This is in response to the Sun Journal article, “Large families, limited parking why landlords oppose new development” (May 27). The group sponsoring the “people’s veto” against the rebuilding of fire-destroyed units continue to change the reasons why they oppose the project and make a number of misrepresentations as quoted in the article.

Since the replacement buildings have yet to be designed, I am not sure where the information on unit sizes or parking spaces is coming from. The statement that “these are four bedroom apartments” is false. Of the 29 units proposed for reconstruction, only four or five will have four bedrooms. In regard to the parking issue, the number of parking spaces is not known at this time and will be determined as part of the Planning Board design-review process.

Originally, those opposed to the rebuilding said they were opposed to helping a national group come to Lewiston. In response to those concerns, I am now doing the redevelopment myself. This is not a new project being pushed on downtown Lewiston. It is a reconstruction of just a few of the many units that were lost to fire. There will be no new influx of large families; most of the families who were displaced are waiting to move back in. These are the same families that have lived in Lewiston and whose children are already in the schools.

In regard to tax increases, none of the financing for the project is coming from the Lewiston tax base. The completion of this project will put seven vacant lots back on the tax roles, paying almost $34,000 annually. That reinvestment in downtown will help stabilize the neighborhood and increase property values in the area.

How will that lead to increased taxes?

I am proud to be a resident and property owner in Lewiston and feel that I have a right to rebuild the units that I lost to arson. The city has agreed to support the redevelopment effort with the additional land that is required to meet the new zoning.

I trust that when residents have accurate information they will not sign the “people’s veto.”

Phyllis St. Laurent, Lewiston