November 15, 2013

Letters to the editor: I-295 crash scenario hard to swallow

A reader wonders how anyone could believe that a driver could be unaware of sideswiping another vehicle.

Let’s see if we have the sequence of events on the I-295 crash correctly laid out (“Driver in I-295 accident had twice before sideswiped cars, police records show,” Nov. 9).

click image to enlarge

Casey Larcombe and his fiancee, Kathryn LePage, await results of X-rays on Larcombe’s spine at Maine Medical Center on Nov. 7. A reader wonders how anyone can believe that the driver who allegedly triggered a crash involving Larcombe on Nov. 6 was unaware that she’d hit his car.

2013 File Photo/Derek Davis

1. Julie Caton (with a history of driving offenses) sideswiped a family in the left lane of 295, sending them into the median and then end over end, police say.

2. Caton’s own bumper was ripped off her car during the accident.

3. Caton sped away, apparently unaware that she had allegedly caused a horrific accident that almost cost an entire family their lives.

3. Multiple witnesses and good Samaritans stopped to help, or followed Caton to make sure she did not get away.

4. When the police finally got around to showing up at Caton’s house, they just issued her misdemeanor summonses for leaving the scene and failing to report a crash.

5. When asked, Caton blamed the other driver for driving too slowly in the left lane.

6. And at this point, no other charges have been filed against her.

How could anyone believe that she was unaware that she sped around another car on the right, impacted that other car, lost her bumper and never looked in the rearview mirror to see a car going end over end behind her? Then continued on without a care in the world!

Even if that were all true, she is an incompetent driver, as she apparently does not posses a sense of sight, sound, touch or the common sense to put them all together.

What does a driver have to do to get a more serious charge in this state or finally lose their license? Sounds like the Larcombe family will be waiting a while for an apology.

Lincoln Paetow


Town’s biased assessments to finally get public scrutiny

Scarborough residents should pay particular attention to the goings-on at Town Hall on Nov. 26. That’s when the Board of Assessment Review will finally, in public, deliberate on the numerous issues of tax discrimination in Scarborough – discrimination affecting every taxpayer in Scarborough.

Oct. 15 testimony, taken under oath, has already confirmed that more than 40 percent of all homeowners throughout Scarborough are grossly assessed outside the state of Maine’s maximum guidelines of 90 percent to 110 percent of market value. That’s discrimination.

When a land lot is assessed a value of more than $1 million and the abutting lot, of comparable size, is assessed a value of $14,000, that’s discrimination.

When everyone in Scarborough, other than the actual owner of a lot, is footing the tax bill for that owner’s undervalued million-dollar lot, that’s discrimination.

When a tax assessor testifies that the Great Recession did not have any impact on property values whatsoever in any area of Scarborough and uses that as a rationale to justify the use of 6- to 8-year-old property sales to target individuals – that’s discrimination. These are just a few of the undisputed facts. We have a big problem in Scarborough.

This board and the new Town Council may not realize it, but they have the opportunity to address these and numerous other discriminatory practices employed in Scarborough. Public disclosure of homeowners harmed, from all walks of life in Scarborough, would encourage responsiveness and transparency in Scarborough’s broken government.

Whether it be this board, the Maine Superior Court or our Town Council that is forced to act, every Scarborough taxpayer will be very appreciative. The question is, who will step up?

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)