Article Title: Pioneer Street Bridge Group Loses in Court

Edition: July 2001
Category: Issues
Author: Jake Brown
Article:

Supporters of preserving the Pioneer Street Bridge are discussing options after being handed a major court defeat in a long-running battle.

At press time the group had not made a decision whether or not to appeal the ruling in their recent case against the federal highway administration in which the group charged the federal government didn't follow proper procedure before deciding to take down the bridge and replace it with a new structure.

An appeal would go before the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City.

"Appealing is a huge undertaking, and it's not an easy decision," said Cindy Hill, the lawyer who represented the citizens.

The case stemmed from a five-year-old battle between the city of Montpelier and the citizens, now called the Friends of the Pioneer Street Bridge. The group urged that the historic bridge be saved in its current location because of its historic and traffic calming attributes.

The city, despite three non-binding citizen votes to save the bridge in its current location, moved ahead with the project anyway saying the bridge was not safe and hindered development at the east end of Barre Street. The plan has been to move the bridge to another site for use as a bike and pedestrian bridge through the state's so-called "adaptive reuse" program.

In April the citizens group filed suit, not against the city, but against the federal and state governments.

Hill, a Middlebury attorney who has won several similar high-profile cases against the federal government, said she was surprised and disappointed by the ruling. She said the opinion casts doubt over future efforts to protect historic sites generally, and historic bridges in particular.

In discussing the Pioneer Street Bridge, Hill said, "It's not just that the bridge sits there, it works there," she said. "If you are going to move it, it no longer has integrity of setting and location," which is a key element of the federal historic preservation statutes, she said.

"What it means for other bridges, or historic structures, is that as long as you stick a label on it for adaptive reuse, you've gutted Congress' intent in the statute."

She said, "my fear is the adaptive reuse program is an excuse to allow destruction of historic resources."

City Manager Bill Fraser was on vacation and could not be reached for comment.

The court decision was issued June 29.

You have reached the end of the article.

Select the following link to see all the listings in the Issues category: Issues
Select the following link to see all the listings in the July 2001 edition: July 2001
Select the following link to go back to the index page: Index
Select the following link to go back to the introduction page: Introduction