I have read your article from Feb. 15, “Ballston Sewer Proposal Seen as Boost to Route 50 Corridor.” Please accept the following perspective held by what seems to be a majority of residents living on the 20 roads in the proposed district.
I’m hoping to see the defeat of the proposed Rt. 50 sewer for many reasons.
“Development and traffic.” Town presentations show a lot of acreage along Route 50 that is available to develop hundreds of condos, and wouldn’t that be nice? No. There is already bottleneck traffic. The town offered no answers. One business owner offered a solution at a recent town board meeting, saying that to avoid traffic on Rt. 50, he takes back roads to reach a less-congested area. What a sophisticated traffic-control plan.
“Cost.” A one-time penalty of $11,200 for a one-family residence; a $926 annual tax penalty for 30 years. Seniors with fixed incomes may have to sell, forced to leave the town they raised their families in.
“Only benefits business owners.” Business owners on Rt. 50 (there are others as well) are the drivers of this sewer proposal that will bring housing, people, sales. Several businesses own acreage on Rt. 50 and want to sell to developers. These owners should pay for the sewer. Why did the town drag the residents of 20 roads into this? The business owners don’t want to pay $15.8 million themselves.
People here voted “no” to sewer in the ‘70s; our forefathers wanted to keep Burnt Hills rural. This sentiment remains the same today.
Susan Robbiano
Burnt Hills
