Marc, your disingenuous and misleading post on your alternative blog was brought to my attention this morning. (I will not dignify your trash talking tabloid with a link.) You are obviously baiting us for information with your exaggeration and hyperbole. There have been no secret meetings that I am aware of. On the other hand you appear to be trying to plant these rumors at the bidding of certain parties who are desperate to head off any attempt by the city to right its past wrongs in the Glen Cove fiasco.
Now, for the facts. In the first place, it is not rumor or allegation that we (Glen Cove residents) want the city to rebuild the bridge as originally promised to us by the city. That is a statement of fact and a matter of public record as can be seen in the demands of our lawsuit (See item 24 here.). Second, it is misleading to say that the bridge was removed to facilitate navigation. You are as aware as anyone that there was no navigable waterway above the dam until after the bridge and dam were removed. This NEW navigable waterway above the dam was artificially dug and access to the small area between the bridge and dam became possible for anything larger than a canoe for the first time in a century only after removal of the decades old bridge. It was not until after the city's illegal and secretive breaking of its promise to repair the old bridge that construction began on this new, artificial waterway that you speak of. Third, your estimates on bridge reconstruction are deliberately exaggerated. At least one disinterested third party has obtained preliminary estimates for bridge reconstruction that are well under one tenth the estimates you conjured up. Such plans will satisfy us. If a more elaborate bridge is desired by some party, then the additional costs should logically and fairly be the responsibility of those parties with an interest in creating the above mentioned artificial waterway.
Once again I ask the question, why did the city engage in a deceptive process to remove a long standing bridge without mitigation, compensation, or even notice to the affected residents and without commensurate compensation to the city as a whole when said process resulted in millions of dollars worth of private benefit?
As a side question, why do you, Marc, feel the need to continuously attack and defame the interests and rights of private citizens who have done nothing other than complain about the city's illegal and immoral taking of their rights and property in an issue that has nothing to do with you? Do you just generally like to support abusive government policy, or do you have some hidden ulterior motive?
I will not be dignifying your hit piece by joining the discussion on your alternative blog, but congratulations to Paul Morrato for being the only poster there able to maintain focus on logic and facts.
(Photograph shows destruction of the Seminole bridge in Glen Cove that commenced on a Friday afternoon after city and county offices were closed such that Glen Cove residents could not request a halt. This was done shortly after ex-mayor Shults promised the residents in response to questions about rumored destruction that such was not imminent and after the city promised to give the residents advance notice if such destruction did become imminent. Note height of bridge above the water.)
Jeff Hagen
