The anti-rural conspiracy revealed (or not): Part II
Editor’s note: The first half of Planning Board Chairman Phil Cyr’s letter to the editor ran in last week’s edition.
6. Page 32 appears to be the crux of the anti-rural allegation because the Comprehensive Plan states “The city would like to contain sprawl in the rural parts of town and focus on development in the urban core to protect larger farming operations.” The Committee report than states “Many of the Territory landowners have sufficient land suitable for subdivisions …” Previously I mentioned that Caribou is a city of 8,000 with an infrastructure (roads, etc.) to support that of 12,000. It is an effort to keep expenses and taxes down that we don’t think new neighborhoods should be created out in the country for the City to plow and maintain.
Also, on page 48, the Committee states “that farmers, potato farmers in particular, are responsible for the historic growth and vitality (of) Caribou … after the closure of the base, it is agriculture … that is, once again, paying the bills … Without the rural farming community, Caribou would be little more than a crossroads dot on the map of Maine!” So you criticize the Comprehensive Plan for suggesting that any new development be focused around the urban core to protect the farming operations than go on to say that it is farming that is keeping Caribou alive. We agree with you! That’s why we would rather not see new subdivisions created in “the Territory.” Again, you appear to be contradicting yourself.
7. Page 34, the Committee states “We must stop here and set the record straight. There is no plan to, nor is there any need to, expand infrastructure in the rural parts of town! It is a complete fallacy to imply that they (plans) exist, or might exist. This portion of their report (Comprehensive Plan) is patently dishonest and deceptive and shows the city will stop at nothing to subjugate its rural residents!” Yet as mentioned above, the Committee states on page 32 “Many of the Territory landowners have sufficient land suitable for subdivisions which could be used by their children to build their homes and raise their families …” So which is it? You reject the notion that the Comprehensive Plan cautions against any new development in the rural areas because there are vehemently no plans for such yet you discuss that very possibility two pages earlier. Are you contradicting yourself again?
8. Page 34, the Committee goes on to say “And finally, at page 102 of the Comprehensive Plan, in the section entitled Rural District, the true motives and intentions of the City Administration and Planning Board are fully revealed. To allow the reader to appreciate the deeply rooted, lingering hostility and animosity …”. The Committee goes on to bold from the Comprehensive Plan “The minimum lot size requirements is high in order to prevent over-development where public sewers are not feasible and where a full range of urban services cannot be provided economically.” Apparently the committee disagrees that where public sewers cannot be extended and private septic systems are necessary, that lot sizes should not be high? Do they want their neighbor’s sewage leaking into their well water?
Again, the Planning Board in the Comprehensive Plan is simply trying to keep city costs down by suggesting that new development occur in the already built up portion of Caribou. Larger lot sizes are a health issue, not an anti-rural bias. If people want to build new homes on existing roads, that’s great! However, I don’t think we need any new roads (in new developments) to plow and maintain.
9. Page 36, the Committee lists “the extra services and amenities that urban residents receive such as sidewalks, streetlights, fire hydrants, public water and sewer …” I wish to point out that public water and sewer in Caribou are not tax supported at all, they are funded by user fees.
The above is a sampling of what can be done when taking sentences out of context, as the Committee does with the Comprehensive Plan throughout their Committee Report. The bottom line is there is no deliberate anti-rural bias in the Comprehensive Plan. There are only efforts to deal with an oversized infrastructure in a depressed economy. Too bad none of the Committee came to the Caribou visioning sessions when we first began the Comprehensive Plan rewrite.
The secession committee was formed before the 2014 Comprehensive Plan was released. It was formed as an effort to lower city expenses and taxes. I believe that when the Comprehensive Plan was released, the Committee decided to try to use it to show an anti-rural bias. I don’t know if this was an effort to drive a wedge between rural and urban citizens in order to get more support for their secession movement? I hope that you’re not trying to start a war by inappropriately taking Comprehensive Plan sentences out of context and trying to make them say things that were never intended.
I find the Committee’s report has too much emotion in it and not enough constructive recommendations. My advice to the Committee is to rewrite their report without the alleged anti-rural bias and focus on your primary mission of lowering expenses and taxes. You will gain more supporters by sticking to that issue than by fabricating an anti-rural bias that is untrue. Instead of using the Comprehensive Plan negatively, use it as a source of information regarding staffing levels to compare to similar sized communities for appropriate staffing numbers and wages.
I am opposed to high taxes and I am actually in favor of many things the Committee is suggesting we do. We do need to reduce municipal expenses everywhere we can. Let’s be friends and deal honestly with each other in a non-emotional manner. My hope is that the city of Caribou and the Secession Committee can come together and find middle ground that enhances a united Caribou with lower taxes. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
