This is one bridge the county doesn't need to cross.
There has been recent discussion in a county government meeting about what to do to pay for the signs of roads and bridges named in honor of notable residents.
In the past, the state has picked up the tab, but that practice has just ended. In a cost-cutting measure, the state has decided to pass the expense down to the county. Now county officials are talking about passing the cost down even further to the person who the bridge or road is named after, or passing the cost to their surviving family members if they are deceased.
Without meaning to be offensive, the Standard has to ask if county officials have their heads stuck in a pothole. The idea of passing along the sign costs to the person being honored is like handing someone a receipt and asking them to pay for their own Christmas gift. Sure you can do it, but it's tacky.
We have to remember the purpose of naming bridges and roads after people is to serve as a lasting memory of their contributions to society. This contribution could be something done on the battlefield, as in the case of bridges named after local soldiers, or it could be a reward for a lifetime of achievement, as in the case of elected officials.
There is nothing that requires a stretch of road or a bridge to be named in honor of a person. The bridge on Beersheba Street, for example, was nameless for decades. It should only be done if a person has accomplished something worthy of this distinguished honor.
If someone has reached this level of recognition and made an impact worthy of having a bridge named after them, the least we can do is pay $300 for the sign.
Are we really going to turn around and hand them a bill? How is that an expression of gratitude? Do we expect a family who has lost a son in war to pay for his road sign? Are finances that tight?
If the county is going to recognize someone with a bridge name, we should at least have the decency to pay for the sign. To do otherwise is driving down the wrong road.