LETTERS WITH CARNIVAL

_________________________

With a new CEO heading up Carnival Corp., C4 continues to hope for a response to our efforts to obtain a response to some of our very real concerns. This is the ninth letter we have sent to Carnival and they have still yet to respond…
_________________________

July 23, 2013

Mr. Arnold W. Donald
CEO
Carnival Corporation
3655 N.W. 87^th Avenue
Miami, FL 33178-2428

Dear Mr. Donald:

Congratulations on becoming CEO of Carnival Corporation. We believe your broad business experience will serve Carnival well.

One area we suggest for focus is community relations and insuring adherence to Carnival’s values as stated in its Sustainability Report.

Our community group in Charleston has attempted for over eighteen months to engage Carnival in a dialogue with respect to its homeport operations in Charleston. In a series of eight letters, we have asked a number of relevant questions and gotten no responses. A copy of the most recent letter is enclosed.

We will simplify the task of Carnival responding to important questions about community impact in Charleston, repeatedly asked, by now focusing on one simple question: If the South Carolina State Ports Authority provided shore power facilities at Union Pier or an alternative terminal, would Carnival fit the Fantasy to use shore power?

The South Carolina Medical Association and the Charleston County Medical Society have adopted resolutions calling for shore power to avoid human health risks. The Charleston Post and Courier has called for shore power for cruise ship operations. Many Charleston residents in the historic neighborhoods near Union Pier are flying “no soot” flags to protest cruise ship air pollution.

The City of Charleston has initiated a Green Business Challenge in which, given Mayor Joe Riley’s support for your cruise operations, we certainly expect Carnival (like Boeing) to participate. Shore power would be a logical and welcome component. One of the City’s partners in GBC is the Medical University of South Carolina. Please let the City know of your plans to participate.

The use of shore power would eliminate pollution impact issues and allow thoughtful reconsideration of the best location for a cruise ship terminal. Please understand that none of the groups questioning the location, pollution and congestion of a cruise ship terminal are opposed to cruise ships.

It is obvious that cities with terminals reasonably distant from historic and residential areas and with shore power facilities have done it “right”. We look forward to your response and participation in helping Charleston get it right.

With regards,

Carrie Agnew
Executive Director; C4

cc:
Mr. Gerry Cahill, CEO Carnival Cruise Lines
Sir John Parker, Carnival HESS director

Encls: Letter dated February 11, 2013

_________________________

On February 11, C4 mailed the following letter (eighth to date, none with a response) to Lanie Morgenstern, Carnival Corp’s Director of PR, and to James Van Langen, the VP of Management Systems. Will our questions finally be addressed this time??
_________________________

February 11, 2013

Lanie Morgenstern
Director of Public Relations
Carnival Corporation
3655 N.W. 87th Avenue
Miami, FL 33178-2428

James R. Van Langen
Vice President Management Systems
Maritime Policy and Compliance
Carnival Corporation
3655 N.W. 87th Avenue
Miami, FL 33178-2428

Dear Ms. Morgenstern and Mr. Van Langen,

Enclosed are copies of letters to Micky Arison dated November 30 and June 6, 2012, referring to Carnival’s 2010 Sustainability Report and posing seven simple questions.

We have had no response to these or the five letters sent prior to them, beginning in January of last year.

Our organization is a non-profit citizens group. We are not involved in the litigation vs. Carnival in any way. Our primary objective is to find a balance between cruise operations and the maintenance of the quality of life in adjacent neighborhoods and the quality of visitors’ experience in the historic district of Charleston.

As the heads of Public Relations and Sustainability for Carnival Corporation, we hope you will fill this void of communication.
Carnival’s silence is not consistent with your stated values of transparency and community relations.

Last week, the Preservation Society of Charleston, along with the World Monuments Fund and National Trust for Historic Preservation hosted an international symposium: “Harboring Tourism, A Symposium on Cruise Tourism in Historic Port Cities.” The issues confronting Charleston are clearly not isolated, and we heard that the best results often are obtained through direct communication between concerned parties.

So now, we add an eighth question to the seven previously posed: What is the future of the Carnival Fantasy?

Mr. Arison has stated that with the purchase of new ships, older ships may be sold. The Fantasy is Carnival’s oldest cruise ship. We note at a website (www.marine-consultant.com/p508.htm) solicitation of bids for one that meets the description of the Carnival Fantasy. If the Fantasy is sold, what are Carnival’s plans for Charleston? These are all important questions to the residents of Charleston, tourists who visit Charleston as a destination, and to the state of South Carolina at large. We look forward to your responses.

We are willing to meet in person to discuss the issues raised, and perhaps a real discussion of how Carnival’s operations in Charleston can be made mutually advantageous to all…not just to our State Ports Authority.

Again, all we have ever sought are the answers to questions raised as they pertain to our city.

With regards,

Carrie Agnew
Executive Director; C4

Encls: Letter dated November 11, 2012
Letter dated June 6, 2012
Post & Courier editorial February 9, 2013

__________________________

On November 30, 2012, C4 Executive Director Carrie Agnew mailed the following letter to Micky Arison, CEO of Carnival Corp with copies to Gerry Cahill (CEO, Carnival Cruise Lines), Stuart Subotnick (Presiding Director), Sir John Parker (Chairman HESS Committee), Lanie Morgenstern (Director of Public Relations Carnival Corp/Carnival Cruise Lines), Mayor Joseph P. Riley (City of Charleston), James Newsome (President & CEO SC State Ports Authority)
_________________________

Mr. Micky Arison
CEO Carnival Corp
3655 N.W. 87^th Ave.
Miami, FL 33178-2428
Via Certified Mail; Return-Receipt Requested

Dear Mr. Arison:

The controversy in Charleston over cruise ship numbers, size and the proper location of a cruise ship terminal is not going away.

In contrast, concern is increasing.

The enclosed Op-Ed of November 9 in the Charleston Post and Courier and Letter to the Editor from November 14 printed in the Charleston Mercury make the points. The affected residents of Charleston will not accept an unregulated cruise ship industry at an inappropriate location, in spite of assurances you may have received from our Mayor and the SCSPA.

Charleston Communities for Cruise Control continues to press the issues. For example, our first in a series of billboards read “Save Charleston. Support Cruise Control.” The second asked the question “How many are too many?” The third may ask “How big is too big?” Another might ask “Why not a better location?” We have made statements at public hearings on required permits. Our “no soot” flags fly throughout the historic district. We regularly alert and update a long list of supporters. We maintain a website of growing resources.

We look forward to the international conference on cruise ship operations in historic cities planned to be held in Charleston on February 6-8, 2013. The conference is sponsored by The Preservation Society of Charleston, the World Monuments Fund and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Issues of appropriate size, number and location must be addressed in order to protect historic sites and maintain the very characteristics that attract visitors to Charleston. The short term objectives of cruise line companies cannot be allowed to have a negative effect on these historic districts and residential neighborhoods. Companies with a sense of social responsibility will respond to this, take action and become welcome.

Stephanie Meeks, Executive Director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, spoke in Charleston on November 15 on the NTHP’s recent efforts to support a study of the true impact of cruise ship visits and support regulation of cruise ship operations at Union Pier. Charleston continues to be on the Watch list for the 11 Most Endangered Places.

Walmart showed significant social responsibility in January 2011 when it agreed, after discussions with the National Trust for Historic Preservation and other groups, to seek a different location for a Superstore originally planned to be built within the Civil War Wilderness battlefield. Perhaps Carnival as the main user of the planned new cruise ship terminal at Union Pier could support the determination of an alternative cruise terminal site and avoid the congestion, noise, pollution and inappropriate ship scale at an historic site?

Since Carnival expects a world class cruise ship terminal, we’re sure you will agree that the rebuild of a derelict shed on Union Pier into a cruise ship terminal at a cost of over $35 million is not a mere “maintenance” project. This is what the SCSPA asserted in its permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to sidestep reviews of historic and environmental impacts under the National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act. A federal lawsuit brought by The Preservation Society of Charleston and the Coastal Conservation League challenges the granting of this permit. We expect your Board of Directors would want to know that all required terminal siting considerations have been appropriately reviewed for a facility of which Carnival will be the principal user?

Your refusal to respond to our seven simple questions in prior letters will not result in these issues going away.

We hope you will pay more respect to the legitimate concerns of residents affected by your operations and to the long list of advocates for reasonable limits. For operations at Union Pier, express limits on size and number of cruise ships are a must, in addition to shore power and low sulfur fuel. Our health, our quality of life and the preservation of the nation’s heritage are of vital importance to us—and we would hope of enough importance to you to merit comment and seek solutions.

You state in your corporate Sustainability Report 2010 that “the viability of our business and our reputation depend on being more sustainable and transparent.” The same Report says that “The health of our business is inextricably linked to the health of our communities”. Your HESS Policy says that you will “identify the aspects of our business that impact the environment and take appropriate action to minimize the impact”.

Now is the time for transparency and action with respect to Carnival’s operations in Charleston. Please respond to our seven questions!

Additionally, Carnival Cruise Lines recently announced plans for a new 4,000 passenger ship, and you were cited as saying new ships could replace existing capacity after the possible sale of older ships. The Fantasy may be Carnival’s oldest ship. What are your plans for the Fantasy? The SCSPA has pledged that the city will not see cruise ships larger than those currently visiting Charleston.

We continue to look forward to your responses.

Sincerely,

Carrie Agnew

Executive Director

Charleston Communities for Cruise Control

Encls

cc: Gerry Cahill, CEO Carnival Cruise Lines

Stuart Subotnick, Presiding Director

Sir John Parker, Chairman HESS Committee

Lanie Morgenstern, Director of Public Relations Carnival Corp/Carnival Cruise Lines

Mayor Joseph P. Riley, City of Charleston

James Newsome, President & CEO SC State Ports Authority

_________________________

On July 30, 2012, Executive Director Carrie Agnew sent (via certified mail/return receipt requested) the following letter to Mr. Gerry Cahill (CEO, Carnival Cruise Lines) on behalf of C4. She states that she did not get a response from her June 6, 2012 letter to
Mr. Arison and requests for Mr. Cahill to address the questions posed in that letter.
Enclosures included:
the June 6, 2012 letter to Mr. Arison (see below);
the July 25, 2012 editorial in P&C (“Don’t bank on stricter emissions law for cruise ships”);
and, the July 25, 2012 AP article in The Augusta Chronicle (“S.C. officials delay Carnival cruise terminal plan”).
_________________________

July 30, 2012
Mr. Gerry Cahill
CEO Carnival Cruise Lines
3655 N.W. 87^thAve.
Miami, FL 33178-2428
Via Certified Mail; Return-Receipt Requested

Dear Mr. Cahill:

We write to you as it appears Mr. Arison is too busy to acknowledge or respond
to our most recent letter of June 6, 2012. At that time, we posed seven specific
questions about cruise ship operations in Charleston, SC. A copy of that letter,
which you were copied on, is enclosed.

In fact all our inquiries mailed to you, Mr. Arison and other Carnival board
members since January 2012, representing the concerns of leading neighborhood,
preservation and environmental groups, have gone unanswered.

You should be interested in the enclosed July 25, 2012 editorial of the Charleston Post and
Courier expressing concern about the cruise ship industry attempts to avoid pending
cleaner fuel requirements and concern that the SCSPA had no plans to offer shore
power at Union Pier.

Also of interest to you might be the enclosed AP news story of July 25, 2012, reporting
that the South Carolina Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, in
connection with cruise terminal permitting at Union Pier, has asked for information on
traffic impact, availability of shore power, effect on property values, effect on air quality,
impact on the historic district and whether cruise ship visits might increase even further.

We hope you have the time to address the questions posed to Mr. Arison, and we look forward to
your responses.

Sincerely,

Carrie Agnew
Executive Director
Charleston Communities for Cruise Control

Encls
cc: Micky Arison, CEO Carnival Corporation
Stuart Subotnick, Presiding Director
Sir John Parker, Chairman HESS Committee

_________________________

On June 6, 2012, Executive Director Carrie Agnew sent (via certified mail/return receipt requested) the following letter to Micky Arison (CEO, Carnival Corporation) on behalf of C4. She asks him about the application to Charleston of the good practices set forth in Carnival Cruise Lines’ Sustainability Report.
Enclosed was a June 3, 2012 editorial in Post and Courier: “Dismiss Lawsuit Against Carnival? That’s a Fantasy.”
_________________________
June 6, 2012
Micky Arison
CEO, Carnival Corporation
3655 N.W. 87^th Avenue
Miami, FL 33178-2428
Via Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested
Dear Mr. Arison:

Once again Charleston’s The Post & Courier supports the call of Charleston Communities for Control
(C4) for answers to questions regarding your operations in Charleston, South Carolina.

Enclosed is a copy of their June 3, 2012, editorial.
You have our prior letters that have asked you — and the CEO of your
Carnival Cruise Lines, the Presiding Director of Carnival Corporation and the
Chairmen of Carnival’s Health, Environmental, Safety and Security Committee —
about the application to Charleston of the good practices set forth in Carnival
Cruise Lines’ Sustainability Report. You also have our Charleston Cruise
Ship Code of Conduct.

Specifically:

1. Will Carnival consider the call for use of onshore power by the South
Carolina Medical Association?

2. Will Carnival comply with its Sustainability Report statement that it
“uses low sulfur fuels voluntarily while cruising near environmentally
sensitive as well as historic areas” by doing so in Charleston?

3. Will Carnival commit not to bring ships larger than the
2,056-passenger Fantasy to Union Pier in the midst of the historic district?

4. Will Carnival encourage a study of alternative cruise ship terminal
locations so that cruise ship home port operations in Charleston do not occur
adjacent to the small important historic district and residential
neighborhoods?

5. Will Carnival, which pays no taxes to Charleston, agree to a voluntary
impact fee? Carnival recently stated that the reason it pays no income
taxes is that it pays passenger head taxes in virtually every port it visits.

6. Will Carnival regularly report its volume of local purchases in
Charleston?

7. Will Carnival regularly report its discharge practices in Charleston
waters?

Charleston Communities for Cruise Control, Historic Charleston Foundation, the
Comittee to Save the City, the Charleston Post and Courier, the Charleston
Mercury, the Charleston County Medical Society, the South Carolina Medical
Association, prominent members of the Charleston hospitality industry,
prominent members if the Charleston real estate profession, the National Trust
for Historic Preservation and the World Monuments Fund—none of which are
party to pending cruise ship litigation in Charleston—have all expressed concern
over present and future cruise ship operations at Union Pier. The aforementioned
groups are in addition to Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Association,
Charlestowne Neighborhood Association, the South Carolina Coastal
Conservation League and the Preservation Society of Charleston.

These concerns by responsible organizations deserve to be
addressed, and we look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Carrie Agnew
Executive Director
cc: Gerry Cahill, CEO, Carnival Cruise Lines
Stuart Subotnick, Presiding Director
Sir John Parker, Chairman, Health,
Environmental, Safety and Security Committee
Joseph P. Riley, Mayor of Charleston
James Newsome, President, SCSPA

Encl: “Dismiss Lawsuit Against Carnival? That’s a Fantasy” The Post & Courier, June 3, 2012

___________________________

On May 10, 2012, Executive Director Carrie Agnew sent (via USPS and e-mail) the following letter to Sir John Parker on behalf of C4.
She requests that he addresses the questions in our original letter to him. Enclosures included recent editorials in Post and Courier and Charleston Mercury as well as a recent article in The State about cleaner fuel.
_________________________

May 10, 2012
Sir John Parker, Chairman
American plc
20 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AN
England

via USPS and E-mail

Dear Sir. Parker:

Thank you for your response, dated April 26, to my letter. Previous letters to Carnival executives and to other members of the Board of Directors have not been acknowledged.

You have been informed by Carnival that they are in close touch with the City of Charleston regarding cruise ship operations, but Carnival has not been in touch with Historic Charleston Foundation, The Preservation Society of Charleston, Charlestowne Neighborhood Association, Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Association, the Coastal Conservation League, The Committee to Save the City, the South Carolina Medical Association, the Charleston Post and Courier, the Charleston Mercury, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the World Monuments Fund or Charleston Communities for Cruise Control – all of which have variously called for limitations on size and number of cruise ship visits and/or reasonable standards on operations.

Carnival should respond to these groups concerns about the impacts of home port operations in Charleston. Many believe the proposed cruise ship terminal has been inappropriately located by the Port Authority in the midst of a small downtown historic district and directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Members of the South Carolina House and Senate from Charleston have called for a study of relocation of the proposed terminal to a more appropriate site.

You may be interested in the enclosed items:

Editorial, Charleston Post and Courier, May 6, 2012, citing the call of the South Carolina Medical Association for on shore power.
Editorial, Charleston Mercury, May 3, 2012, describing continuing efforts to address the proposed cruise ship terminal location and standards of operation.
Article, The State, Columbia, SC, May 6, 2012, on the lobbying efforts of Carnival and others to alter new required fuel standards. Charleston residents have been “assured” by the Mayor and the State Ports Authority that air emissions would improve when the new requirements phase in, so the lobbying efforts are alarming.

Additionally, we recently read Carnival’s response to criticism at its recent annual meeting that it pays little or no income taxes—saying that it pays no income taxes because it pays passenger head taxes to virtually every city that it visits.

But again, Carnival does not pay a head tax in Charleston.

Although the matter is vigorously disputed, Charleston’s Mayor has said that the City has no authority to adopt reasonable ordinances regarding cruise ship operations in the midst of the City. Rather than take advantage of this, Carnival should recognize the legitimacy of the views of the groups mentioned above and voluntarily use cleaner fuel, seek on shore power, respect the scale of the City, increase local provisioning, and pay a reasonable impact fee. This is not a matter of our opposition to all cruise ships. This is a matter of Carnival’s corporate social responsibility and reputation.

We look forward to Charleston being the site of the international conference on cruise ship operations in historic ports to be held November 14-16, 2012, organized by the World Monuments Fund and the Preservation Society of Charleston.

Sincerely,

Carrie Agnew
Executive Director; C4

cc:
Micky Arison, Chairman and CEO
Stuart Subotnick, Presiding Director
Gerry Cahill, CEO Carnival Cruise Lines

__________________________

On April 26, 2012, Sir John Parker, HESS (Health, Environmental, Safety & Security) committee lead, responsed to Carrie Agnew with the following letter.

__________________________

On April 13, Executive Director Carrie Agnew mailed the follow letter on behalf of C4 to Carnival’s newest director, who also has been appointed to the HESS Committee (Health, Environmental, Safety & Security). Enclosed were the copies of the previous correspondence and enclosures.

__________________________

Debra Kelly-Ennis
President and CEO
Diageo Canada, Inc.
401The West Mall, Suite 800
Etobicoke, ON M9C 5P8
Canada

Dear Ms. Kelly-Ennis:

Congratulations on your election as a director of Carnival Corporation and appointment to the HESS Committee.

Our organization, Charleston Communities for Cruise Control, would like to update you on recent correspondence with Carnival and the HESS Committee that has gone unanswered.

We hope that your commitment to corporate social responsibility and the HESS Committee oversight of Carnival Cruise Lines Sustainability Report will cause you believe a response is in order.

Enclosed, along with all our original correspondence, is a copy of a letter recently sent to Directors raising the question why Charleston, a most historic city in a most environmentally sensitive area, does not benefit from the policies and practices accorded other port cities as described in Carnival’s Sustainability Report?

Our citizens and local newspaper would like these questions answered.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Carrie Agnew; Executive Director
Encls: Letter to Sir John Parker; Chairman, HESS Committee 3.21.12
“Ahoy There, Carnival,” Post & Courier 3.18.12
“Reduce the Risks of Air Pollution from Cruise Ships,” P&C 3.08.12
Charleston Code of Cruise Ship Conduct
Letter to Carnival Cruise Lines and Board 1.4.12
Follow-up Letter to Carnival Cruise Lines and Micky Arison 2.10.12

_________________________

On March 21, Executive Director Carrie Agnew mailed the following letters to the four board members of Carnival’s Audit Committee and to the head of Carnival’s Health, Environmental, Safety & Security Committee. All had the recent P&C editorial “Ahoy there, Carnival” (March 14, 2012) and op-ed “Reduce the risks of air pollution from cruise ships” (March 8, 2012) as enclosures.
The four audit committee members are located in the US, and letters were mailed certified, return receipt requested. Parker, who is the HESS Committee head, is in London; so his was sent via registered mail.
___________________________

March 21, 2012

Randall J. Weisenburger
Executive Vice President
Omnicom Group
437 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Weisenburger:

On January 5, 2012, Charleston Communities for Cruise Control sent a letter to Mr. Gerry Cahill of Carnival Cruise Lines asking why the policies and practices described in Carnival’s Sustainability Report are not applied to operations in Charleston, SC and requesting that Carnival adhere to a Charleston Code of Cruise Ship Conduct. A copy addressed to you was sent to Carnival’s Corporate Secretary, and we assume you received it. We have heard nothing from Mr. Cahill.

Enclosed is a copy of (1) an editorial from the Charleston Post and Courier of March 14, 2012, asking the same questions, and (2) an Op-Ed in the Post and Courier of March 8, 2012, by the Charleston County Medical Society calling for use of onshore power in Charleston.

As a member of Carnival’s Audit Committee, we assume you have an interest in overseeing the company’s corporate social responsibility and its Sustainability Reports. We request that you address the concerns and suggestions of Charleston residents.

Sincerely,

Carrie Agnew; Executive Director

Encls: “Ahoy There, Carnival,” Post & Courier 3.18.12

“Reduce the Risks of Air Pollution from Cruise Ships,” P&C 3.08.12

March 21, 2012

Sir John Parker, Chairman
Anglo American plc
20 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AN
England

Dear Sir Parker:

As Chairman of Carnival’s Health, Environmental, Safety and Security Committee, we assume you have an interest in overseeing the company’s corporate social responsibility and its Sustainability Reports. We request that you address the concerns and suggestions of Charleston residents.

Sincerely,

Carrie Agnew; Executive Director

Encls: “Ahoy There, Carnival,” Post & Courier 3.18.12

“Reduce the Risks of Air Pollution from Cruise Ships,” P&C 3.08.12
__________________________

On March 6, C4 Executive Director Carrie Agnew mailed the following letter to Mayor Riley and Mr. Jim Newsome with copies to Charleston City Council, SC SPA Board of Directors, and Ms. Vanessa Turner-Maybank.
__________________________

March 6, 2012

The Honorable Joseph P. Riley, Jr.
Mayor of Charleston
80 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401

Mr. James Newsome
SC SPA
P.O.Box 22287
Charleston, South Carolina 29413

Dear Mayor Riley and Mr. Newsome:

Carnival Cruise Lines posts on its website a Sustainability Report (2009) issued in December 2010 that promotes the many accommodations it makes in operating in historical and environmentally sensitive areas.

It appears that none of these practices are applied to Charleston, considered by many one of the most historic cities in the United States—in fact essentially heralded as such on both the SPA’s and Carnival’s own websites!

On January 5, 2012, Charleston Communities for Cruise Control (C4) sent a letter to Gerry Cahill, CEO of Carnival Cruise Lines (with copies to independent directors of Carnival Corporation) requesting that Charleston be treated under the corporate social responsibility policies and practices described in their Sustainability Report. We attached our Charleston Cruise Ship Code of Conduct that describes operations appropriate for Charleston and requested that Carnival voluntarily follow it. Copies are enclosed. On February 10, 2012, we sent Mr. Cahill a follow up letter (with copy to Mr. Micky Arison) indicating our continuing interest in a response.

To date, we have had no response to either letter.

As a non-profit community organization with hundreds of supporters, we feel Charleston deserves a response to these moderate requests based on Carnival’s own policies and best practices.

We also requested Carnival’s support for an independent, merit-based study of the best location for a new cruise terminal.

We believe Carnival’s Sustainability Report offers a menu of practices above federal minimum standards that Charleston should pursue to protect the health and welfare of the community and the SPA should pursue under its Board’s obligation to mitigate the effects of new/continued operations on the City.

We request your support and assistance.

Sincerely,

Carrie W. Agnew
Executive Director; C4

Encl.

cc:
Members of Charleston City Council

Mr. F. Gary White
Mr. W. Blake Hallman, Jr.
Mr. James Lewis, Jr.
Mr. Robert Mitchell
Mr. Marvin Wagner
Mr. William Dudley Gregorie
Mr. Perry Waring
Mr. Michael Seekings
Mr. Aubry Alexander
Mr. Dean Riegel
Mr. William Moody
Ms. Kathleen. G Wilson

SC SPA Board of Directors:

Mr. Bill Stern
Mr. John Hassell, III
Ms. Karen Floyd
Mr. Willie Jeffries
Mr. Whitemarsh Smith
Mr. David Posek
Ms. Pamela Lackey
Mr. Patrick McKinney
Mr. Henry McMaster
Mr. Robert St. Onge, Jr.
Mr. Michael Sisk
Mr. Robert Hitt

Ms. Vanessa Turner-Maybank
Charleston Clerk of Council, Chief Tourism Officer

__________________________

On February 10, C4 Executive Director Carrie Agnew mailed a follow up letter (and again included C4’s Cruise Ship Code of Conduct) to Carnival Cruise Lines President and CEO Gerry Cahill, with a copy to Micky Arison, CEO, Carnival Corporation. It was sent via Certified Mail. We received the return receipt with still no response from Carnival to date. C4 looks forward to hearing Carnival’s response to our requests and will update the website with any reply we receive.
_____________________________

February 10, 2012

Gerry Cahill
President & CEO, Carnival Cruise Lines
3655 N.W. 87^th Avenue
Miami, FL 33178-2428

Dear Mr. Cahill:

The many supporters of Charleston Communities for Cruise Control are waiting for a response to our recent letter (1/05/12) to you regarding the discrepancies between Carnival’s Sustainability Report and the use of Charleston as a home port as well as our Charleston Code of Cruise Ship Conduct (attached).

We hope the matter is getting appropriate attention.

Perhaps guidance can be provided by your Board’s Health, Environmental, Safety and Security Committee. We and other prominent groups have asked our elected officials to conduct an independent merit-based study of the best location for a cruise ship terminal in Charleston.

The SPA’s recent announcement of a delay in construction of a new cruise ship terminal at Union Pier provides a welcome opportunity for such a study—one which we hope you will support.

Our goal is that Historic Charleston avoid the untenable situation Venice is now experiencing, as described in many recent press stories. Please let us know of your willingness to participate in the Code of Cruise Ship Conduct and to support a study of alternate possible cruise ship terminal locations that would not bring large cruise ships and their thousands of passengers directly into the heart of Charleston’s small historic district and residential neighborhoods, but rather, be in line with other port cities in the United States and around the world.

Sincerely,

Carrie Agnew
Executive Director

cc: Micky Arison, CEO, Carnival Corporation

Encls: Charleston Code of Cruise Ship Conduct

___________________________

On January 5, C4 Executive Director Carrie Agnew mailed the following letter, along with our Cruise Ship Code of Conduct, to Carnival Cruise Lines President and CEO Gerry Cahill, with copies to each of the independent directors. It was sent via Certified Mail, and we have received the return receipt. C4 looks forward to hearing Carnival’s response to our requests and will update the website with any reply we receive.
___________________________

January 5, 2012

Gerry Cahill
President & CEO, Carnival Cruise Lines
3655 N.W. 87^th Avenue
Miami,FL 33178-2428

Dear Mr. Cahill

Charleston Communities for Cruise Control is an individual-supported, non-profit organization dedicated to attaining the appropriate balance between cruise ship operations in Charleston, SC and the historic nature and quality of life in the City and residential neighborhoods adjacent to those cruise ship operations.

The factors involved in striking that balance in the small historic center of town include the location of the cruise terminal, traffic congestion, visual scale, acres of parking, size and frequency of cruise ships, air pollution and water discharges. Concern about these various factors and their impact on Charleston has been expressed by The Preservation Society of Charleston, Historic Charleston Foundation, Coastal Conservation League, Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Association, Charlestowne Neighborhood Association, and editorials in the Post and Courier and the Charleston Mercury. Nationally, concern has been expressed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and, internationally, by the World Monuments Foundation.

We are impressed by many aspects of Carnival’s Sustainability Report issued in December 2010. Carnival says it strives to be a “good corporate citizen” and “a leader in strengthening bonds with our guests, employees and communities”. You aim to “enrich our diverse communities in our home ports” and “preserve the fragile ecosystems upon which we are so dependent”. Specifically, we note that “Carnival uses low-sulfur fuels voluntarily while cruising near environmentally-sensitive as well as historical areas”. We also note that Carnival has adopted a number of environmental practices in Alaska, California and Hawaii that are “not required” in order to “to reduce smog and health pollutants” and “to preserve coastal water quality”. The Report states that you have committed to onshore power for ships calling at Long Beach. Finally, we note you “contribute to the economic growth of the ports in which we operate through the taxes we pay, the jobs we create and the suppliers we support”.

Our question is: how does Charleston fit in this picture?

We have heard nothing positive about low-sulfur fuel, onshore power, air opacity measurement, discharges in our environmentally-sensitive waters or taxes — from Carnival, the South Carolina State Ports Authority or the City of Charleston. We believe these issues must be addressed. Consequently, Charleston Communities for Cruise Control has issued the enclosed Charleston Code of Conduct for Cruise Ships.

(page 2)

The Code of Conduct is not anti-cruise ship, but seeks to fashion operations at a scale consistent with maintaining Charleston as a unique small historic city and asks for treatment consistent with that accorded to certain other ports with respect to environmental considerations and impact taxes or fees. We realize that with respect to total number of cruise ship visits, Carnival would be part of a larger scheme.

We request that you use low-sulfur fuel in port and that you request the SCSPA to make on shore power available in Charleston. We ask that, in the absence of currently applicable taxes, you pay a modest voluntary impact fee. We ask that you not plan to homeport your larger ships in Charleston.

We also ask that you communicate to the SCSPA support for reconsidering the location of the proposed cruise ship terminal in Charleston. There are good alternative sites not directly adjacent to historic neighborhoods that have been suggested but never studied as possibilities. An alternate location could ameliorate many of the issues involved and be preferable for all concerned in the long run. In Boston, the Carnival Glory appears to operate successfully from the Cruiseport in East Boston, two miles from Faneuil Hall.

The SCSPA has said Charleston must accept a cruise ship terminal at Union Pier with its industrial like operations because the City is “not a museum”, yet, at the same time, The SCSPA website says passengers can “step back in time to the eighteenth century” and Carnival’s website calls Charleston a “living museum”.

We want to maintain the Charleston historic district as a place all people, including your passengers, want to visit. We believe that you have the opportunity to display your good corporate citizenship and to strengthen bonds with Charleston communities and look forward to your response and participation.

Sincerely,

Carrie W. Agnew
Executive Director

Cc: Sir Jonathon Band
Arnold W. Donald
Pier Luigi Foschi
Richard J. Glasier
Modesto A. Maidique
Sir John Parker
Stuart Subotnick
Laura Weil
Randall J. Weisenburger
Uzi Zucker

Attachments:

CHARLESTON CODE OF CRUISE SHIP CONDUCT

The Charleston Tourism Ordinance states that the purpose of tourism regulation is “to maintain, protect and promote the tourism industry and economy of the city and, at the same time, to maintain and protect the tax base and land values of the city, to reduce unnecessary traffic and pollution and to maintain and promote aesthetic charm and the quality of life for the residents of the city.”

Cruise lines must realize that in Charleston their cruise ships docking at Union Pier literally sit at the doorstep of residential neighborhoods and significant historic districts. These neighborhoods and communities deserve to have all visiting cruise ships adhere to the following standards:

1. Cruise ships should respect the traditional height, mass and scale standards of the city. No ships with passenger and crew capacity above 3,000 should regularly visit the city.

2. Cruise ships add to congestion, pollution and visual obstruction. There should be no more than two cruise ships in Charleston during a single week.

3. Charleston is an old city and the air quality impacts not only those living and visiting, but also the buildings themselves. Ships running hotelling engines constantly while in port should connect to onshore power or, if onshore power is not available, should burn low sulfur fuel and request that onshore power be made available to them.

4. Charleston waters deserve respectful treatment. Cruise ships should not discharge gray water or black water or incinerate garbage within twelve miles of shore.

5. Residents of the peninsula area are sensitive to loud noise because it reverberates between buildings. Cruise ships should avoid making external announcements and playing music via external speakers while in port. Cruise ships should not use horns or PA systems more than required by International Maritime Organization safety.

6. Cruise lines are not currently required to pay accommodation or passenger taxes in Charleston unlike other port cities. Cruise lines should voluntarily pay an impact fee of $5 per passenger into a fund for community improvement as a show of respect and appreciation for the maintenance required for upkeep.

7. Cruise ships should support the local Charleston/South Carolina economy by purchasing provisions from local vendors.

8. Trust, but verify. Cruise lines should provide quarterly data about fuel used, discharges made and local purchasing to allow measurement against these standards.

_______________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 1.23.12
CONTACT: Carrie Agnew
843-723-6659 or CruiseStandards@gmail.com

Charleston Communities for Cruise Control announces
Cruise Ship Code of Conduct

Charleston, SC: Charleston Communities for Cruise Control (C4), an individually-funded, non-profit organization, announced the creation of a proposed Code of Conduct for cruise ships visiting Charleston.

Because the City of Charleston has been unwilling to adopt city ordinances addressing the many issues associated with the operation of this major industrial enterprise at its doorstep, C4 drew upon Carnival Cruise Lines’ Sustainability Report and their operations in other port cities plus the needs of Charleston’s unique scale and historic character to develop a number of standards for cruise ship conduct in Charleston. A copy of the Code of Conduct is attached.

The standards address size of ships, frequency of visits, air and water emissions, fuel used, noise mitigation, impact fees, local purchasing and periodic reporting on the standards. C4 believes that as set forth, the Code suggests a reasonable set of expectations to harmonize cruise ship operations with the historic character and quality of life for those living in and visiting Charleston.

C4 has sent a letter (attached) to the President & CEO of Carnival Cruise Lines pointing out various elements of their Sustainability Report that do not seem to be in practice for Charleston. It commends Carnival on their general statements of corporate social responsibility and call upon them to adhere to the Code of Conduct while in Charleston. As noted in the letter, along with C4, the need to address some or all of these issues have been stressed by 10 other organizations.

C4 also calls upon Carnival to indicate it is not adverse to a study of the best location for a cruise ship terminal in the Charleston area. As the SPA advertises, “Unlike many ports, Charleston’s passenger terminal is located in the heart of the historic district.” Perhaps there is a reason cruise ships in other ports do not dock in the heart of their historic districts.

C4 hopes Carnival will act by its own corporate social responsibility standards and participate in making cruise operations in Charleston compatible with sustaining the historic character and livability of the city.

####