I agree the bridge was in shambles but it is in the middle of nowhere. I agree with the mayor. If you are going to do publics works projects do it where it benefits the most people.
It was just a bridge on a secondary rural highway, the kind of bridge that millions of rural people use every day. I don’t know whether it was the state or the federal government that picked that project to be first, but it either way it was great politics. The bridge was in a frightening state of decay. Chunks of concrete were even falling off of it as they stood beside it doing the interview. And it was in a rural location, not a big city. This sends a message to rural people that they aren’t going to be overlooked. Even better, a known right wing journalist tried to attack the project by saying that it’s in the middle of nowhere, but in doing that she came off as completely disrespectful of rural people all over the US. Is she saying that their roads and bridges shouldn’t be done because they are “in the middle of nowhere”? I bet Obama’s approval rating just went up 5 points all over rural US. I guess the mayor of St. Louis can get away with talking like that because rural people don’t elect him, but his position certainly requires a lot more explanation. The bridge was 3 hours outside of St. Louis, and I would think that that would be close enough for St. Louis contractors to bid on the job. Work was just starting up so it would appear that the contract has been awarded, and that must mean that a St. Louis contractor didn’t get the job. I would bet that many of the materials will come from St. Louis, however. I got the impression that he feels that St. Louis has been short changed in general with respect to the infrastructure money, and maybe that’s true, but his issue with this particular bridge didn’t come across very well for him. Maybe it was just about optics for his own voters in the city.
