, not an amendment that benefits one small segment at the expense of the others. In its present form, the current wording of the petition for a zoning change goes far beyond what even the Planning Board accepted as appropriate.

It is understandable that the Windward House owners would be passionate advocates for their business and upset at the vote. But labeling people with genuine differing points of view as "known bullies" is not only untrue, but childish, and causes us to worry about the future of civil discourse in our community.

The Aug. 12 hearing was about something much bigger than whether three inns could serve dinner to their guests. It was about the future of Camden's main economic driver — tourism — and the successful role that our current zoning has played in balancing the often competing but critically interdependent interests.

Other than the spectacular gifts Mother Nature has bestowed upon Camden, our current zoning has been a huge contributor to the success of Camden continuing to attract the type of visitor that supports our quality lodgings and the increasing number of diverse, and creative restaurants. Many of which are run by young entrepreneurial chefs.

This proposal is not good zoning. It violates the intent and language of our current zoning ordinance and goes against good planning principles by allowing a non-conforming use to become even more non-conforming.

One Innkeeper testified how the reputation of our fine restaurants has become one of the major draws for people to come and stay. The success of our year-round downtown restaurants is a key factor in the success of the inn businesses. Increasingly, tourists are choosing to come to Camden because of the outstanding restaurants and then they look for a place to stay. In addition, these restaurants are significant features of the town for full time residents as well as tourists.

Other Innkeepers mentioned the cascading effect this amendment would have, as more inns will be forced to request the same privilege in order to compete, leading them to compete with our restaurants for diners in order to fill their rooms.

An experienced restaurateur spoke eloquently about the long-term impact of this seemingly minor change: and how skimming off a small percentage of the diners has a very large impact on the profitability of our restaurants, which are a key draw to residents and tourists alike. It also leads to Camden becoming a bargain hunter's location as more and more 'dinner and a room packages' are offered. This diminishes Camden as the destination for people with significant discretionary income to spend.

This so-called "minor" change threatens to upend the balance of a long-standing symbiotic relationship that has benefited restaurateurs, downtown retailers and Innkeepers and residents alike.

Do not mess with a winning formula.

Jeff and Deb Dodge
Ken and Lyn Kohl
Russ McKenna
Eleanor Masin-Peters
Jim and Cyndi Ostrowski