The following is an opinion submitted by Richard D. Rogovin. Mr. Rogovin is an attorney based in Ohio and Chairman of US Bridge. His daughter and her family live on Darbrook Road.
The State of Connecticut is preparing to replace the Cribari Memorial Bridge, and Westport’s own government shows little appetite to stop it. Perhaps that is because no one has asked the one question that might actually change the politics: who owns this bridge?
The Town of Westport built the Cribari Bridge in 1884, at its own expense, contracting directly with the Union Bridge Company. No deed transferring title from the Town to the State has ever been found — not in the land records, not in the Secretary of the State’s office, not anywhere. The State’s authority rests on a 1963 highway renumbering —only changes on maps. If we change the number on our house at the suggestion of the Post Office, does Uncle Sam own our home?
If this is so, the bridge still belongs to the citizens of Westport, in every sense that matters. Apparently your elected officials do not understand this, Or wish the problem would go away,
We can make it go away, I propose that the Town donate the bridge — at no cost to taxpayers — to a newly formed tax exempt memorial foundation, with a self-perpetuating Board of Trustees, free of local and state control, with the implicit authority to restrict the truck traffic that is currently pounding it into structural failure. A local attorney will be found to prepare the necessary papers without charge.
This will cost the Town nothing and risks nothing: either the gift can be made cleanly, in which case Westport will have finally secured its bridge, or if a Court decides it cannot, we will have learned, at last, who truly owns it. All it will take is a Resolution of Council and a recorded deed,
Named for a Westport police officer who came home from war to serve the town that raised him, the Cribari Bridge and its honoree deserve better than to be quietly sacrificed to a state highway project because no one in authority wanted the fight. Let the heirs of the citizens who built it decide what becomes of it.
Richard Rogovin, Attorney and Chairman, U S Bridge
Blacklick, OH 43004
Dickrogo@gmail.com
614-209-5010
Mr. Rogovin raises an interesting legal perspective that adds another dimension to the discussion.
Whatever the ultimate answer to the ownership question, it’s worth remembering that the Cribari Bridge is also part of the Bridge Street National Register Historic District and remains the subject of an ongoing federal Section 106 review. That process examines not only engineering and safety, but also effects on historic resources, visual character, traffic, and cumulative impacts.
Many Westporters recognize the importance of that federal process. 1779 have signed the petition requesting federal oversight. Several have signed this past week.
https://c.org/rQQSJXwCSq
And four federally recognized consulting parties have submitted detailed comments that are now part of the official FHWA record.
Those federal considerations will remain important regardless of how the ownership question is ultimately resolved.
Oh please, Richard,
This is just your company’s attempt to locate old bridges across the US. Your representative was at the 2016 town hall offering “help” from US bridges. You don’t live here, nor do you pay taxes here, or support any of our town’s initiatives. Stay in Ohio, and if you feel like visiting your daughter off Hillside, then come, enjoy what Westport has to offer, then head home. This is our town, and we will decide the outcome. Maybe if the” split-the-bridge” idea comes to fruition, you’ll get the millions you’re seeking. other than that, SHHHH!
Interesting issue raised. If the owner is indeed the town, and if a transfer to a foundation can be effected, here is the question;
Who pays to upgrade the bridge to safe conditions?
That’s certainly one of the key questions. Another is whether it can be answered in isolation. The ongoing FHWA Section 106 review exists because issues such as ownership, historic preservation, engineering, alternatives, liability, and funding are all interconnected. The public comment process is intended to help ensure those questions are considered together before decisions are made. So the question isn’t simply “Who pays?” but also “What are the legally available options, and how do federal preservation requirements affect them?”
Robbie, thank you for taking notice of my proposal that the Cribari Bridge be transferred to a new foundation. I’ll set aside the ad hominem approach and focus on the substance, since that’s what actually matters to Westport — and I know you understand this, given your meritorious efforts on behalf of Westport and its memorial bridge over many years.
I’d genuinely welcome your rational take on the title and funding question, because it should be obvious that my company has no realistic prospect of a multimillion-dollar contract with an essentially penniless foundation. If the concern is that this proposal is solicitation dressed up as civic concern, I understand the suspicion — but it doesn’t hold up against what’s actually being proposed, a way to bring the State to a discussion of ownership and the right to stop the trucks, free from any local politics that may be handicapping Westport’s defenses.
As for motive more broadly — last week our company marked 90 years in business since my father, the son of a penniless Russian immigrant, borrowed $5,000 from a local bank on his signature because we were, to borrow a Dust Bowl phrase, dirt poor and hoping to survive the Great Depression. We’ve lasted this long on a simple philosophy: solve the customer’s problem, even when it costs us money to do it. So please address the proposal, not my motives — that kind of response is beneath your reputation as one of Westport’s best citizens.
You know how this kind of thing works? It falls under the domain of the powers that be … one day they just start tearing it down, then someone provides a clause in an old state finding by a court that’s say this and that. We need the the governor and our first select person to state the vision; without the powers that be making a concrete commitment one way or another, we are left to wonder about ancient deeds and rights of way and the general mysteries of the universe. Who gets to decide? A couple old timers? A few you wipper snappers? A committee with an agenda? A man who lives right next door? A business owner down the street? A guy like me who grew up going over the bridge everyday? Who .. who who.. —- the powers that be
The answer is actually more structured than it may appear.
Because this project involves federal funding and a historic bridge in a National Historic District, no single person or committee gets to decide. The Town, CTDOT, and FHWA each have different responsibilities, and federal law requires public participation and consultation before a final decision is made. That’s why there have been years of studies, public meetings, consulting-party input, and opportunities for written comment. The process can certainly be frustrating, but it isn’t intended to be a mystery — or simply a decision by “the powers that be.”