Quote:
Originally Posted by
3WC
Meddle:M Thanks for pointing out the obvious to Canadian Visitor: It's a relatively minor dollar amount but of course the Federal govt will have to pay two sets of Customs Agents, Homeland security agents etc to staff both bridges, and loss of property tax revenue to Detroit. [[By CV's own words, by denying that, he's a liar. His word, not mine.)
You need to pay attention too, obviously.
Customs agents are assigned based on traffic level.
When the new bridge opens, traffic will fall by a corresponding amount at the Ambassador and to a lesser degree the tunnel.
Staff will be reallocated from two sites to the new site.
There will not be net new hiring unless the traffic volume is higher.
Existing staff are already paid for, there is no new net cost unless the trade volume rises.
Quote:
Canadian Visitor: maybe you were truly trying to be helpful [[even in your condescending way) by explaining in such detail how you think the bridge cost will be finalized. You could just have said that it will be a sealed bid process as that term is used over here. Some of us I'm sure have had substantial experience in real estate, including land acquisition, land development, construction and construction lending, and real estate and business operations.
I was being elaborate expressly for Richard who had said yet another non-sense thing for which there was no evidence and yet demanded I refute him with evidence and citations.
He got exactly what he literally asked for, I offer no apologies.
Quote:
Also, with all of your long winded explanations of the proposed cost of the
bridge, you failed to mention probably the most important one: the time value of money, expressed as interest or lost opportunity costs. Let's assume [[I don't know how they do it in Canada, sell tax free muni bonds or similar maybe) that at a minimum of 3% annually, at a cost, say of $4 billion, the cost is $120,000,000 a year. That's without amortizing the "debt.")
This assumes that if this project did not occur, there would have been a better use of said funds.
Richard was arguing about costs to be incurred by Michigan or the United States, which as I pointed out is not applicable.
Therefore there is no money to reallocate.
Unless you assume Canada was going to repave Detroit's roads or build transit or schools and then charge tolls to use Detroit's highways to pay for it. ?
I'm assuming you would not draw such a conclusion. Ergo there is no time-cost to the money in the United States or Michigan.
The way in which this is being structured in Canada through an independent crown corporation means there is no adverse impact on government revenues year to year, nor will the debt show up on government of Canada books [[its assigned to the corporation). So there is no reduction in borrowing capacity or spending capacity here. Ergo there is no long time-cost here either.
Quote:
I'm going to paraphrase something you said above, CV: "All you have to do is be awake, pay attention, and voila - you all will be as smart as I am." You then claimed that of all the disagreements you've had with Richard over the years he's never been right once and you've been right every time. Guess what. I don't believe such an arrogant statement and my guess is that no one else on here does either. Frankly, Richard makes a LOT more sense than you you do on this thread.
You can side w/Richard if you wish, that doesn't make the moon a ball of green cheese or 2+2 equal 18. Richard's posts in this thread have been factually wrong. As most of his posts usually are.
I am extremely well educated with lots of life experience and a burning desire not to be embarrassed by being wrong, such that I double check myself all the time before posting.
Clearly not something that bother Richard.
Do I think I'm the smartest guy here or anywhere? Probably not, can't say for sure as I really don't know.
Do I care a lot more about the facts than Richard? Yes, absolutely, unreservedly, whole heartedly and that is supported by the facts.
If you wish to review all my posts and you can come back with a factual error I will happily stand corrected and eat crow.
IF I guess, which happens on rare occasion
I always say so.
I never make emphatic statements about which I am uncertain.
Quote:
You made a comment about trusting the government. I'll bet that when some guy tells you, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." you believe him.
In all my decades of life, I've never had this scenario occur even once.
But if I took it as metaphor, let me say I'm not all gullible nor do I think government is somehow infallible. Governments of all stripes in all countries make some mistakes some of the time.
Likewise there are going to be isolated instances of corruption as well. There millions upon millions of employees and tens of thousands of politicians, and then some.
a 0.1% corruption rate would provide for more than 1,000 instances.
That does not take away from the fact that most governments in Canada get most [[not all) things right, most of the time.
There's no reason it can't be the same in your country, if you fix your system.
Quote:
CV, I laughed out loud [[and I'm not easily amused) at your claim that "as anticipated" the Ambassador Bridge will close as a result of a new bridge. ho anticipates that? NOBODY.
The Ambassador is falling to bits, its at the end of its useful life.
Unless Matty chooses to spend the $$ to rebuild, which I think is unlikely once the new bridge opens, and satisfies purposefully brutal permit conditions for a new bridge, it ain't happening.
Certainly there are no guarantees one way or the other, but on balance of probabilities it will be gone within the decade.
Quote:
The main impact of a new bridge will possibly move some traffic away from downtown Windsor [[to the dismay of its merchants.)
Merchants want the new bridge and have asked for it for years.
The fumes and noise and nuisance of the truck traffic harms tourism and local shopping and discourages residential development.
Removing the bridge allows the expansion of Windsor U which will provide more customers [[students + faculty) to support redevelopment than the Ambassador provides now [[virtually nil)
Quote:
.....is one of the many reasons it's dollar is worth 75% of ours. And, if it weren't for Alberta's oil it would be a lot less.
Not particularly true, but I've spent enough time correcting you today.
Yes that was condescending, on purpose, matching the insulting tone of your post.