Do you really want to own
the East Ave. bridge?

First, let us address the statement made by Mr. Keith Benjamin and Mr. Tom Furfaro: "The Board was not in touch with the convictions of the average voter on this issue."

The Village Board made many efforts with Albany and the Dept. of Transportation to have the bridge reopened when it was closed by the DOT. The DOT was very firm in its response by stating they would not spend any monies to renovate the bridge and instead money was budgeted to have the bridge removed.

They have since learned the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation would not allow the removal of the bridge.

It was only after concerned citizens, "average voters" petitioned, with over 1500 signatures, our elected representatives, in Albany, to reopen the bridge, that we became totally involved.

Well, it worked, to a degree.

Money would be provided for the complete restoration of the bridge, but, with the condition, we would have to assume ownership of the East Ave. bridge.

Now, we are in a new ballgame. What would this mean to the residents, and its taxpayers, of Newark, NY? Maintenance costs, insurance liability, etc. etc.

The Board had to do more homework.

After all, the residents of Newark placed these men in office to look after their best interests and concerns. They certainly did not want to abrogate those trusts.

The Board did do its homework.

It began by asking its managers to meet with Dept. of transportation bridge engineers, bridge builders and any others who were knowledgable on bridges.

We had to know how costly would it be to own the bridge and would we be strapping our children, and our children's children with costs they could not handle.

It was, and is, our responsibility to look after the best interests of our citizens.

The concerned group emphasizes: "We are not against the bridge being opened or rehabilitated." They do not want to own the bridge.

The Board had to make a decision knowing full well if we did not renovate the bridge, it would not be opened. The DOT is firm in this position.

The bridge is a valuable link between the north side and the south side of Newark. There are businesses and industries employing close to 3000 people and growing, on the north side of the canal. Some 30-35% of Newark's population lives on the north side of the canal. With the bridge opened, precious minutes are saved by the emergency vehicles.

We keep hoping no tragedy occurs to prove our point.

The managers came back with their reports from the bridge experts.

The bridge - when and if renovated - will be maintained at little cost to the Newark taxpayer.

To reassure the people of Newark, the Board adopted in its resolution (to take ownership of the bridge) that there would be no tax increase to finance the maintenace and/or repairs of the bridge.

Regarding inspection costs: Lewis M. Gurley PE, Regional Design Engineer for the State Dept. of Transportation states: "Inspection costs are not the responsibility of the Village. The Dept. assumes inspection responsibility."

With no increase in tax dollars, our insurance carrier sees no problem with our current coverage.

We should not forget the current bridge was used for about 80 years with very little maintenance. (I wonder what modern science and technology will come up with in the next 80 years).

One gentleman of the concerned group stated: "I don't want my kids and grandkids saddled with the future costs of repairs and replacement of this bridge."

I agree. Neither do we. But let's take another look at that picture. The bridge, properly renovated and maintained, will last, according to our experts, at least another 80 years.

Worst-case scenario. The bridge in 35-40 years from now is in need of major repairs and the state will not help us with grants or aid.If the bridge becomes unsafe, the residents of Newark can do what the state did, close the bridge. But, why should we make that decision for those living in Newark 35-40 years from now.

Let Them Make That Decision!

In the meantime, we will have use of that bridge for all those years.

We are lucky that our previous village leaders were not afraid to build a modern sewer plant and a great water plant. They, too, didn't want to burden their descendents with taxes to maintain those facilities.

The state is giving us $800,000 to renovate that bridge. There are no costs to the taxpayers of Newark.

Would it be a shame, and sad, to have to refuse the $800,000 (other communities would be happy to receive that money) and not have a beautiful renovated bridge in place of the eyesore that now stands there.

I just know the people of Newark will seize this opportunity and help Newark continue to be the progressive community it is. Wonderful things are happening in our community. Let's continue by supporting our industries, who want this bridge, our emergency vehicles and our travelers.

We've received the response from the NYS Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation in an unusually expedited manner has determined that our proposal will have no adverse impact on historic resources.

John V. Palermo,