Bridge naming touches nerves
It's always interesting what actions of council will draw the most heat.
With concerns of taxes, over and under-spending, political in-fighting, severances and other potentially sticky messes that could draw the wrath of constituents, one would imagine a simple bridge naming ceremony would pass under the radar and quickly become history. And it would be a soft bit of history at best.
While it's not every day that a landmark is named after a resident, one could hardly imagine why a naming would offend someone.
But the issue seems to have raised the hackles of at least a few residents, who believe that council should have either a) named the bridge after past politicians connected to the bridge or b) spent their time and efforts on issue they felt more pressing.
Our question is, can't they do all of that?
Certainly there are plenty of landmarks that need naming, and certainly elected leaders and paid staff are capable of multi-tasking. We are certain, in fact, that despite taking a morning off to dedicate a small piece of the Village to one of its most committed residents, they are more than able to handle the day-in, day-out rigors of the job, ie. taxes, permits, complaints, and so forth.
It's hard to imagine someone trying to take away from the glory of one person's accomplishments for any reason.
But perhaps this unexpected backlash has less to do with a harmless ceremony, and more to do with this fall's municipal elections.
And if that's the case, all councils can expect to come under fire in the coming months.