Does anyone see humor in the hand holding explanation of how the legs rotted out from under the structure? ... and it was documented over a span of a dozen years?
The city of Pittsburgh was owner of the failed bridge.
The city of Pittsburgh was aware, or should have been aware, of the condition of the bridge, and that it needed repair.
The city of Pittsburgh took no action to do those needed repairs.
As a result, the bridge failed and people were hurt.
There is a new bridge. The city of Pittsburgh did not pay for the replacement. We did.
A person could wonder why we should pay for Pittsburgh's negligence.
If I own a structure that I know needs repair, and it fails, will the Federal government replace MY structure?
Can't see why not.
I also wonder about criminal charges. "Theft of services" comes to mind, since Pittsburgh had employees who were charged with maintenance, but did not do it.
