Dear Editor:

I am writing in regard to the forthcoming November 8th referendum questions 2, 3 and 4 concerning authorizations and funding for an incomplete "roundabout" plan. My "no" vote will reflect my dismay and distrust in the process, not a dismissal of the concept.

A roundabout might be a good idea, eventually. The incomplete plan under consideration that we are being pressured to vote upon this November 8, however, should NOT be the singular proposal slated for consideration on that ballot. That proposed partial plan offers us only a 50 percent solution, dealing with only half of the intersections with Route 27 in the Common vicinity: Corey Lane and the south end of Common Drive. It does not eliminate left turns to and from Back River Road and the north end of Common Drive. At best, it is incomplete; at worst, dangerous.

If it is done wrong, after enormous financial cost, there will be no fixing it. Why is there such a hurry?

The more comprehensive Helman proposal (Letters, 8/20/16) provides all the benefits of the pending incomplete plan, and in addition: 1) eliminates left turns to and from Back River Road and the north end of Common Drive; 2) eliminates foot traffic across Route 27 from the town parking lot to and from events on the Common; and 3) substantially expands the Common.

EMS vehicles would not have to go all the way around to access Corey Lane because the west side of the expanded roundabout (from EMS to Corey Lane) would be two-way, with the northbound lane reserved solely for ambulance traffic.

As there is little to no hope of getting a "Citizens' Comprehensive Plan" added to the ballot this November, I will vote NO until a more thoughtful and complete proposal is in place for us. We deserve better than costly partial plans. We need time to consider rational, comprehensive alternatives.

Let's vote NO on Articles 2, 3 and 4 for now. Let's insist on getting it right first. (Assuming, as I do not, that there is a traffic problem to begin with).

Helen "Heidi" Larsen

Boothbay