Interfaith coalition relieved to see vision for a rebuilt bridge

Three years ago, when the Long Island Bridge was abruptly and calamitously closed, interfaith leaders mounted an emergency campaign. As the coalition BostonWarm, we voiced our outrage, raised resources, and rolled up our sleeves. We had a duty to speak and act. So we did.

In the years since, many of us feared that Long Island would become yet another enclave for the very rich. However, Mayor Walsh has announced that this island refuge will be preserved not for those who can most afford it, but for those who most urgently need it. The mayor offers a vision of a bridge rebuilt and comprehensive recovery campus. We rejoice.

We know the despair of those in addiction, tucked into frozen alcoves waiting for detox beds that do not exist. We have ached for recovery resources to match the enormity of the opioid epidemic. A rehabbed Long Island offers hope. It will not be easy. It will not be cheap. However, without Bostonians coming together, it may not be possible. So we speak again. Three years ago we urged City Hall to act. Today we ask Bostonians to join us in supporting the mayor’s vision of a comprehensive recovery campus on Long Island.

The Rev. Canon Cristina Rathbone

Cathedral Church of St. Paul

Nahma Nadich

Deputy director

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston

The Rev. Laura Everett

Executive director

Massachusetts Council of Churches

Boston

The writers are members an interfaith group that formed in response to the closing of the Long Island Bridge.

Mayor needs to do more for the homeless and addicted

I commend Mayor Walsh for coming up with a plan to finally do something about the closing of the Long Island shelters and rehabilitation facilities. One has to ask, however, why it has taken him three years. Walsh devotes much of his Jan. 9 op-ed to how much he has already done for the homeless and addicted. In fact, it has been minimal, as Tito Jackson was quick to point out prior to the mayoral election last year.

It is not the case that Boston has “a new permanent housing system for the homeless’’ — at least, it does not have one that encompasses most of the Boston homeless. Poor families are in dire need of affordable housing, and the shelters we have are inadequate to meet the growing numbers of homeless people, particularly in harsh weather, as the Globe and others have pointed out.

Instead of focusing on his accomplishments, Walsh would do well to pay greater attention to how much more still needs to be done for the homeless, addicted, and poor families in Boston.

Margaret Rhodes

Brookline

Is a $100m bridge the best investment in this opioid battle?

Re “A new bridge to recovery on Long Island’’ by Martin J. Walsh (Opinion, Jan. 9): “A new bridge to recovery’’ is a nice metaphor illustrating the mayor’s concern and compassion for those fighting drug addiction, but I wouldn’t rush to spend $100 million on a bridge to a harbor island without some incontrovertible data that the proposed addiction recovery campus will actually turn current substance abusers into former substance abusers. Isn’t there at least some possibility that the reason there are so many addicts on the street is that the desire to feed addiction is immensely more powerful than the desire to end it?

I understand the mayor’s intention and respect his conviction in this, but if there’s an addict repeatedly seeking a fix in Boston after receiving treatment for addiction, I question whether there are enough tools available at any price to put addicts into a state of permanent recovery. Does the mayor have the data to demonstrate that this is the best use of public funds in the larger fight against addiction, or will he go ahead and build the recovery bridge and simply hope for the best?

I think the public has the right to ask for a fully transparent cost-benefit analysis to determine whether this is really a bridge to recovery or a bridge to somewhere else.

Sean F. Flaherty

Charlestown

Long Island would be put to better use as a vacation mecca

The mayor proposes to use a rare developable harbor island for recovery services. These services can be provided anywhere else; we don’t need to devote an important harbor island for them. The property should be maximized.

Boston and the mayor need to think much bigger. How about a world-class vacation resort or gambling mecca? How about a cruise ship terminal allowing ships to stay two to three nights instead of one?

Why would we waste such an important harbor island on something straightforward, such as drug recovery, that can be done anywhere? The cost of the bridge alone could pay for countless beds and services elsewhere.

This whole idea seems exceptionally shortsighted. The property should be maximized in such an over-the-top way that all of America becomes familiar with “Boston’s Long Island’’ and its resorts by the time the project is complete.

Jeff Kevorkian

Middleton