HARROD'S CREEK BRIDGE: A POLITICAL EFFORT IN FUTILITY?

The Harrod's Creek Bridge issue continues to grow bigger and seems to be yet one more example of Abramson control gone amok. Let's review some background for those unfamiliar with the situation.

Harrod's Creek Bridge is a one lane bridge. A throwback to a different time in our history and yet one that many believe should be preserved. Myself among them. With that being said the bridge has always been functional and has thousands of cars pass over it practically daily. With this in mind some have argued that they would prefer a larger bridge at least 2 lanes at that location.

Seems now Abramson is going to keep the bridge shut down for no apparent reason.

The week of Thanksgiving a car was travelling over the bridge and wrecked into the guardrail creating an obvious safety hazard that needed repaired right away. The bridge itself was closed on Thanksgiving eve forcing a quagmire for travellers for the Thanksgiving holiday.

No problem with this story yet right? Metro did the right thing and closed the bridge assumedly until repairs could be made to insure safety of travellers.

The problem today is the repairs have not been done.

I first became aware of this story back in December from the WAVE3 Hot Button segments by Steve Langford. WAVE 3 TV Louisville, KY Video The Hot Button editorial by Steve Langford basically admonishes River Fields for filing a lawsuit against Metro for not reopening the bridge.

In this case I disagree with Mr. Langford for his admonishment. Let's look at things from a different perspective like this response from Don Cox to Langford's editorial: WAVE 3 TV Louisville, KY Video

Therein lies the rest of the story. The people of Harrod's Creek who use the bridge are being made to suffer for no reason. According to Mr. Cox there are 2 guardrails set in place to block people from using the bridge. It would seem easier to repair the bridge using one of them wouldn't it? How many guardrails are hit and damaged from accidents all the time. Do we close down every road because of it or do we fix it so people can travel on the taxpayer paid for right of way.

Mr. Langford falls for the line by Abramson that the bridge is unsafe, (duh it has a guardrail damaged of course it is), and Abramson says we cannot get federal funding to replace it because it is only a one lane bridge.

Excuse me folks but does this sound like it should be this kind of a problem? Do we really need to spend more money defending a lawsuit that should not have been forced to use as an option to get things done?

This is just one more absurd example of poor leadership and decision making by Abramson. While we know he likes to continue hemorrhaging money defending lawsuits so his buddies can make money on us it is absurd that he will spend more money defending this suit than the actual cost of doing the right thing.

Fix the dang guardrail on the existing bridge!

If you want to go for federal dollars to build a new one have fun with that. We have only been touting a couple of new bridges for as many years as I can remember, like an east end bridge or a new downtown bridge, so why not?

Maybe he thinks that by forcing this asinine situation he will get enough funding to build a little 2 lane bridge at the Harrod's Creek Bridge location so he can spin in the next election how he was able to get funding for a new bridge when people said we couldn't. That scenario is almost so ridiculous it isn't even funny. More ridiculous is the thought he is arrogant enough to try and pull that line off.

Not only are people having problems commuting back and forth the City is also losing money because of it. When the businesses are losing business income because of this fiasco there are no taxes paid to the City from that business. Lost business is lost tax revenue that Abramson says we need.

Is this a fiscally responsible approach considering Abramson continues to tell everyone we have a budget "crisis?"

SO let's recap a bit.

We now are going to spend money we don't have for a situation we really shouldn't have all thanks to this arrogant Mayor and his "visions" for what he wants.

Who benefits? His personal stable of attorneys who will defend the lawsuit with money we don't have once again. Yet another expense that is unnecessary. Really that is about all.

Who loses? We the people once again. The people of Harrod's Creek lose for obvious reasons. The people throughout Metro lose when we have to pick up the tab for even less revenue thanks to lost business from this fiasco. The area overall loses historic value.

So is there more to the story here? Is Jerry trying to pull another fast one over us by trying to steal some land and development we do not need by starving the area of business? Who knows.

Could the insurance company of the driver of the car be forced to pay for the damage to repair the bridge thus negating any cost to the City for repairs?

Anyone want to speculate on why this idiocy continues in Metro?

I await your response.