Editor,
First off, I would like to say thank you to the elected officials for voting and not abstaining. Though, I believe that this should have been put off because there are so many questions unanswered, and I believe that Option 3 was prematurely passed when many concerns still need to be addressed. It kept being brought up at the meeting that this has been going on for four years. Yet, this plan isn’t going to be executed for more than two decades. So, this could have been put off until all the t’s were crossed and i’s were dotted. I have many questions:
• Duke Energy hasn’t given its input and won’t until Environmental and Engineering has studied the options and given their input. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will also have to give its say, so I feel as if the vote should have been put off until all parties involved have given their input. Can the town handle a lawsuit from Duke Power stockholders?
• Option 3’s connection issue with McGuire should have been resolved before this was passed. Is this going to be a security issue down the road for McGuire?  What if McGuire/Duke Energy says no to the connection at their plant and want it in Lincoln County? Then what happens to Option 3?
• Option 1 guaranteed green space. Option Three does not because N.C. 73 is state owned and operated, and state official can widen it regardless. So the aesthetics are not guaranteed and should be removed from the analysis matrix.
• The level of service is only good until 2030, and this will not be executed until 2035. So another study will be done.  Meanwhile, other properties in the area will be developed, making the entire ordeal moot in the end.
• Hubbard Road is greatly deed-restricted against commercial development, meaning no jobs will come to this area. Option 3 is a limited access plan that will inevitably stunt the economic growth of Huntersville because it hinders jobs and tax dollars from business revenue. How do you propose to offset the cost of Option 3?
• Option 3eliminates the homes and land of many residents, meaning property taxes will be lost. Meanwhile, those that built and bought homes on a state highway are now being protected, though many homes are for sale. Buying land on a highway comes with the risk of development and widening. Buying land on a rural side road should not have the same risks.
• Have federal environmental officials approved Option 3?
• The land for Option 1 had already been purchased. Why invest more money the town doesn’t have in this project? Will taxes go up again to attain the land for Option 3?
• Option 3 addresses the curb appeal of Huntersville because it is protecting the suburbs. The deed-restricted rural land of Hubbard Road is far more beneficial to the community as true green space that is farmed, not land being protected for aesthetics.
• Where will this funding come from? All the options benefit Denver residents more than people in Huntersville. Why are we spending our tax dollars to speed the commute for Lincoln County?
• What happens if land that Option 3 cuts through becomes historic or becomes part of a land preservation?
Your votes should have addressed these concerns.
– Stacy Phillips, Huntersville