State dumps dirt on Moroun's ramp

**Homer** · June-24-09, 11:59 AM

Don,
Your picture is great but MM's fence and locked gate are about 200 yards+/- to the south past the light poles and out of your picture. The public area now is only to the J.W. Wescott Mailboat land. It would be 24th Street if it came through.

**kraig** · June-24-09, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by jt1

"I'd like to see an aerial photo of whatever park is down there and the so called "evil" intrusion into it. "

You could go check for yourself before making a smarky comment and implying that people are making an issue of nothing. Maybe you could also take the family to the park for a picnic and see how long until Maroun's 'guards' chase you off.

Matty or no Matty. Fence or no Fence. The City needs to clean up Riverside Park. The place is an absolute mess and it's been that way far before the fence was put up.

I know that's a little bit off topic, but, I thought that I would add it since the one of the big issues with the fence is that it prevents people from enjoying the park.

**FlyByDon** · June-24-09, 12:09 PM

Horner, I know of that fence. Me thinks what is in question at this time is the fence that was installed a few months / year ago. Granted, those gates to the park may be locked but not by MM.

FlyByDon

**gnome** · June-24-09, 12:24 PM

Don, you sure do deserve an "atta boy" for all your great pics. Thank you very much.

I do need to make a small correction though. The chains on the boat launch are indeed put there by Mr. Maroun. That information comes from Jack Teatsworth, head of Bridge Security. From his mouth to my ears as well as the ears of a dozen other Dyesers. Cub, Urbanoutdoors, Masterblaster, Homer, etc.

Mr. Teatsworth professed that Department of Homeland Security gave him the authority to both fence off Riverside Park and lock down the boat ramp. Homeland Security has no memory of that request as reported by Channel 4, Freep, Joel Thurtell and Curt Guyette

**kraig** · June-24-09, 01:04 PM

Hey Don, do you get your fuel from Signature or the Self Service at City Airport? I wouldn't mind donating to your fuel costs. At $7.88 a gallon [[Signature), I know that going up to take these pictures that we all enjoy isn't cheap.

Or would it be easier to send a check to your company?

**FlyByDon** · June-24-09, 01:27 PM

Gonme, thanks for the "atta boy"

After taking a closer look at the images I have, I do see some type of fence / chain blocking the launch ramp. I should keep in mind that it's been four or five years since I've driven to that area.

This sounds like something our great national security officers would consider. " block the ramp" a small boat could navigate right up the ramp doing damage to said bridge. However a boat wouldn't dare crash into the seawall under this same bridge.

My disgust will not change anything. We all have to give up something in the name of "National Security"

OK, enough of ranting by FlyBy.

**FlyByDon** · June-24-09, 01:36 PM

**FlyByDon** · June-24-09, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

Hey Don, do you get your fuel from Signature or the Self Service at City Airport? I wouldn't mind donating to your fuel costs. At $7.88 a gallon [[Signature), I know that going up to take these pictures that we all enjoy isn't cheap.

Or would it be easier to send a check to your company?

Wow, I'm speechless.

Buying aviation fuel from Signature is only a last option.
Like most pilots we search the internet for the cheapest fuel prices,
most often it’s KDET self serve or KPTK.

Fuel Donations are always graciously accepted.

Thank you for your very kind offer.

FlyBy

**Funaho** · June-24-09, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

All jokes aside, this move is probably going to backfire on the state, big time. That was probably not the most mature way that it could be handled. The DIBC's lawyers are probably jumping for joy over this move. And by having a press conference the DIBC got the state to admit not only what it did, but why they did it. Not a bad move on the DIBC's part.

I'm not 100% sure this was really even a move to spite Matty so much as just somewhere to move the huge pile of dirt that was on the freeway at Clark so that they could open the freeway early. Pissing off Matty was probably just a nice bonus.

Since the entire project wasn't even scheduled to open until December there's no reason the ramp, which would have been closed ANYWAY, can't stay closed until December while the rest of the freeway opens early. They aren't breaking any contract here, unlike the DIBC, who unilaterally decided to change his entire piece of the project.

**urbanoutdoors** · June-24-09, 09:26 PM

http://www.wdetfm.org/article/bridge...-of-misconduct

Here is MDOT's response... I am in this interview too but it wasn't my best admittedly... But the reason for posting it is because MDot tells their side of the story....

**urbanoutdoors** · June-24-09, 10:25 PM

Michigan lawsuit: Ambassador Bridge owners jeopardize project
BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU
The escalating feud between the Michigan Department of Transportation and the owners of the Ambassador Bridge moved to the courtroom again today as the state sued to remedy what it said are violations of construction agreements in the development of a truck plaza on the Detroit side of the bridge.
According to the lawsuit, filed in Wayne County Circuit Court, the Detroit International Bridge Company violated agreements with the state and the City of Detroit by closing streets in the vicinity of the plaza and failing to provide access to adjacent private property. The bridge company’s actions jeopardize plans for completion of the project and federal funding to pay for it, according to the suit.
“We’re really looking to protect the people’s interest, the neighborhood [[at the base of the bridge), the signed contract and to protect the federal road money and the jobs that are at risk,” said MDOT spokesman Bill Shreck.
The lawsuit comes only a day after bridge officials accused MDOT of acting illegally and vindictively by dumping loads of dirt on portions of a recently constructed ramp serving the bridge. The controversial bridge project has been the subject of several earlier lawsuits, at least two of which are pending.
No one from the bridge company was immediately available for comment today.
Contact DAWSON BELL: 517-372-8661 or dbell@freepress.com.

**mjs** · June-25-09, 12:14 AM

Who are you? The neighbor, the resident, or the engineer?

Sounds like a good legal strategy to me. Draft the response and counterclaim and then do an act to see if the other side will take action. Passive agressiveness can work very well in a court of law. This one sounds interesting. If anyone knows when these folks are supposed to be battling it out in court, let us know. I for one am fortunate enough to have the time for this type of entertaining drama.

**urbanoutdoors** · June-25-09, 12:22 AM

The resident Joe Rashid from Corktown....

**mjs** · June-25-09, 12:39 AM

Cool. Congrats.

**kraig** · June-25-09, 07:40 AM

This statement kills MDOT in court, because it's very similar to the actions that MDOT accuses the DIBC of. They took punitive action first, and now they're asking for permission to do it. Sound familiar?

â€œBecause they have taken these unilateral actions to just take city property like 23rd Street and Riverside Park we were concerned that they would just overnight would come in and take part of service drive and so we had to store it somewhere and we figured we my as weâ€™ll store it in a place where we can protect the publicâ€™s interest.â€

**Funaho** · June-25-09, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

This statement kills MDOT in court, because it's very similar to the actions that MDOT accuses the DIBC of. They took punitive action first, and now they're asking for permission to do it. Sound familiar?

â€œBecause they have taken these unilateral actions to just take city property like 23rd Street and Riverside Park we were concerned that they would just overnight would come in and take part of service drive and so we had to store it somewhere and we figured we my as weâ€™ll store it in a place where we can protect the publicâ€™s interest.â€

Yes but MDOT didn't take anybody else's land in order to do it. They're certainly free to dump dirt on their own land especially in the middle of a construction zone.

**FlyByDon** · June-25-09, 12:30 PM

Looks like three homes are holding out.

Anyone have more information?

**urbanoutdoors** · June-25-09, 12:34 PM

http://metrotimes.com/archives/story.asp?id=13915 Here is the article form the metrotimes on it Fly by..... Its walter lubeinski the land owner and Lafayette bait and tackle the business... It is also mentioned in the MDOT lawsuit...

**kraig** · June-25-09, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Funaho

Yes but MDOT didn't take anybody else's land in order to do it. They're certainly free to dump dirt on their own land especially in the middle of a construction zone.

The problem isn't that they dumped dirt. The problem for them will be the statement as to why they dumped the dirt. In subsequent statements they've given other explanations that have been cleaner, but this particular statement was the one given first. And it was stated before the legal action was taken. I'm in no way stating that the DIBC has nothing to answer for, I'm just stating that MDOT has chosen to do what may be the right thing in a dirty way. No pun intended.