Sunday letters: Bridge expectations; following party lines; replica assault rifles

Politics and the bridge

It is a major event in political theater when a Fed player such as U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg comes to town and all of our local politicians line up for the show ("Buttigieg tours bridge," News, March 20).

On Tuesday this was the case for the Washington Bridge. It, of course, accomplished absolutely nothing except to prolong the process of solving the problem.

People need to remember that this is an interstate highway and is part of a nationwide network of roads considered important to relocate residents in the event of emergencies. Can you imagine what kind of backup might occur if mandatory evacuation was ordered due to a CAT 5 hurricane?

This project is being slow walked. The bridge needs to come down immediately and a massive undertaking that is conducted 7 days a week and 24 hours a day needs to be started to build a replacement. Anything else is simply unacceptable.

Stephen H. Stoner, Barrington

Unrealistic expectations for bridge project

Please excuse my skepticism, but is anyone thinking like I am that the $300-million estimates for the new Washington Bridge and how long it will take to be completed − before the end of 2026 − are totally unrealistic? And though I understand that the I-195 East bridge was built at a different time in a different way, is no one thinking that we better learn from our mistakes and have both an inspection plan and a replacement plan in place? I haven’t seen any meaningful discussion about this scenario.

One last thing and I own my seeming naivete in sharing this, given we are going to be pursuing hundreds of millions of dollars for the I-195 West bridge demolition and replacement, why don’t we think big and smart (as they should have done decades ago) about a new bridge across the Bay between the Newport and Providence bridges.

How radical to think that there would be another route across the Bay that would alleviate the bridge crisis we presently are suffering from and amazingly make it so that we do not have to drive miles and miles north to go south. I mean it is 2024 and we have bridges in the United States (and even more in the world) that span almost 24 miles in different depths of water. Who is in charge and who has been in charge of moving such thinking − not complicated − forward?

Irvin M. Wise, Barrington

Be careful who you vote for

Scott Bill Hirst, who wrote the letter ”Prospects in the coming presidential election” (March 16), and I go back some 50 years, when he was a Rhode Island Junior College (now CCRI) student, and I was a faculty member. He was an ardent Republican, and I had been a Democratic Representative. Our discussions were friendly and respectful, but decidedly partisan. He is now a member of the Hopkinton Town Council, and I remain interested in politics, but no longer active. I enjoyed those conversations with Scott Bill, and I admire his consistent allegiance, especially in light of the damage being done to his Republican Party.

The Republican Party is no longer the party of Scott Bill Hirst. I would caution him that his vow to “support the Republican nominee in November” is not in his best interests, nor in mine. Republicans and Democrats both express, in their different ways, patriotism, freedom, and respect for our democracy. Donald Trump does not espouse these values, as he is not a Republican or a Democrat. He is a political mutation consumed with self-love and grievance.

Before voting in November, think of Republicans who have served America, heroes and statesmen such as Dwight Eisenhower, George H. W. Bush, John McCain, and others.

Could you imagine any one of them vowing to support the assumed “Republican” nominee?

John F. Hagan, West Warwick

Assault rifles as replicas

Gerry Griffin’s letter ("Every reason to ban assault weapons," Letters, March 9) demonstrates the fallacy on which the anti-gun movement bases many of their arguments. This is not meant in a pejorative sense, but many of these folks are just honestly unaware of the facts.

Mr. Griffin quotes dictionary.com’s definition of an assault weapon as, “a MILITARY rifle capable of both automatic and semi-automatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.” This is 100% correct. However, the rifles being considered for ban do not fit this definition, as they are not capable of automatic fire, nor are they military rifles. They are replicas, which look like these rifles, but do not function as such.

As a comparison, think of Shelby Cobra kit cars. They look like the real deal but aren’t the $1M+ actual thing, although still a lot of fun. Same with these rifles that the gun-banners are going after – they look like military rifles but aren’t the same “under the hood” and don’t perform the same.

I’m sure Mr. Griffin and others who seek bans on these popular sporting rifles mean well, but they just don’t know the facts. I suggest more credible research before going after these popular recreational and hunting rifles.

Paul L. Muller, West Kingston

Out-of-state migration led to housing crisis

Housing crisis in Rhode Island? Nonsense! If the local TV stations and The Providence Journal would do actual investigation they would discover the real cause of the crisis.

Because of or in light of the COVID pandemic, and the enormous government giveaways, major corporations and government jobs moved to "work from home." So it did not matter in what state you resided, you still had a salary. So folks began to move from very high tax states to lower tax states. New York is a perfect example − extremely high taxes, congestion and a poor quality of life. One of the major migrations was to Rhode Island and folks descended in large numbers. Those of us who live in the South County area have lived with the barrage. Our newcomers have easily outspent native Rhode Islanders.

Therefore our young adults cannot compete for that first home.

The news stations just need to obtain the numbers of out of state purchasers to determine why there is a housing shortage. That is the answer to the dilemma. We do not need to know the median prices of each town − we know the cause.

So news media, do your work and get the comparative numbers.

Joyce M. Stanczyk, Bradford

Fact check

Ronald Reagan was the first to campaign using the phrase "Make America Great Again." While I did not agree with some of his initiatives, he was not a divisive person. He did not rant about people who did not agree with him.

Donald Trump is no Reagan.

Paul Kelley, Providence

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Sunday letters: Bridge expectations; following party lines; replica assault rifles