Counterpoint: St. Croix River bridge wasn't 'hawked'

The July 10 article "How to hawk a bridge" struck this reader as misleading.

The bridge being built across the St. Croix River south of Stillwater is the result of the findings of 28 stakeholders representing every government, agency and organization with an attachment to the St. Croix River and its valley. The stakeholders were guided under the auspices of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, a public-private organization funded by the federal government and the Udall brothers and their families. Many meetings over several years in the Stillwater City Hall led by an experienced moderator from Denver, chosen by the stakeholders, were held. The funding for this most comprehensive study ever for the Stillwater Crossing came from the Federal Highway Administration (which is also paying 80 percent of the cost of the bridge, with the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation each paying 10 percent). Five alternates were agreed to be considered by the stakeholders.

Option "A," "no build," was voted for only by the Sierra Club stakeholder.

Contrary to the quoted statement in the July 10 article by former Vice President Walter Mondale — "It's a tough fight when you go against what the highway department wants" — the bridge being built is not what the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) proposed as alternative "B." That was a longer, diagonal bridge going upriver to the Buckhorn draw on the Wisconsin side, requiring eight sets of piers in the water. When stakeholders asked of a bridge architect brought in for design matters why the bridge couldn't be crossing the river in a straight line from the takeoff from Minnesota Hwy. 36, he said it could. And when asked further about the number of piers required with a more perpendicular line, he estimated five to six. Alternative "B-1" is what is being built, not "B," MnDOT's plan, and only five piers are in the water.

The vote for B-1 was unanimous (with MnDOT in favor), except for the Sierra Club's vote.

It's revealing and curious, too, how the Star Tribune article further bends the reader's "take" on the bridge — for instance, quoting a person from Anoka as calling it "a bridge to almost nowhere. It takes you to Somerset! I mean, come on: How needed was it?"

And further, quoting a person from Cottage Grove, agreeing with the " 'bridge to nowhere' sentiment." For more objective reporting, why didn't the reporter interview people who live and work in the St. Croix Valley?