This page summarises an opinion essay that Jay Breneman wrote and that was published on ErieReader.com on 31 January 2018. It concerns the McBride Viaduct in Erie, Pennsylvania, a bridge closed to vehicles for about seven years at the time of writing. It is a summary of one person’s argument, not a neutral account of the dispute.
Why he changed his mind
Breneman began by admitting that he had stayed neutral on the viaduct for too long. When the bridge first closed to cars, he had imagined it might become a pedestrian-only crossing, but public debate was mostly about keeping it for vehicles or tearing it down. Later, as a county official, he had partnered with a city council member on a rail-to-trail project nearby.
He gave three reasons for staying quiet: he did not want to intrude on city business as a county elected official, he worried that City Hall might hinder his pedestrian project if he pressed on the viaduct, and he was concerned about the cost of keeping the structure standing.
The 2017 primary
His view shifted during the 2017 mayoral primary. He said he came to respect the dedication and research of one rival, Lisa Austin, who showed him materials about the viaduct and the surrounding east-side neighbourhood after a debate at the Jefferson Educational Society. As a social worker trained in community development, he said he shared her concern for the neighbourhood’s well-being. He also said many residents from across the city wanted the bridge preserved if possible.
What he proposed
During the campaign, he said, his answer was that the viaduct should be treated like any place-based issue: through intensive dialogue with the affected neighbourhoods, with residents in the driver’s seat and supported by city professionals. He connected this approach to Erie Refocused, the city’s comprehensive plan, and said he had given the same advice to the eventual winner, Joe Schember.
Towards the end of his time on County Council he had supported a new revenue stream for bridges and roads. He argued that, together with money already set aside for demolition, such funds could be used by City Hall to keep the bridge for pedestrians at lower cost.
The funding argument
The revenue measure was not welcomed with great enthusiasm. Breneman wrote that municipalities were not pressing the county to create it and had to be pulled into it somewhat. He still thought it sensible given the cost the city faced in carrying out Erie Refocused and the growing infrastructure needs elsewhere in the region, in particular Corry and the inner-ring suburbs.
Neutrality and its limits
His admission of having stayed neutral is an unusual feature of the piece. He acknowledged that he had stepped further into city matters the more frustrated he became, like any other taxpayer, and that this had eventually pushed him across the line he had once drawn between county and city business. The essay treats this as a lesson about leadership: staying silent can feel prudent, but residents may be better served when officials say what they think and explain why.
A political choice
The essay’s central claim was that the decision was political rather than technical, and that it rested with the mayor alone. Breneman did not fault the mayor for following his predecessor’s case for demolition if that was best for the neighbourhood, but he said the community would be disappointed if the new mayor did not break from the earlier habit of avoiding public discussion.
The appeal
He wrote that leaders gain, rather than lose, power by involving the people they serve. He also mentioned a letter to the editor in the Erie Times-News on the subject. He asked the mayor and council to set out every side of the question at a public meeting, so that the matter could be settled in a way that builds trust, and urged readers to tell officials they felt the same.
Context
The essay is one of several archived pieces collected in the news section. For related reading, see Charting a New Course Together.