To the Editor:

A recent editorial in the “St. Lawrence Plaindealer” (“Too Many Questions with Realignment,” March 1) gives the opinion that the suggested realignment of Miner Street in downtown Canton is a low priority idea and not worth a serious look. I feel the editorial misses the mark, and takes an extremely narrow and short-sighted view of the project.

The realignment is an idea I advanced last December. I suggested that it was a way to ensure that a proposed Nice N’ Easy convenience store will not worsen an already-bad traffic safety and flow situation at the corner of Main and Miner. The editorial acknowledges that “the corner poses difficulties”, but suggests that motorists avoid the intersection and “take the long way around”. Is this suggestion a viable solution to the problems at Main and Miner? Or, does it consider the long-term need for safe and efficient street access to businesses and other traffic generators in Canton? I don’t think so.

From my perspective, the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists is the primary issue at Main and Miner.

Traffic congestion and inconvenience are secondary issues. It’s a no-brainer that the Nice N’ Easy will make all these problems significantly worse. The realignment of Miner Street would, I believe, significantly lessen these problems if not entirely eliminate them. However, the plans submitted by the Nice N’ Easy developers place the convenience store in the middle of the realigned Miner Street. In other words, the Nice N’ Easy as proposed will erase the opportunity to realign Miner Street.

The editorial asserts that the developers are not interested in altering their plans. Is this statement true? If so, it begs the question, who’s in charge here, the Village or the developer?

I have examined the Nice N’ Easy plans and discussed the project with the developers. What I heard was that they were very interested in cooperating with the Village. At the same time they didn’t want their project to be delayed, which is understandable. After several hours of re-design work, I concluded that there would be space for both the convenience store and the realigned Miner Street. Or to phrase it differently, the convenience store could be fast-tracked for development this year, and Miner Street realigned in the future as DOT and/or other funds become available. The main thing now is to keep the option open by keeping the needed right-of way open and unobstructed.

The editorial acknowledges that the realignment is “conceptually a sound idea”, but concludes “the village can spend taxpayers’ money on better things.” Has anyone actually estimated the cost of the realignment, or approached the developers and/or the DOT with a cost-sharing formula? Has anyone considered the cost of the Village’s possible future liability when there’s an accident at the intersection?

The Nice N’ Easy project plans and the realignment idea are interrelated and should be considered simultaneously. This will require a comprehensive and serious look, not a “quick peak” as the editorial suggests. More information on the realignment, including an aerial view, is available on the NorthCountryNow.com website; search “miner street realignment”. Village residents who agree this is a sound idea that deserves a serious look should communicate their views to Village officials.

Richard W. Grover

Canton