It seems just as likely that a meeting occurred between railroad officials and the towns leadership, and it went something like this:
Railroad: We want to build a new railroad through town. You'll have to demolish 37 houses and move the main square and the church. Sound okay?
Town: Are you gonna pay us to do this? Will you give us new land elsewhere? Will this railroad take business away from our main trade of making carts and road wagons?
Why does your comment smell like you're trying to explain away what really happened with your own theory? And so at the same time excuse away the reason presented on the article? And with a bit of victim-blaming as well?
In those days a small deviation to not bulldoze the main square would've been very easy and reasonable (with plenty of land), a huge deviation like described, a huge waste of resources.
Railroad: We want to build a new railroad through town. You'll have to demolish 37 houses and move the main square and the church. Sound okay?
Town: Are you gonna pay us to do this? Will you give us new land elsewhere? Will this railroad take business away from our main trade of making carts and road wagons?
Railroad: Fine, we'll just build elsewhere.