The remnants of a truss bridge

Today I biked 13.1 miles, the distance of a half marathon. I went from my apartment to the end of the Bay Bridge Trail--the trail that borders the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge and is expected to be extended all the way to Yerba Buena Island by this summer.

To the south of the Bay Bridge Trail are the remnants of the old Bay Bridge. The steel double-decker truss bridge that was built in the 1930's. The bridge that had a portion collapse during the 1989 Loma Prieta Quake, prompting discussions of constructing a new eastern span. As soon as the new eastern span opened up, the old span suddenly looked so shoddy and lifeless. The harsh steel-and-bolt exterior illuminated with orange lamps could not aesthetically compare to the white, LED-lit, wide-lane, sleek new span.

Work quickly began to take down the old span, which was not only an eyesore, but also a possible seismic hazard. A couple months ago, stories circulated in the news that the remaining portions of the old bridge structure would be imploded all at once. And yet, it is still here as an incompletely dismantled piece of infrastructure.

Rumor has it that demolition stopped because an endangered species of bird was found nesting in the bridge. Environmentalist groups shut down the bridge demolition to preserve these birds.

We successfully lobby for endangered species to remain in dangerous public structures. Yet we have no problem proposing or passing legislation that prevents people from sitting or laying down on sidewalks (purposely designed to implicitly target the homeless). We have no problem kicking people out of vacant lots where they have been living to make way for new buildings of $2,000/month apartments. [I had originally written "kicking the homeless out," but then I realized that calling them "the homeless" pejoratively presents them as "others"--similar to when pastors call them "the gays." They are people just like us.] We allow the most vulnerable animal species to continue living in spaces that halt development, yet we force our most vulnerable neighbors out of whatever place they have made their home.

This practice of evicting the homeless could maybe be acceptable if alternate living locations were provided, but this is not the case. We force them out, and they are on their own.

Somehow I feel like the priorities are messed up. If we can protect endangered species, why can we not also protect our own most vulnerable?