The bridge to “No Where” but someone’s pocket
- Edwin Preble
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
Updated: 1 day ago
For years, Ossipee residents have been told that the Whittier Covered Bridge restoration was a historic preservation success story.
But when the funding, timeline, and final result are examined closely, the project raises serious questions about how public money was used — and why the outcome no longer matches the original justification used to obtain federal funding.
This is the timeline.
2008 – The Emergency Move
In July of 2008, the Town of Ossipee removed the historic Whittier Covered Bridge from the Bearcamp River.
The bridge, built in 1870, had severe structural decay and was labeled New Hampshire’s most endangered covered bridge.
Officials claimed the bridge would not survive much longer without immediate action.
The town raised nearly $1 million to move and restore the bridge.
Funding sources included:
• Local bond funding
• Private donations
• Grants from the NH Land and Community Heritage Investment Program (LCHIP)
• NH Department of Transportation funding
• Federal funding through the National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation Program
Two U.S. Senators and a U.S. Congressman supported the federal grant funding.
The bridge was lifted from its granite abutments, placed onto rollers, and moved onto solid ground.
The relocation cost $152,000.
Officials announced the restoration would be completed by 2010.
But that’s not what happened.
The bridge sat.
And sat.
And sat.
For nearly a decade.
Federal Money Returned… but did they have the money to return
In 2019 Selectmen were told the state had to return nearly $700,000 in federal bridge funding because of lack of progress on the Whittier Bridge project.
Considering it had already been sitting for nearly 10years at this point, after countless times of saying it would take only a year’s time!
The offices of U.S. Sens, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen are monitoring the situation, at that time.
The Funding Structure
2020 Over time, records confirmed the total project cost would be approximately $2 million built to specifications of the NH DOT.
Funding came from multiple government programs:
• $1.7 million from federal and state preservation programs
• $330,000 from Ossipee taxpayers
• Additional funding through LCHIP grants
According to federal transportation records, the purpose of the restoration funding was clear.
The bridge would be restored and returned to service to carry vehicular traffic.
Federal Highway Administration documentation states the bridge was to be:
“returned to its original location to keep it in a state of good repair and allow it to continue to carry vehicular traffic.”
Estimated cost in the federal record:
$785,040
Source:
Federal Highway Administration Covered Bridge Program
NH DOT
The Final Result
But when the bridge was ultimately restored and returned to the river, the final outcome looked very different.
Instead of restoring the bridge to vehicular use — the justification cited in the federal funding records — the town ultimately banned vehicle traffic entirely.
Today the bridge functions primarily as a pedestrian crossing.
Local residents began referring to it as:
“The Bridge to Nowhere.”
Because despite roughly $2 million in restoration funding, the bridge no longer serves the transportation purpose that was used to secure federal preservation funds.
Even more concerning is the fact that the bridge was not rebuilt exactly to its original structural specifications, which raises an additional question:
If the project was funded to restore a historic structure for vehicle use — and it was not rebuilt to that specification — how much of the funding allocated for that work was actually used for that purpose?
Banning cars by Mr smith
Why This Matters Today
This issue is not simply about a historic bridge.
It is about public accountability.
The Whittier Bridge project involved:
• federal funds
• state grants
• local tax money
• historic preservation programs
Yet the final result appears to contradict the stated purpose used to secure funding.
At the same time, many of the individuals connected to projects like this within Ossipee hold multiple overlapping government roles.
In some cases, the same individuals appear across positions such as:
town selectman
state representative
municipal enforcement roles
building oversight
health officer roles
County treasurer
In smaller towns, wearing multiple hats is sometimes unavoidable. But these seem to be appointed by one another.
But when the same small group of officials are simultaneously approving projects, overseeing projects, and controlling enforcement of those projects, meaningful oversight becomes difficult.
And when those same individuals seem to move from one government position to another without ever facing meaningful electoral challenge, residents naturally begin asking questions.
The Missing Piece
The Town of Ossipee raised nearly $1 million locally to move and restore the bridge.
Federal &state programs, plus taxes was another $2million.
That brings the total project cost to roughly $3million.
Yet today:
• The bridge does not carry vehicles
• The original transportation purpose is gone
• The bridge does not appear to match the original structural specifications used to justify funding
And the public has never received a full accounting explaining where all project funds were ultimately spent.
Meanwhile…
Taxes in Ossipee continue to rise.
And the Whittier Bridge is not the only example residents point to.
The town recently purchased a new police department building that is significantly larger and more expensive than the original facility.
Yet many residents note that the new building appears to be used less frequently than the smaller building it replaced.
In other words:
Projects get bigger.
Budgets get bigger.
Taxes get bigger.
But the results somehow feel… smaller.
The Bottom Line
Residents deserve answers to a simple question:
Where did the money go?
When millions of taxpayer dollars are involved, transparency should not be optional.
And when the same individuals appear across multiple layers of government authority — including positions that are now raising questions even at the county treasury level — public accountability becomes even more important.
Because projects like the Whittier Bridge should stand as examples of historic preservation done right.
Not as cautionary tales.
Comments