Stop MTA toll plan and save local homes
Dear Independent,
I am a York resident and a proud member of "Think Again," a grassroots citizens' action group with a goal of preventing the Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA) from taking homes (including any portion of their land) for the planned relocation of the York Toll Plaza. That's how it began, but it has quickly evolved into an additional goal of preventing a quasi-government agency with frightening autonomy from shoving down the throats of York and Cape Neddick residents an ill-conceived toll plaza relocation with a minimum cost of $37-$40 million.
Based upon the MTA's presentation April 3 at the York Middle School, I am convinced that the MTA has dismissed out of hand renovating the current toll plaza and that their design for a 21-lane plaza, plus buildings, employee parking and access roads, is set in stone. In other words, they marched up and down the turnpike with their design and settled on four sites that could accommodate it without any thought as to its impact on the landscape and the people living at those sites - what I call the "human environment." After all, they have the power of eminent domain on their side, which the MTA would have you believe they use only sparingly and with a velvet glove (more like a fisted glove).
Dan Paradee, spokesman for the MTA, in a guest editorial in The York Weekly, was apparently perturbed that rumors of eminent domain had been floating around the community and causing anxiety among the populace - none of which emanated from the MTA. Come on, Dan, how stupid do you think we are? The MTA maps of the four sites show the relocated plaza significantly overlapping residential property lines. How is the MTA going to acquire this private property? Yes, some people may elect to accept a negotiated payment for their property, thus escaping the legal process of eminent domain but not the goal of the threat of eminent domain, which is to relieve you of your property. The MTA says it rarely has to use eminent domain to get what it wants, which is not surprising given that you may receive even less compensation if you go that route. He even went further by stating that some people may even be relieved to be rid of property so close to the turnpike. Clearly he did not accurately take the pulse of the crowd Thursday night before he made that statement!
The MTA repeated many times during their presentation April 3 that they are in the early stages of the project and therefore unable to answer all questions - it was just too soon.
Sure, it's early in the process for the MTA since their end result is the opening of a new toll plaza in mid-2011. However, since they have already settled on a 21-lane design and they will pick a single finalist from the four sites by the end of May it is clearly past the eleventh hour for the residents at those four sites and the town as a whole. This is just one of the many examples of the MTA's inability to look at this project from any perspective other than their own. All of us that attended Thursday's meeting were hoping to give the MTA motivation to consider other perspectives and solutions. I was absolutely amazed how many people were moved to get up and speak in front of the huge crowd, asking question and demanding answers when none were forthcoming.
Clearly the whole town sees this as their issue and rightly so. Every person that spoke was eloquent and passionate in his or her own way. This must have been what it was like for the colonists, our forebears, when they shouted "no taxation without representation" to King George III and Parliament over 240 years ago. They, too, were railing at an unfeeling and all-powerful entity with little or no concern for their well being or their natural rights.
That the MTA is firm in their plan for 21 toll lanes, including six high-speed cashless lanes and 15 cash lanes, is a real head shaker. This is a design for handling peak summer traffic weekends as if they were a common occurrence throughout the entire year. The new plaza will open in time to be obsolete given the rapid development of cashless electronic toll technology. The MTA's own data shows that, as of 2006, 50 percent of all toll revenue from the York Toll Plaza is paid through E-Z Pass and that number is growing rapidly. Only 12 percent of the traffic through the tolls is truck related, 80 percent using E-Z Pass. So why would the MTA then build a plaza with just six of 21 lanes using cashless electronic technology? More than one half of the revenue is E-Z Pass but less than a third of the lanes will be E-Z Pass? Plus, the new E-Z Pass will be high speed, which requires no concrete lane dividers, just an overhead metal superstructure, so the footprint can be much smaller. The new technology would suggest more high-speed lanes, less cash lanes, less total lanes, smaller footprint, less impact on the landscape and residents of York. Let us remember, though, that the MTA receives less toll revenue from Maine residents with discounted E-Z passes.
The MTA gave us many reasons why it will not renovate the existing toll plaza. Most of them were refuted April 3. It's almost as if the MTA decided first that a relocation is necessary and then created the evidence to support their conclusion. To what end, empire building or just because they can? The governor has talked about consolidating the MTA with the Maine DOT in an effort to cut down on redundant costs, obviously resulting in some very unhappy MTA trustees and executives. Common sense tells me that the best thing to do is to fix the current plaza to last as is for three to four more years and then scrap it and rebuild it in its current footprint using the latest high-speed cashless technology. All the issues raised by the MTA against the current plaza can be fixed IF they want to consider the possibilities. The MTA and HNTB, its consulting engineers, are smart people and they have a huge responsibility in operating and maintaining the turnpike. But can they put aside their arrogance and insensitivity and think outside the proverbial box to seek win-win alternatives for everyone? Did they learn anything from that Thursday night or did they just put up with us, with every intent to proceed down their current path?
The Sensible Transportation Policy Act mandates that they solicit local government and local residents' input concerning transportation decisions of this sort and be responsive to them. The MTA seems oblivious to this. April 3 was a call to action to all concerned residents of York and Cape Neddick. There is no time to lose. Contact members of the MTA Board, available at http://www.maineturnpike.com/, and members of the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation, available janus.state.me.us/house/jt_com/tra.htm to voice your objections.
Mark Harrison
York
Highland Farm purchase is the right thing to do
Dear Independent,
When advertisers exhort us to "spend to save" there is an inherent contradiction. But an opportunity to do just that will be on the ballot in York in the May referendum, and it is not a contradiction at all.
If we vote to spend $500,000 to purchase 150 acres at Highland Farm on the north side of Route 91, that expenditure will leverage much more money already committed to the York Land Trust by other sources. We will be saving, for future generations, land that will otherwise become house lots, with children in the schools (costly) and cars on the roads (adding to traffic woes and pollution).
If this beautiful land can be purchased by the York Land Trust, an important link can be added to the protected corridor from Mt Agamenticus to the upper reaches of York River.
There are myriad reasons as why we should do this, but the two reasons that stand above the rest, in my opinion, are that we will be protecting land above our water supply and that we will all be welcome to walk these acres in perpetuity.
Thank you,
Sally K. Sulloway
York
Town Hall plan: Legacy or liability
Dear Independent,
As a citizen of York, a member of the Budget Committee and experienced manager of new products, I feel it is necessary to speak out on the "Town Hall" issue.
There have many opinions expressed on this issue, most of which have been based on limited information. Many of which have contained facts limited to reinforcing their position on the issue. My objective here is to establish my credentials and the facts regarding the town hall proposal.
As a member of the Tax Task Force I participated in development of property assessment communication material and development of CAP-1 and CAP-2 budgeting guidelines. I assisted the implementation of the Circuit Breaker Program for economic assistance in York. As a member of the Budget Committee, I have sat in Capital Planning Committee meetings in December and January 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.
As a candidate for the Budget Committee, I ran on platform of need-based-budgeting. I have attempted to exercise this philosophy throughout my term. The town hall proposal is a case in point.
Professionals in new product development recognize the potential liability in allowing a concept to take on a life of its own, without disciplined evaluation of the growing embodiment. In most cases the eventual product launch is a failure, due to the variances taken from the original need.
FACT: For a decade the current Town Hall has had inadequate space, and no handicap access.
FACT: Town officials have taken no action to alleviate the situation by leasing additional space.
FACT: In 1995 a Portland architectural firm was hired to evaluate the feasibility, and suggest a plan to enlarge the current town hall. The projected cost, in today's dollars is about $2 million.
FACT: There is no record that anything was done with this report; either in 1996 or in the past two years as the latest proposal has received town official development and support. Apparently no contact was made to the First Parish Church on the concept of adding a third floor and usable basement on the same footprint.
FACT: Town officials placed emphasis on land purchase and sale subsequent to the elections of 2005
FACT: in May of 2006 the voters approved purchase of the York Street parcel for a MUNICIPAL building.
FACT: In MUNY planning committee meetings the approved purpose of this land was sequentially downgraded as 1) the Police Department found the location unsuitable; 2) the School Department saw no advantage in relocation to the parcel.
FACT: Proponents of the land purchase changed the focus to a "new town hall" ... the MUNY committee followed this goal.
FACT: In December 2007 Capital Planning meetings statement of need and benefits were submitted in support of various projects. Both the new public safety building and a new town hall had space needs, while the safety building had multiple of safety and security considerations.
FACT: Town officials were successful in obtaining priority for the town hall... the vote was consensus, not unanimous.
FACT: Negative preference votes of the Budget Committee in 2008 were due primarily to the incomplete financial data presented.
FACT: Narrow voter rejection in May 2007 seemed based on several factors: appearance, cost, location, access.
FACT: In recent CAPLNGCOMM sessions consideration of the public safety building was rejected once again, given the momentum of the town hall proposal and unanimous support by town officials on a revised style and reduced cost town hall.
So this is where we are, citizens of York. We have a parcel of land driving a project which will cost the tax payers almost $9 million after bonding costs. We have a proposal which does not match the usage proposed when the land was approved for purchase. We have no progress on land or building for a public safety facility, even though suitable land seems to be available. We have a five-year capital plan which projects investing almost $30 million in new town assets.
We can predict that the implementation of this plan including the town hall will increase real estate taxes. We can - and should - wonder if these investments have the proper priority. Is the need-benefit relationship there? Or are we being asked to support a proposal which is land-purchase driven, where the apparent legacy of a new town hall could turn into a liability ... because we invested in the wrong building in the wrong place, without consideration of other options?
David Lincoln
York
Green buildings, Green land
Dear Independent,
Congratulations and gratitude should be extended to the Select Board and Budget Committee of York for the excellent work that they do, preparing the May ballot with thoughtfulness, due diligence and care.
In particular, I would like to thank the boards for their unanimous preference votes for Green buildings and for the appropriation of $500,000 to the York Land Trust to help purchase the land at Highland Farm. Both initiatives are GREEN.
Clearly, Green buildings for municipal projects are recognition of the necessity to be pro-active in finding ways to minimize construction impact and emphasis efficiency in the battle against climate change.
The town appropriation for the Highland Farm purchase is important for many reasons: extraordinary wildlife habitat, water supply protection and public access, to name a few. I would also suggest that supporting the protection of the open space, forest and water supply at Highland Farm is the only way to be sure that trees and vegetation not be cut for the proposed 37 house lots, resulting in the loss of the forests ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the air. Further, those houses would most likely have a couple of cars per house, burning fossil fuels, leaving hydrocarbons on long impermeable road surfaces. There would be lawn chemicals, all of this washing down to the York River with each increasingly heavy rainstorm.
Voting "YES" for both of these initiatives will be GREEN votes.
The town will be managing the carbon footprint of municipal buildings. The beautiful 150 acres at Highland Farm will remain intact - an environment that will be forever beneficial for the abundant wildlife, for the fresh water, for the pure salt water of the York River Estuary and for the public - a legacy for the citizens of York.
Sincerely,
Helen Winebaum
York
Municipal Building Committee supports Town Hall plan
Dear Independent,
Following the affirmative votes in 2006 to purchase village land and to fund the architectural and site planning, a building committee was created and specifically charged by the Board of Selectmen. Though often questioned about alternatives, the committee has not been directed to reevaluate previously eliminated options. The Board of Selectmen has not considered, nor has it been asked to consider changing the direction of the committee.
Recently, some Budget Committee members and others seemingly disapproving of the proposed plan to construct a new Town Hall on the town green site have reintroduced several old alternatives along with offering a few new ones. Some of the options and issues are discussed below.
1) Rebuilding the existing Town Hall. This option was thoroughly evaluated in 1994 and revisited in 1998. A floor plan draft was "backed into," attempting to maximize the footprint of the existing Town Hall by adding a basement and a third floor which would double the square feet of interior space. Some factors that contributed to ruling this option out include: The Town doesn't own the land; would require approval by First Parish Church; would require further investment in property owned by others; significant alterations to the appearance would not be allowed under current zoning laws; restrictions on substantial modifications to buildings in the Historic District (Historic District Commission approval required); would not meet parking requirements for public buildings (approximately 80 spaces short); inadequate structural strength, requiring complete rebuilding to add floors; similar to the recent Atlantic House project (former Pop's Shell Shack); would require relocation of staff to a temporary site for up to one year; much of the expanded space would be committed to satisfying current code requirements for pedestrian flow, stairways, elevators, etc.; resulting plan would still be inadequate, retain many of the existing problems, and not be further expandable in the future; basement would be located below a known flood line in adjacent area; most importantly, and understandably (perhaps even thankfully), the First Parish Church did not agree to this option.
2) Co-locating with a future police station on Route 1. Revisited by the Board of Selectmen in 2006, found to be contrary to Comprehensive Plan (based on earlier studies); architect programming confirms that each use warrants a different location; voters supported purchase of the village land (2,455 Yes; 1,381 No); a specific site on Route 1 proposed for this use was ruled out by voters in 2001 (919 Yes; 1,522 No).
3) Spread services between various locations - Town Hall, Viele Home and Ice House. Would require voter approval for additional cost to purchase each property; rebuilding for public use is likely to destroy, not preserve historical significance; multiple locations more inefficient to operate and manage; unable to meet parking requirements; no advantage relative to traffic concerns; confusion to customers considering where to go for which services; less energy efficient, less likely to meet LEEDS standards.
4) Renovate the former Rite Aid location in the shopping plaza. Building is not for sale; would require sub-lease, and further investment in property owned by others; 5000-square-foot space - approximately $60,000 per year; build-out to make suitable for town use - more additional cost, undetermined; contrary to town goal since mid 1990s to reduce amount of leased space.
After decades of thoughtful dialogue and contemplation, the town finally owns prime acreage in York Village. The proposed town hall building offers a viable, high quality, permanent solution that would end years of temporary quick-fixes that have barely met our town office needs. In addition, it will provide the opportunity for expansion as needed in the future. Along with the post office and library, it will define the center of our community.
Given the current economic slow down, this new town hall can be built and bonded for less than it likely ever will be possible in the future, thus providing a lower total cost to our citizens.
We believe that the proposed town hall is something that the citizens of York will be justly proud of for many decades to come. We hope you will consider this information as you make your decision on the May 17 warrant.
Municipal Building Committee
York
Not a case of clergy abuse
Dear Independent,
There are three sides to every story; one side, the other's and the truth. I do not pretend to be writing about any of these, but rather, just my own perspective, which is all that I can honestly offer.
I have been attending First Parish Church for 10 years. Pastors Rich Knight and Linda Hirst are core to the very reasons I attend. I have felt welcomed since day one and feel that way to the present. Recent stories in the local press compel me to comment as a member of First Parish Church.
The claims against Rich Knight that I have read about are not my definition of clergy abuse. From my perspective, the recent stories I read about concerned the actions of consenting adults. I believe that if Rich was not in a pastoral position, none of this would have made it farther than the local coffee shop.
As a child in Massachusetts, I was raised Catholic and served as an altar boy and sang in the boy's choir. Although I did not know it at the time, I was in the midst of a recruitment device created by a twisted priest who used blind faith as a device for his pedophile lust. I escaped that environment unscathed and unaware. It was years later that I realized through stories in the press several of the boys I sang and served with were not so lucky and were abused in the worst of possible ways. That was clearly clergy abuse - criminal, crafted and demented.
Some will disagree with this perspective, especially those involved. That is absolutely their right, and as I wrote initially, I do not pretend to know all the facts and am not commenting on them. Everyone has to deal with their own personal issues in the way they feel is best for them. However, since this matter was made public, as a member of First Parish Church, I feel compelled to respond in kind. Since this is my church and my pastor, I personally feel that this situation is important to me. Rich, Linda and the church have stood by me in times of great joy and great sorrow. I am not about to turn my back on them now.
I am not by any means a model of faith and do not consider myself a religious man. However, without a doubt, I put my continued faith in my pastors and in my church. I look forward to the resolution of this matter, and to the restoration of Rich Knight to the First Parish Church.
A.J. Steffenberg
York
Caring Unlimited thanks community for support
Dear Independent,
Due to an overwhelming amount of support from community members, Caring Unlimited kept all state funding and will remain open.
In early March, the governor released information that the supplemental budget would contain over $95 million in cuts, many of which would come from the Department of Health and Human Services. Caring Unlimited and other domestic violence projects in Maine were facing total elimination of their state funding. Combined with the potential loss of federal funds, the future looked bleak for Caring Unlimited and similar organizations.
However, the community responded! Concerned citizens in York County, including those who have used our services in the past or have known someone who has, began to call and write letters of support to their legislators, asking for full funding to be maintained. On Wednesday, March 12, a busload of survivors, community members and employees of Caring Unlimited arrived in Augusta to attend the largest rally in history at the statehouse. Throughout the entire process, members of the local media came to visit Caring Unlimited offices in Sanford to interview staff and survivors about how the cuts may impact their lives.
It worked! The supplemental budget has been finalized. Maintaining funding for domestic violence was a priority for both Democratic and Republican legislators, especially after hearing from all of the brave survivors who spoke out about the potential loss of services.
Caring Unlimited is grateful to all who called, wrote letters, came to the rally at the statehouse and covered the story in the media. We could not have maintained our funding without your critical help! We also thank the Health and Human Services Committee, the Appropriations Committee and all of the hard working legislators who listened to the voices of their constituents and rejected these cuts.
We pledge to continue our work to support survivors of domestic violence and their children for as long as we are needed.
Jill Barkley
Caring Unlimited
York County
Thanks from FPC Youth Fellowship
Dear Independent,
The Senior High Youth Fellowship at First Parish Church wishes to thank all those people who participated in our Youth Mission Trip Service Auction on the 29th of March.
We reached our goal, thanks to you the merchants and the families of church. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
Thank you to the following for your ongoing support: Annaka Jans; Anthony's; Bagel Basket; Abbott Brothers; Andy LeConte; Auto Spa; Barton Orthopedics; Becky Hazen; Berger's Bike Shop; Best Nails; Bill & Bob's; Bill Roschewski; Brown's Ice Cream; Carolyn Furber and Linda Davis; Cape Neddick Inn; Cape Neddick Lobster Pound; Clay Hill Farm; Coastal Landscaping; Curves; Dan Ramus; Dave Saxton; Dawn Defeo; Dianne Goodwin; Dick Bournival Dodge Chrysler Jeep; Divine Chocolate; Dick Bachelder; Dockside Restaurant; Don and Sue Lippoth; Eldredge Lumber; Estes Oil; Faye Gourlie; Fiona's Porch; Foster's Clambake; Fox's Lobster House; Freedom Salon and Day Spa; Gloria Gustafson; Greenleaves Chinese Restaurant; Grey Gull; Hannaford's; Heidi Oliver; Infinite Imaging; Jan Henderson; Jim and Sue Sullivan; Joanie Monteith; Keri Harrod; Katherine MacDonald; Kathy Carter; Lobster Cove Restaurant; Lontine Insurance; Mainiax; Matthew's Automotive; Mark and Kate Kelleher; Mark and Nancy Ergmann; Mary Walker; Norm and Nancy Fording; Norma's Restaurant; Old York Historical Society; Per and Jan Jonas; Phil and Lynn Cross; Port City Chrysler Plymouth Dodge; Revelations; Rich Knight; Rick's All Season Restaurant; Roast and Crumb; Ruby's; Shirley, Todd, Carol and Earl Frederick; Starkey Ford; Sterling Brightman; Stick's Restaurant; Stolen Menu; The Daisy Trading Company; The Inn at Long Sands; The Lobster Barn Restaurant; The Union Bluff; Thee Privileged Pet; Tim Janis; Town Cleaners; We Care Dry Cleaners; When Pig's Fly; Wildcat Pizza; Windol and Sondra Weaver; York Corner Hardware; York Fitness Center; York Flower Shop; York Hair Design; York Harbor Inn; York House of Pizza, and York Shears.
Senior High Auction Committee
York
