A company called Yachting Solutions is again applying for state and federal environmental permits for its $3 million plan to expand its marina at the south end of Rockland’s harbor while city officials are proposing a separate plan to redevelop the inner harbor. Rockland citizens have expressed concerns about how the development would impact boat traffic, the scenery, and the character of the harbor. Apparently a related plan was approved in 2008, but the company didn’t secure grants and other financing. So they’re back now. One resident has formed a new group to oppose the project called Sensible Harbor Infrastructure Plan (S.H.I.P). Right now I tend to lean against this plan. It seems to intend to refocus the infrastructure of the Rockland harbor in favor of private industry, private yachts that visit, and cruise ships. Our city is known for hosting a number of festivals that draw thousands of visitors and support various charities - the Blues Festival, the Lobster Festival and Homes, Ships and Harbors Festival - and I understand the end result of this development could cut back significantly on the size of the city's property on which these festivals take place.
| Lobster Festival Parade on our block! |
Generally, I also have my suspicions about corporations claiming that they're doing us citizens a favor. But I'm keeping an open mind (well, sort of). I love Rockland's harbor:
| Rockland Breakwater Lighthouse |
Another “hot” local issue is short-term rental (like Airbnb). I missed the City Council meeting that included public comment on this, but I understand it was heated. The end result seems to be proposal of a bill permitting short-term rentals but limiting them to a specific number (something like 47 or 48) and requiring annual licenses. I think the proposal would also limit the number of short-term rentals by non-residents (meaning you buy the property but don't live in it, just rent it for periodic short-term rentals).
That issue also relates to the related “fill in” issue, which would permit Rockland property owners to build small additions to existing properties, such as in-law apartments or the like, which is currently limited by zoning regulations. Those in favor of this argue that this would help bring income to homeowners facing ever-increasing property taxes (which are ever increasing in part because our GOP governor just refuses to implement various laws and regulations, including the requirement to pass back a certain percentage of state income to municipalities to fund schools; he just decided unilaterally to pass back less, meaning cities and towns like Rockland have had to make up the difference); they also think this would create more “affordable housing," a critical need in Rockland where a 2-bedroom apartment costs $1,000 or more while 90% of our elementary kids qualify for free or subsidized lunches. Those against loosening "fill in" zoning regulations say they want to retain the “character” of our neighborhoods. They don’t want their houses jammed up other houses that weren't permitted when they bought their property (of course, on many streets, including mine, we already live like that, probably because this was always a working class street).
| Our house - and our wonderful neighbor on the north side |
I don’t buy the pro "in-fill" arguments. I think the driving force behind the “in-fill” proponents is more likely wanting the ability to offer Airbnb type rentals and I certainly don’t think the additional small apartments will provide any significant “affordable” housing. On the other hand, I don’t really give a rat’s ass about preserving the so-called “character” of Rockland which, as I see it, is always a moving target. A decade ago or so, they used to say “Camden By The Sea, Rockland By The Smell.” (Camden is a wealthier, more summer-intensive community 11 miles north of us.) But Rockland has evolved and is still evolving. Today, Rockland seems to be an up-and-coming location; we're actually becoming "trendy," dealing with both the Up and Down sides of that evolution.
One strength we have over towns like Camden is our diversity. We are still home to working class people, lobstermen and factory workers, service industry workers, as well as year-round retirees. Although if we become much "trendier," people like this won't be able to afford housing here (or taxes on houses they already own). Here's the yard of the Rockland house seen in the background; you can tell because it's a Maine house because the yard includes lobster traps, several boats and what we call a "pile," which is stuff you know you want for something but not in your house.
But Rockland also has a strong arts community, museums, galleries. Rockland is home to a significant number of wealthy residents, including some - but still very much a minority - summer-only residents. A couple of current homes for sale in Rockland"
![]() |
| $940,000 |
![]() |
| "Only" $497,850 |
| Cruise liner coming into the harbor |
Personally I think all of these issues point to an underlying issue our community faces of what it means to undergo “sustainable development.” It’s one of the reasons I volunteer with a local non-profit group founded by three younger Rockland residents, called Renew Rockland. Sustainable development is what Renew Rockland is about; they advocate for renewable energy, waste reduction, recycling and composting, bicycle and pedestrian friendly streets, community gardens and farms.
Personally, I want Rockland to stay and grow stronger as a community where traditional wooden boat building like this
Personally, I want Rockland to stay and grow stronger as a community where traditional wooden boat building like this
continues to take place right along side (sustainable) industrial development that supports decent paying jobs so all classes of people can afford to live here, pay taxes, fund good schools and enjoy Rockland.
I guess the bottom line is ... I want it all for Rockland.
I guess the bottom line is ... I want it all for Rockland.
Okay, that’s what’s happening. See ya later, deah.







