Dear Editor,

Andy Muller, the president of Reading-Northern, came to speak at last Wednesday's informal meeting about what options exist to save Jim Thorpe's Old Town Bridge from demolition.He owns 114 bridges throughout the region in which he operates Reading Northern, so he claims expertise on the subject. He hadn't yet heard a single good reason to tear down the bridge, from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation or anyone else, and that it wasn't in remotely the disrepair that the prevailing narrative says it's in.Otherwise, he wouldn't offer to buy it and take on all liability. In fact, he is convinced he could even make it train-worthy, much less put foot traffic on it or even some parking spaces, like he did with the Nesquehoning trestle (then in a much more advanced state of disrepair) and the Hometown High Bridge.He has had personal meetings with PennDOT officers on this matter. In his view, the reason for their reticence is not that it can't be done, but that they would be subjected to unplanned work on the matter.In his view, a delay is needed, so that the people of Jim Thorpe can debate the facts first. He feels that they shouldn't be such a hurry to remove a bridge built 50 years ago with the intention of uniting the town. Demolition would achieve the opposite effect, especially given that the bridge could be redeveloped as a tourist attraction, and which (my words) is the only industry creating new taxpaying jobs in these parts.It would have an actual hope of helping to increase Jim Thorpe's tax base, which is needed in order to pay for a whole host of things, like mandated improvements to the sewage treatment plant, school upgrades and road repairs. Right now, taxpayers are on the hook for the cost of demolishing the bridge, which amounts to around $700,000.According to Muller, state Sen. John Yudichak has the power and ability to cause this delay to rethink the bridge demolition. But first, Yudichak needs a resolution from borough council that there is indeed concern in Jim Thorpe that an irreplaceable artifact is scheduled to be torn down, and once gone, it's gone forever.I have to agree, that seems like reasonable cause for a delay.On council's part, they would not be voting on whether or not to support redevelopment of the bridge or to assume any liability or additional cost - they would be supporting a delay so that a discussion on the issues can take place. It is my hope that they issue this resolution in time to debate the bridge demolition facts, whatever they may be.Sincerely,Dan HugosJim Thorpe