To the editor:
On March 12, we attended the public meeting at the Caribou Performing Arts Center. We did not say anything then, because we were under the impression that the Route 4B would be the plan chosen for the eventual I-95 project. We do not understand why this wasn’t chosen, because it was the least expensive, used up the least acreage (3.4 compared to 15.5 acres on Route 4A), would only disrupt 13 residences compared to 24, displaced the least wetlands and the sub-power station would not have to be relocated at the tune of over a million dollars.
We viewed the following City Council meetings on March 24, on television. To our surprise and disappointment, Plan 4A was voted on and selected. We want to express that we firmly and resolutely believe that we were mislead, and we disagree with this decision that was made on our behalf without having our say in it. This should have been a referendum for the people in Caribou.
We don’t understand why there was such a drastic shift of opinion in little over one week. Route 4A would be the most expensive due to the relocation of the sub-power station, the vast destruction of wetlands and the result in upheaval to residents and businesses alike.
It is our opinion that the costs of the destruction of so much property far outweigh any so-called ‘benefit’ this plan can give us, bar none. The city may be required to spend the granted money quickly on such a plan, but it could be well over 30 years before the rest of that money is granted to the city to complete the project. Meanwhile, those of us who have lived and paid taxes here for well over 40 years will have to suffer because of an ill-advised decision. We do not think that is fair.
Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.
Peter and Omerine Cyr
Caribou