麻豆传媒AV

Dear editor,

After reading Derek Ruttle's article in the May 22, 2025 edition of The Outlook, I felt that some of the statements Mr. Trew made were not completely accurate and further information should be added.

1. Are the statements made by Mr. Trew in this article only his opinion or is he also speaking for the Outlook Town Council?
2. The report by the bridge engineers on the safety of SkyTrail made no mention of necessary repairs: so why did Council ask the sewer and water engineers that the Town employs for cost estimates to repair something that wasn't needed?

I am not an engineer but after reading the Bridge Engineers report a second time it became obvious the only thing they wanted to know was if the east abutment was moving.

An elevation taken on the concrete floor of the entry building and an elevation on the east abutment would show a difference of 3.4 feet (1.1 meters). Had the survey been done in November of 2013 and one in April 2014, it would have shown the difference to be 3.4 feet, which was the same as the surveys taken in April 2023 and April 2024.

It does not seem logical that with all the engineers, engineering assistants, surveyors, etc., that the water and sewer section has that no one would be able to figure out what was required to show that the east abutment was stable. Assuming they knew how the problem could be solved, why did they not inform the Outlook Town Council instead of coming up with fictitious ideas like erasing the SkyTrail deck? In December of 2022, the figure was $4.5 million; not only did the Council believe this was a legitimate proposal, Mr. Trew went looking for grant money to make the repairs. Mr. Trew keeps on wanting to bring these engineers back to waste more of the Town's money on further studies.

From November 2013 the word 'liability' was used as the reason that the SkyTrail should remain closed. In 2024 the Council asked their lawyer for a legal opinion regarding their liability if SkyTrail was reopened. The lawyer's opinion, as stated in the Council's minutes, was that it didn't matter whether SkyTrail was reopened or remained closed (because) as owners, they would always be liable.

Suddenly Mr. Trew came up with a plan to reopen SkyTrail as a commercial venture with everyone having to go to the Museum to sign a waiver. (The legal opinion we received was that the waiver was no better than the "cross at your own risk" sign in the entry building.) Everyone would also be required to pay a fee to walk SkyTrail. When this proposal was made public the response was negative, with numerous people coming forward stating the SkyTrail should be reopened on the same basis as it was from May 2004 until November 2013. This led to the formation of the SkyTrail Trailblazer Committee which agreed with the public's wishes to have SkyTrail open 24 hours a day every day, all year, and free for everyone to walk as they pleased.

Mr. Trew's statement that the formation of the Trailblazer Committee was to blame for canceling a public meeting at the Bounty Hall has no merit. The probable reason for canceling this "supposed meeting" (which was never made public) was the public's lack of interest in Mr. Trew's proposal.

After the SkyTrail Trailblazer Committee put forward their proposal for free access to SkyTrail every day, all year, a new word appeared, 'risk'. Now that Mr. Trew and the Council came up with the word risk, they kept asking our Committee to tell them how risk should be mitigated. (Shouldn't Mr. Trew and the Council be the ones to come (up) with a definition for risk?)

Contrary to Mr. Trew's false statement that our Committee didn't address risk, it was included in our final proposal with updated costs for the walkway. This proposal was given to Mr. Trew and as he did not allow us to make the presentation to Council, it is not our Committee's fault that Council may not have read our proposal. The statement regarding risk as it appeared in the committee's report which was also published in the May 1 issue of The Outlook reads as follows: "All the Council has to worry about is if the risk is greater to the Town of Outlook for the people who climb over the fence to walk SkyTrail or the ones who walk the wide open bridge."

Finally Mr. Trew has identified what he considers the risks are if SkyTrail was reopened. This quote is taken directly from the article in The Outlook. "What if? What if someone got too overzealous and wound up taking a head dive off the bridge down into the river? What if a large group of people start walking and the sound of bolts could be heard coming loose and dropping down into the water?" This statement is so outrageous it does not deserve a comment. (Again I go back to the first question, is Mr. Trew making this statement about risk only on his own or is he including the Outlook Town Council?)

Now that Mr. Trew has identified the risk as not really being a problem, the Council has only three options:

1. Proceed immediately with repairs and walkway construction.
2. Call an Open Town Meeting where everyone can have their input.
3. Decommission SkyTrail and have Mr. Trew start looking for the approximately $30 million in grants needed to tear down Outlook's landmark.

Respectfully submitted by,
Con Hammer
Outlook, SK