Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Bridge Owner Wants to Work

Chaklos says Benwood obstructs demolition

April 13, 2013

BENWOOD — Bellaire Bridge co-owner Lee Chaklos wants to start demolishing the span, but he said Benwood leaders are scaring off investors and obstructing his efforts by not granting him the necessar......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Apr-13-13 4:19 AM

thinking you really can't figure this one out? serious? lol.

this should have been done over the winter instead duing boating season. guess i will be taking mine thur the locks instead of heading south. pain in the rear.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 6:08 AM

Maybe the bridge owners haven't yet met Frankie and the boys price to let them proceed. Politically speaking, Benwood is a cesspool.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 7:43 AM

Crooked little {bleeps} in government!

This shows why the OV is a dead and buried armpit, local crooks can't manage to get a bridge taken down that is falling into the river all by itself!


6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 7:56 AM

liability insurance yes...performance bond .. No.. get on with the work. this old unsafe bridge to no where shows just where this valley is going... no industry no jobs no future.. exception gas & oil and fracking not much else... coal will stay good IF it can expand the exports..

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 9:20 AM

@ WWUthinking

No. It is the Bellaire Bridge. Jurisdiction of the bridge falls to Benwood because the WV State Line spans the Ohio River to about 6 feet on the Ohio side of the river bank when the Ohio River is at normal flood stage. That is why WV and OH have a reciprocal fishing license law that allows residents of either State to fish along the banks of the Ohio River, and its tributaries to a certain distance away from the river, without purchasing a non-resident license.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 9:22 AM

The performance bond makes sense, and the liability insurance requirement is a given, so where is the problem? There are behind the scenes forces at work that are the monkey wrench in the project. Is the owner / contractor unreliable, are city officials holding out for paybacks, is there a crime family in Benwood that wants their palms greased, or all of the above? They all sound like a bunch of hicks with an ameba's business mentality.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 9:56 AM

wrat, you know not of what you speak, as usual. Why don't you stick to your California dreamin'.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 10:43 AM

The problem is that no one in their right mind would give Benwood access to $500,000 in cash. Of course, Frankie says "if you do the job on time, we will give the money back." What WILL happen is that, once the job starts, Benwood will throw up all kinds of roadblocks in order to delay the project just enough to push it over the deadline. Then they can keep the money.

Have you ever asked yourself why a run-down town of 1,500 people has an annual budget surplus of more than $500,000? Or why Benwood's entry level compensation for cops is more than Wheeling's?

CONSOL's project when ahead in spite of Horsemeat, not because of him. Horsemeat wanted his private security company to get the contract at the new CONSOL location and tried to hold up the permit until the deal was complete, or so I'm told. CONSOL will not be pushed around by Barney Horsemeat and so they went ahead with the project, anyway.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 10:53 AM

The bridge is not coming down until some other agency steps in and takes it down before it falls down. Maybe eventually the Coast Guard and the Corps of Engineers will take care of this problem. Everything about this thing stinks.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 11:33 AM

Wow; Benwood, Bellaire--the status of cities? Maybe back in the day but in 2013 just two poorly organized and managed little villages. Does the state of Ohio or West Virginia even have an idea that this bridge is still standing over someone's river? The state should have jurisdiction over this project unless neighter wants to acknowledge that either place really exists. Sort of like those taling M & M's or Santa.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 1:58 PM

So often, those that want a job completed the most throw up the most obstacles to prevent it.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 2:35 PM

Someone needs to send this federal judge in Ohio all the articles regarding this bridge fiasco over the last few years, along with the comments sections. After the judge picks himself up off the floor and stops laughing at Benwood and Longwell's stupidity and the myriad ways that they themselves have been the only ones truly preventing this project from happening since the beginning, perhaps that judge would rule that Benwood get out of the way so this guy can tear down the bridge as directed. Further, there have been lots of accusations made against Longwell in some of the comments sections. If they're true, he needs to be investigated!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 5:23 PM

If someone owns something on someone's land, the land owner cannot stop that person from going to their property. This is very illegal. You legally cannot stop them from doing anything to their property. I have had several law courses and taking one this semester and know this to be a fact. Now as for the control of the city over this. It is counter productive not to work with the owners to get this thing off your land because if it comes down on your real estate you can be sued. Don't you think it would be worth it to you to get this monster off your property? Doesn't anyone think around here? The city could also be sued by the bridge owners for blackmail and extortion. Think about that for awhile.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 5:38 PM

I would recommend that the city take a picture of the bridge for lasting memories. Build a monument to it where it stood and get over it. I feel that even though I road in dad's car many times over this bridge and as a little kid it scared me every time, it is time to let it go. It is dead and needs to be put to rest. Don't make the rest of us watch the old girl suffer anymore. She is bruised and broken and needs to be put down. Please let it go.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 5:53 PM

the bridge is in W.Va. Not Ohio.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-13-13 5:57 PM

Yo Impacted you B lookin into da SUN!

While your homies HERE be tellin you the 411!

You croocked little {bleep}head you are NOT the cure,

But you are a sick little puppy, that be fer sure!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-14-13 1:51 PM

No one in Charleston must read or see the NR, if they did then someone in the state government might have called or even made the effort to come up river to see this abandoned bridge for what it is: another testament to what happens when an area, which has lost so much economic momentum, also has lost the people with the ability to problem solve. Don't either of these two little jurisdictions of both states have concerns about financial liability if the thing falls down on land or collapses into the river?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for: