_________________________

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:
June 6, 2012 letter to Mr. Arison (see below);
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^th Ave.
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