I’m sure there isn’t an employee at city hall, or an alderman on council who doesn’t want to see the Peace Bridge issue go away. Hell, even I think perhaps the matter may need to be put to rest.

But …

There’s always a but, isn’t there?

Stuff keeps coming out about the whole thing.

The Peace Bridge had many critics, yours truly among them.

I think the bridge looks plenty cool, but I question whether it serves the purpose as it was pitched, whether it’s needed cycling infrastructure, whether the design contract was awarded according to the rules laid out in the city’s own master plan for the core — CentreCity.

Anyway, all that aside, the bridge had fervent defenders. Bloggers, tweeps, journalists, online commenters, but none more fervent than bureaucrats and aldermen.

Trust me. I took my fair share of criticism for columns assailing the bridge. Some warranted, some not, and all in all, I’m fine agreeing to disagree. I just hope the city learns a lesson from what was, arguably a PR nightmare.

So it’s baffling to think the city would have to defend itself against an architect who was hand-picked, heralded by bridge supporters and promoted every step of the way.

I may not have agreed with what they had to say, and find this development a delicious twist of irony, but I will give them credit for lovin’ the one they were with. To the bitter end. Even though I didn’t agree with it.

Just a shame the Chosen One couldn’t see that from his perch in Manhattan.