Questions that Must be Answered Regarding Renaming the Replacement Pensacola Bay Bridge......

We are two plus years away from completing construction on Pensacola Bay's replacement bridge linking Pensacola and Gulf Breeze via HWY 98--but some folks want to rename the bridge starting now.  And there are a lot of unknowns and unanswered questions about this initiative......

At yesterday's meeting of the Escambia Board of County Commissioners, a very animated, motivated speaker came before the board during public forum.  He is and was advocating that Escambia County get behind an initiative to rename the replacement bridge that is being constructed over Pensacola Bay.  He wants it named the "General Daniel R. 'Chappie' James Memorial Bridge."

Currently, the official name for the bridge is the Phillip Dane Beall., Sr., Memorial Bridge.

Contrary to what the speaker intimated at yesterday's BCC meeting, though,  the replacement bridge that is being constructed will carry the same designation as the bridge it replaces. 

I have confirmed this fact after requesting staff weigh in on this and after personally speaking with several individuals in Tallahassee with firsthand subject matter expertise in this arena.  According to one highly-placed source  "when a bridge is replaced, it’s designation remains the same; remember, those designations are done by Legislative act"
(of course a subsequent legislature can change the name with new legislation if they so choose.)

But absent any pro-active legislative moves to do this, the designation stays the same for the replacement bridge--which in this case would mean that the new bridge will remain the "Phillip Dane Beall, Sr., Memorial Bridge"  That's #1.

#2 is just common sense:    If it is so important to honor Chappie James (who is a very deserving historical figure--no question about it) by putting his name on this replacement bridge--why not honor the request of the descendants of Senator Beall and work amicably toward a joint designation like "Beall/James" Memorial Bridge?  I discussed the reasoning for this course of action in this previous blog entry.  Why push to rip the previous name off this bridge? 

#3---And what about this:  I have heard that there may be a movement to rename the bridge to honor Senator Don Gaetz (The Senate President that helped secure the funding for this bridge and also the person who pushed to insure this bridge did not become a toll bridge--as is becoming all-too common around the state as funding sources for these infrastructure projects are extinguished)  Why is this not being considered?--seems reasonable to me given all that Senator Gaetz has done for the panhandle over his many years of dedicated service.  And think about it this way:  The last two individuals that had the distinction and honor of having the bridge named for them were the two people that secured the funding for the bridge(s) that would carry their respective names.  So there is precedent for this....

#4 is a dose of common sense:  Who ever names a bridge two plus years before it is even completed?  Why is this being pushed and rushed forward--while we are still 2+ years away from completing the bridge?  Where is the fire??  This is borderline disrespectful to the legislative delegation.  This is their call, and nobody elses, in the final analysis.  So why are people attempting to preempt the legislative delegation here?

#5 is a series of questions for which I'd like to get  rational responses:  Where is the plan?  Has FDOT blessed the idea of putting a static Jet Display and statue where this group wants to place these things?  Won't this conflict with traffic flow?  Who will pay for the design and traffic engineering for making traffic safely flow from HWY 98 to this display and back on HWY 98?  How much will this cost if FDOT and the Federal Government even allow it---and who will pay this cost that could be millions of dollars if the current plans have to be modified?  How much, and who pays?  I want to see this data. Does this data even exist?

Big ideas like this initiative are fine--heck they even get exciting sometimes.   But big ideas require thoughtful consideration and time to be studied by the public and by the experts and elected officials that will ultimately decide such issues. 

Big ideas must be vetted, researched, and most importantly--they must be assembled in an orderly, intelligent, well-planned manner.  I don't know why the City Council took the vote they did, that is their right to do so. I think it may have been premature.  That is just my opinion.

But I'll guarantee this:  If this same question is brought before the Board of County Commissioners on the 7th of February as one of my counterparts proclaimed---There will be a  robust conversation and I will want answers to my questions above (and a list of about a dozen more I will bring to the meeting) before I would ever consider moving this forward to a vote.

Because this initiative does not seem like it is ready for prime time yet so far as I can tell........too many unknowns, to many unanswered questions.