To the Editor: Wouldn’t you know it, another way to confuse the issue has emerged in regards to the promotion (at taxpayer expense) of the rooftop highway. Now the towns of Norfolk and Massena, …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
To the Editor:
Wouldn’t you know it, another way to confuse the issue has emerged in regards to the promotion (at taxpayer expense) of the rooftop highway.
Now the towns of Norfolk and Massena, taking the lead from the county legislature, have endorsed both the interstate and the Route 11 upgrades.
They say they want the upgrades but are at odds with the Department of Transportation over the $6.3 million. The DOT is already spending the money on Route 11.
This was the original intention but the rooftoppers want it for their pet project. How can they be for both?
Upgrading Route 11 is on the drawing board as you read this. The rooftop is just an idea and that is all it is. There is nothing to back it up but the phrase “economic development.” That phrase catches a lot of people as it is cast out among the politicians.
There is no science, no studies to back up the claim that the rooftop highway will lead to economic development.
A rural expressway, the intended future of Route 11, is what the studies say is appropriate for our area. You can access the studies by going to YesEleven.org and read them for yourself.
More people need to pay attention to what is going on here and let the power structure know that they are waisting time and taxpayer money on an interstate idea at the expense of fixing Route 11 right now.
John Casserly
Canton