In a recent government meeting, a committee member expressed strong opposition to the preferred alternative for a new bridge project, highlighting concerns over public input and financial implications. The member, known for being a consensus builder, noted that their dissent was unusual but necessary due to the significant outreach efforts conducted by the county and consultants, which they felt were not adequately reflected in the committee's decision.

The discussion centered around the proposed replacement of the Burnside Bridal Bridge, a historic structure currently on the National Historic Register. The estimated cost for the new bridge is a staggering $900 million, which the member argued is unjustifiable given that the existing bridge is functional, aesthetically pleasing, and has established connections to key areas like the Eastbank Esplanade.

The committee member pointed out that the preferred alternative, which ranked fourth out of six options in a public survey with nearly 20,000 responses, would cost an additional $50 million compared to the existing bridge. They emphasized the importance of considering public preferences and the responsible use of taxpayer funds, particularly in light of the county's current financial constraints.

While acknowledging the aesthetic appeal of an arch bridge over a cable-stayed model, the member maintained that their decision was rooted in a desire to prioritize public opinion and fiscal responsibility rather than personal preference. The meeting underscored the ongoing debate about balancing historical preservation, public input, and the financial viability of large infrastructure projects.