Commentary

Vote no on Articles 2, 3 and 4

Wed, 10/26/2016 - 9:15am

The Boothbay community has been blitzed with expensive ads, oversized street signs, postcards, and free lunches from PGC5 (a private limited liability company owned by Paul Coulombe) to persuade us to vote for a radical, imprudent, and expensive change to our community. Its proponents make claims about traffic accidents and congestion without supporting evidence. The claims are false. Not even PGC5’s paid experts make those claims. The independent expert hired by Boothbay has refuted them. PGC5 also claims that we should not pass up “free” money.” Money is never free. The Maine taxpayer will be paying more than two-thirds of the cost of the roundabout project. Boothbay taxpayers will be paying $1.5+ million which could instead be used for other projects, including water and sewer to the Industrial Park.

The Facts: PGC5 wants to enter into a partnership agreement with the State of Maine (the DOT) and the town of Boothbay to construct a roundabout immediately southwest of the Common and make other changes on Route 27 and the Corey Lane area. The developer has said in print in the Register that without this roundabout he cannot build his seasonal shopping mall adjacent to the Common. He has since, apparently, changed his mind. The cost: one million of state taxpayer money, one million of the developer’s money, and $1.5+ million (including interest on the bond), which Boothbay will be pledged to pay over a 20-year period. The Boothbay taxpayers’ share will come from the real estate taxes paid by PGC5 and other businesses in the Village TIF district, which includes the Industrial Park, on recent and future improvements to their property.

False claims are constantly being repeated as if they were true, without evidence to support them. By dint of repetition some have been convinced or have convinced themselves.

We believe it is not true:

1. that there have been any serious accidents or more than a few fender benders at the stop signs.

2. that there is significant traffic congestion.

3. that the DOT can arbitrarily make changes to our town roads.

4. that the town will not be liable for the full payment of the bond if circumstances should change.

5. that the seasonal Country Club or the proposed seasonal shopping village will provide year-round jobs.

6. that we must seize this opportunity or forever lose the chance for funding for a new proposal. There are always ways of getting money for good projects. If PGC5 truly has the best interests of the town at heart, it will be willing to contribute to future projects.

We believe it is true:

1. that the TIF money can be used for other projects in the TIF district, including about 20 percent of the cost of water & sewer to the industrial park, or anywhere within an expanded TIF district.

2. that the TIF money belongs to the town, not to the developer. It is simply the real estate tax paid by PGC5. Like every other taxpayer, the developer should get no special benefit from the taxes he pays.

3. that there’s no reason to believe that a roundabout with four pedestrian crossings will be safer than our current situation and it’s possible that it will create traffic backups we don’t currently have.

4. that the modest traffic congestion and safety requirements at the stop signs can be inexpensively handled by employing a traffic officer during peak traffic times in the summer.

5. that a road between the post office and the old ambulance site to Route 27 would relieve any traffic congestion on Corey Lane without the need for a roundabout. That would save money and disruption.

6. that the traffic conditions that led to the creation of the Blue Hill Roundabout, which our selectmen and others have referred to as similar to ours, are totally different: there, four state highways meet and there had been many serious accidents.

7. that a bicycle path and sidewalk have been separately budgeted and will be installed regardless of the roundabout vote.

8. that a large amount of money has been spent by PGC5 to try to convince us that the roundabout plan is manna from heaven and has no potential downsides.

9. that technical details about the proposed bond issue need to be examined but can’t be since the contract won’t be created until after the vote. Approval of articles 2, 3 and 4 will give the selectmen total control over its details, and the devil is in the details. Will the contract, unlike the current plan, be created in the light of day? And what guarantees will the town have about financial and other kinds of liability?

10. that there will be two years of road disruption and alternate routes.

11. that once the roundabout is installed, we can never go back, and the nature of the town, its heart-area, will have been changed forever. What makes Boothbay distinctive will be diminished. The Common area will never be the same. It will seem smaller and less accessible. Its historical and aesthetic charm will be weakened. A part of the soul of the town will have been lost.

The Committee Against the Roundabout believes that before we radically change our town, we should move prudently and consider alternatives. Surely we can do better. We can make the entrance to the town more attractive. But there should be widespread agreement about what to do. And the agreement should come from the grassroots. If we vote NO, we will have time to gather facts and consider alternatives. A committee can collect data and expert opinions; a questionnaire can help find out what the town wants. All the stakeholders can have a say from the start.

On behalf of the committee and its many supporters, The Committee Against the Roundabout recommends a no vote on Articles 2, 3 and 4.

The Committee Against the Roundabout: Mackenzie Andersen, Paula Arsenault, Leslie Crowell, Julia Kaplan, Fred Kaplan, Laurie Knowlton, Heidi Larsen, Peter Larsen, Jean Latter, Robert Latter, Cyrus Lauriat, Susan Margonelli, Paul McArdle, John McKown, Fred Pierce, Arthur Reed, Eugene Reed Jr., Pamela Reed, Katie Rittershaus, Susan Smith, Mark Stover, Lynne Tobin, Karen Vander and Rhoda Weyr.

Commentary articles and the opinions expressed therein are those of the contributors and do not represent the views of this newspaper, its employees or owners.