Apocalyptic future?

It was with some amusement that I read Mikki White’s second doom-and-gloom jeremiad highlighting all of the terrible things that might befall the city of Clarendon should the historic bridge be permitted to stand as part of a tourism development plan. Among the plentiful weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth envisioned in this dark future was the warning that if the city failed to follow through on required maintenance down the road that the bridge could then have to be removed with “taxpayers’ money.”

Huh? Do we have a free “demolish a historic bridge of your choice” voucher that we could redeem now but if not, taxpayers will have to foot the bill later? Obviously not. The taxpayers will foot the bill whether done now or later. But if not done now, we may find it need not be done at all. Taxpayers, say thank you!

I don’t mean to make light of the sort of responsible considerations that should go into a decision like this. It’s important that the city of Clarendon act responsibly, which includes having a plan to deal with the many contingencies the author highlighted. But it’s also important that Clarendon move forward with a bold vision to reinvent itself, even if it that means stepping out a little beyond its comfort zone. Because you want to know what kind of future is really scary? Much scarier than Clarendon taking on the responsibility of the bridge? Clarendon just doing more of the same. That’s a future that would be positively apocalyptic.

EDDIE HAMILTON

Clarendon