Breaking a promise

For as long as Donald Trump had been running for the office of the President of the United States, he promised that Mexico would pay for a wall at the border.

To those who believed and voted for him, did you ever think that your hard-earned money that you pay for taxes will now be diverted to pay for a wall that Trump promised Mexico would pay for?

By diverting your taxes to the wall, that means fewer dollars will go toward the education of your children, maintenance for bridges and roads, subsidies to lower your healthcare costs and to farmers to lower food prices, [and less money will go toward] care for our veterans and to solve the opioid crisis caused by illegal drugs coming by ship or airplane as well as to the military to protect our country.

Mexico won’t pay? So glad you will.

Mary Jo Thomas

Milford, PA

Misleading tax message

This is a response to a River Reporter article in the December 27 issue of the paper.

To report that a non-profit “received a $75,000 grant from Sen. John Bonacic” is a bit misleading and certainly unfortunate. That money is our taxes and comes from us despite the fact that the senate, to bolster politico boasting, has come up with a clever “member-item” category.

True, the article later mentions the distinction, but taxpayers don’t send legislators to Albany to brag that they give us back our money.

Bill Duncan

Woodbourne, NY

With great thanks

The Ecumenical Food Pantry would Iike to thank those who have supported our Food Pantry and Local Toy Drive throughout the year, including all our holidays. Special thanks to The River Reporter, the Upper Delaware Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Pete’s Market, Catskill Hudson, the Lang Brothers, the Sullivan West Elementary School and so many more. God bless and happy New Year.

Joanne LeTendre, Treasurer

Narrowsburg Ecumenical Food Pantry

Narrowsburg, NY

Pond Eddy Bridge victim of circumstance

Reporting the end of efforts to preserve the 1904 Pond Eddy Bridge, TRR reports (January 3) that “preservationists could not sway” the NY DOT, Penn DOT and the U.S Dept. of Transportation.

In fact, from the start, historic preservation groups found that cards were stacked against the 1904  bridge—and three of them refused to sign a “Memorandum of Agreement” to approve a new bridge: The National Trust for Historic Preservation, The Historic Bridge Foundation and the Friends of Pond Eddy.

In addition, New York’s Historic Preservation Office strongly rebuked PennDOT,  maintaining that “Demolition of the historic resource was a foregone conclusion and all efforts were directed at demolishing the bridge without regard to possibly retaining it in any form.”

Because Pond Eddy is one of five Upper Delaware bridge sites within PennDOT’s  domain, PennDOT called the shots.

Ironically, the historic bridge was especially important to New York, as one of four vintage Petit Truss bridges within state waters. It was also on the National Register of Historic Places. 

As the controversy waxed and waned, the National Park Service—charged with protecting scenic and cultural resources in our National Scenic River corridor—stood aside and let  PennDOT call the shots. 

Ed Wesely

Damascus, PA