I've seen a lot of talk on local bulletin boards about the new bridge just outside of town on highway 62. I don't live in Eureka (yet), don't pay taxes there (except for the rare times I'm able to visit), and know absolutely nothing about the Arkansas highway department (but if it's anything like the Missouri highway dept., they need a good swift kick in their collective butts).

But as a somewhat frequent visitor, as someone who doesn't want to see Eureka Springs change too much, I feel the need to express my unwanted and uninvited opinion.

It goes something like this – no, it goes exactly like this: (Sing this to the tune of Blues in the Night, if you wish. I did while writing it.)

Is the new bridge strictly for safety?

I know that while driving into Eureka, I'd better keep my eyes on the twisty road. It's tempting to gaze in awe whenever there's a break in the trees; the scenery is nothing short of beautiful. (Y'all didn't know that until I told you, did ya?!)

On my first venture to your wonderful little burg, I stopped at some sort of «lookout point» or whatever it was called, 'cause I don't drive and gawk at the same time very well. Besides, I was in a rental car. I didn't want to damage Mr. Enterprises' shiny new Dodge by doing the automobile version of a half-gainer off one of those mountains. So I stopped to enjoy the view rather than catch a glimpse now and then while negotiating curves.

I put down my cell phone, my cigarette, my coffee (or was it a Whiskey Sour?), my road map and my lipstick and got out of the car and marveled at the mountains in the distance. That's when I took photos. Not while driving. Under the best of circumstances it's not easy to take pics with the fluffy eyelashes I wear, but it's downright dangerous to do that sort of thing while driving on mountain roads.

Then I got back into the car and drove into town, keeping my eyes on the road.

Is the new bridge replacing a bad road?

If the new bridge is being built because it's replacing roadway that is deteriorating, would it be totally out of the question to simply repair the road? I know that road repair is time consuming and bothersome. It causes traffic jams. It causes us to be late for appointments. It tries our patience. It costs a lot of money, and is a pain in the ass. But I've seen the new bridge. That monstrosity MUST have cost a ton of money.

If the bridge is being built for safety, well, the government can't, and in my opinion shouldn't, try to protect us from ourselves at every turn of every road, so to speak. I don't know how people speed on those roads to begin with. Oh, I know they do, I just don't see how they can go real fast and still stay on the road. I have kind of a lead foot when I'm driving, but I'm not that good (or bad, as the case may be) a driver. In the long run, building a great big bridge isn't going to make people drive more responsibly.

I get the impression that the bridge is not necessary.

I get the impression that most folks in the area don't want it.

I get the impression that most folks consider it a waste of taxpayer money. (C'mon, people! State bureaucrats know what to do with your money better than you do!)

Does the bridge bypass a section of the road that is particularly hazardous? Gosh, almost every mile of road from Gateway to Eureka could be considered hazardous. I think that's why there are so many caution signs warning people of twisting turns, hills, etc.

Wait! That's it! The entire road is hazardous! That's why the bridge is going in. That's why there will be a four-lane highway put in next. With big bridges spanning the low areas, and smooth, sweeping curves rather than the right-angle turns that currently exist. That way, even more tourists will be lured in. If it's easy to get to, the people will come!

I can see it now. In ten or fifteen years, Eureka Springs will be Branson, Arkansas. With all the glitz and lights. All the steel and glass – everything new! Large billboards indicating which exit to take to see Wayne Newton, or the Osmonds, or some other over-the-hill entertainer. A sign promoting the Big Jesus, a sign even bigger than the statue!

An Old Country Buffet over here, the worlds largest Wal-Mart over there. And downtown can be refurbished into an enclosed mall. Why worry about something awful – like the weather – when the entire town can have a huge roof? Just like that place in Minneapolis. There will be a Borders book store, Bed Bath and Beyond, Circuit City and five Starbucks coffee shops. Make that six. Why walk any farther than you have to for a cup of coffee?! Nobody will worry about slipping on the stone sidewalks; they can be replaced with people-mover conveyors. The staircases between the streets can be replaced with escalators.

I'm all for progress. And, as a small businessman myself, I know how tough it is to make a buck. But the price (literally and figuratively) must be considered.

Is there more going on here than just a new, modern, «safe» bridge?

Has someone, somewhere, decided that Eureka needs to grow? BIG time? Have they decided that the way to make Eureka flourish is to have a four lane highway run by town? Is the new bridge just the beginning?

In all of my selfishness, I hope not.

Popularity: 27% [?]