THOSE BRIDGES AGAIN
It seems that the writer of this, who happens to be the editor of the TRIBUNE, and
the proprietor thereof, misrecollected as to the cost of the substructure of the suspension bridge, and accordingly is duly roasted by that wonderful genius of modern history, Andrew J. Rinker, city engineer. Mr. Rinker told the editor of the TRIBUNE personally, that the entire cost of the steel arch bridge, including substructure, was $190,000, and that the superstructure did not exceed $88,000, leaving a cost of $102,000 for the substructure. He also told the editor of the TRIBUNE that be believed that he could build the balance of the substructure for about one-fourth of the original cost. This would necessarily be about $25,000 to $30.000. When the bids were read the other day, the only bid made for masonry was given in detail and not In bulk, and the engineer of the city had not had time to make out his figures at the date of our former editorial. Off-handedly, the editor of the TRIBUNE estimated the balance of the construction of the substructure of the steel arch bridge at whereas it seems that the ultimate figures of the total work shows a cost of only $14,000 for the masonry and roadway, thus reducing the cost of the completion of the steel arch bridge to about instead of $890.000, as estimated by Mr. Rinker. We are glad to know that the error we made was in favor of economy and less expense to the city, even though the city has no money to put into this wildcat scheme of Mr. Rinker and the council.
It is now, therefore, simply a question of whether the city Will spend S17,000 in repairing the suspension bridge, which when repaired will be good for 12 or 15 years more, borrowing the money therefor at the rate of 4 per cent, or about $12 annual interest; or whether they will tear down this structure, sell it to Janney, Semple & Co. at $5,000, thereby reducing the net cost of the completion of the steel arch bridge to approximately. We are very glad indeed to know that the cost of the erection and completion of the road way of the new steel arch bridge will not exceed the sum above named. We have no desire to misrepresent the city engineer and never have had. His suspicions in that direction are but the imaginings of a man who is constantly on the alert for something that will disturb his digestion, and are simply unworthy a man who occupies the position of Mr. Rinker.
We have said from the beginning that a city of a quarter of a million of inhabitants, living on two sides of a great river, divided in relation to its population and wealth in the ratio of two to one, is not entitled to more than NINE bridges for crossing purposes within the space of seven miles. This proposition cannot be gainsaid by any man, no matter how warm he may be in favor of tearing down the suspension bridge, which cost the city the larger portion of the bonds which were issued for the purpose of paying for the same being still out, unpaid and unmatured. And we want to say that no other city in the United States of a population of 250,000 and an assessed valuation of $37,000,000, but what would undoubtedly hang the members of the council, and discharge and forever banish any officer who would broach the proposition of destroying such a magnificent property as the suspension bridge in Minneapolis today.
We do not care personally whether the steel arch bridge be rebuilt or the suspension be torn down. The taxes of the Tribune Company will not be materially enhanced or decreased by either act on the part of the council. But we do protest in the name of common sense; in the name of decent economy; in the name of honor; In the name of municipal reform, upon which platform this present government was elected, that this IS a wild waste of money, that no sensible man would have ever proposed for a minute, and no other city would permit for an hour.
It was a mere slip on the part of the editor of the TRIBUNE in saying that the estimated cost of the building of the piers of the steel arch bridge would be 830,000. He knew that what has been done cost substantially $104,000, and he recollected that the city engineer told him that the additional abutment would cost $30,000 more; but It now happens that somebody has offered to build that for less than S11,OOO, and we rejoice in the low price that has been made by reputable men competent to do the work in behalf of the city; but we wish to ask Mr. Rinker this pertinent question, how three-fourths of this work should have cost the city $104,000, when he can get the balance done for $11,000?
Lastly, finally and forever, we propose to dismiss this subject and say that the road- way of that great bridge which connects the city of New York, with its two and one- half millions of people, with the city of Brooklyn, with its other million, is not greater than the present capacity of the steel-arch and suspension bridge between Minneapolis and East Minneapolis. Men may think we are too conservative, but if this magnificent roadway connecting two sides of a city, with seven other bridges to help us out in ease of a glut or uncommon development of business between the different portions of the town be not sufficient. Then we have no other desire than to represent the best interest of a great majority of taxpayers, who will be ultimately called upon to defray the expenses of a most unjust demand on the part of a few people who happen to live on the other side of the river.
-Minneapolis Tribune
November 1st, 1889
