To the editor:
Recently, the citizens of Caribou were treated to a public response from the Chairman of the Planning Board for the city of Caribou, to the report written by the Caribou Secession Committee Representatives. Their response was authored by Mr. Phil Cyr, in a Letter to the Editor, published in two parts in the Viewpoint Section of the Aroostook Republican.
Mr. Cyr, having taken great umbrage to our report, complained vociferously about Section V of our report that describes the eight problems the Committee has identified as those which have led us to the secession effort. Of particular concern to Mr. Cyr was problem number 8 in which the Committee claims that the city of Caribou has a strong bias against rural territory residents. At page 31, our report reads as follows;
It is clear, through policy decisions, actions and words, that the city of Caribou harbors a strong resentment towards the rural community. We have been relegated to second class citizens who now, apparently, have become more trouble than we are worth.
Evidence of this bias can be found in two distinct areas. First, in the unequal delivery of municipal services, and second, in the overly restrictive land use regulations proposed and published in the city’s recently updated 2014 Comprehensive Plan. It was adopted just seven months ago by the City Council on November 24, 2014.
The 2014 Comprehensive Plan is the work product of the Planning Board and it bears Mr. Cyr’s name. The Secession Committee read the report with astonishment and readily recognized that the Comprehensive Plan succinctly put into words the bias rural residents have felt for a long time and which predates his service on the Board. It is their “smoking gun” so to speak. So, of course, we quoted from it extensively and reprinted passages from the plan verbatim which supported our claim of bias. It is so overt and outrageous, that had we not done so, nobody would have believed us!
In his letter, Mr. Cyr shamefully characterized our claim of bias as a “conspiracy revealed”. Either he doesn’t know the difference or he was an attempting to smear the members and motives of the Secession Committee. Assuming for the moment, that there may be one or two Territory residents who actually value his opinion, which in and of itself strains credulity, I will explain the difference.
A bias is the tendency or inclination of outlook or a subjective point of view. A predisposition, bent or leaning in addition to a preconceived opinion about something. The opposite of an anti-rural bias is a pro-urban bias. They are both the same.
A conspiracy, however, is something altogether different. It implies that something is sinister, evil, unlawful, and treacherous or a surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud or unlawful act. A bias and a conspiracy are miles apart and he deliberately misrepresented the two in an attempt to diminish our standing in the community and in particular, the secession territory.
Mr. Cyr continues his letter by expressing his immense displeasure with the Committee’s Report which, according to him, contained “inaccurate suppositions” and that the Committee has not been fair in their use of sentences picked out of context from the Comprehensive Plan to make allegations that are completely unfounded regarding a bias against rural Caribou.
The Committee unequivocally denies his allegations. The Comprehensive Plan speaks for itself. Anyone with a high school level of reading comprehension can plainly see that our conclusions are fair and accurate. The examples of bias are clearly made within the context of land use regulations and the delivery of services. Nothing was taken out of context, although, the bias we describe is found throughout the Plan. Interestingly, he left out some of the most severe regulations proposed in his plan at page 103 entitled the Rural District. Our report deals with this topic on pages 34 and 35 where we reprinted the entire section. Due to space constraints here, I will include the three most pertinent paragraphs:
The rural district of Caribou, comprising most of the area outside the urban core, has the potential to accommodate any amount or type of development. The challenge is small scale residential development and single family homes which spread out infrastructure and often require more municipal investment than will be recovered through property taxes. Development in this zone should be limited to agricultural operations, or an industrial or residential operation that is of sufficient size to generate enough taxation to pay for the required infrastructure.
Larger “country” roads should be discontinued and small scale residential development along many of these roads should be discouraged as they will not contain the necessary tax base to continue supporting these roads.
Caribou should investigate the implementation of substantial impact fees for small scale residential development in the rural district as this type of development should be discouraged, since it adds little value and does not serve as an attractant to potential businesses or residences, mainly serving to force the city to maintain an unsustainable infrastructure level.
To summarize, the plan wants to eliminate the construction of single family homes along existing roads or charge the land owners substantial impact fees on top of already high property taxes and then, discontinue some of those larger “Country” roads. The closure of roads was also mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Analysis section at pages 80-81 where it states:
Alternatively, all public rights may be discontinued, although the City would be liable for damages if a parcel became landlocked as a result of such an action. Caribou may discontinue a road for winter maintenance; this would allow for regular use of the road in the summer and fall while relieving the City of plowing responsibility, even if houses were built on the road.
These draconian regulations represent a huge loss of property rights for rural residents and if that is not evidence of an anti-rural bias, I can’t imagine what would be! Are we now to believe that the city may desire to close Raymond Joseph Lane or Spruce Ridge Road? Assume for the moment that these lovely rural neighborhoods, and several others, had not yet been built. The truth is, that if these proposed regulations were codified into zoning law by the City Council, those homes might never have been built. And ironically, neither would Mr. Cyr’s home on Washburn Road!
The Comprehensive Plan contains his words, not ours, and the fact that he now calls our use of them into question illustrates his desire to distract readers from the very real bias that exists in Caribou against rural residents. And if reading about this isn’t scary enough, watch the video of the City Council meeting for Nov. 24, 2014 where Asst. Manager Mazzucco presents the Plan after 18 months of hard work. You can find the video online at YouTube.com by following this link: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=caribou+city+council+november+24%2C+2014
Mayor Aiken was absent and Deputy Mayor Martin was presiding. Please pay particular attention to the comments that were made by the Councilors after the presentation. For those who cannot view the meeting, I will quickly summarize what was said:
Councilor Theriault: “Good job, very good job! The Planning Board, you, whatever you did, it was excellent! I actually took the time to read it. (Laughing)”
Deputy Mayor Martin: “I read it cover to cover also and it’s very well done!”
Councilor Murchison: “Well, I would add a comment if we’re not going to get any public input, that I was able to participate in some of the visioning and I thought it was a really well attended and well run and it went a long way in helping form, at least the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, and I would like to add a well done to the city staff and the people that took part … Planning Board as well.”
Councilor McDonough: “I passed that along to them earlier and I would like to emulate everyone else’s praise for Mr. Mazzucco. He did a fine job, from cradle to grave. The typos are all his.”
Councilor Murchison: “Also, I would add that the hallmark of a good plan isn’t that it lie on the bookshelf somewhere. It should be dog-eared and coffee-stained and well used, updated in five years and ideally fulfilled on the way to the next Comprehensive Plan and long range visioning.”
The Council then voted unanimously to accept the Plan in its current form, without dissent or criticism from any of them, eager to put the Plan into action. If you are a rural resident you have every right to be alarmed at what the city may try to do to you in the future.
Paul Camping
Secession Committee member
Caribou
Editor’s note: This is the first half of Camping’s letter. The second half will appear next week.
