Snyder in Talks with Canadians in Windsor About New Bridge

It appears that the Governor is pressing forward with the new bridge efforts and while I may not agree with him on other issues, he gets my kudos on this one.

I am not optimistic of agreement happening this year with Mr. Moroun being able to throw his millions in opposition at the current legislature in an election year.

What really needs to done is the development of an advocacy group for the new bridge. One would think that with many potential winners in the construction industry and labor unions one would develop. The sentiment is there, there is just nothing to coalesce it.

Quote:

---

Gov. Rick Snyder met privately in Windsor this morning with top Canadian and U.S. officials to discuss the proposed publicly owned Detroit River bridge.

What was discussed hasn't been disclosed. The stalled $3.1 billion plan would connect I-75 and Highway 401 between Detroit and Windsor with a joint U.S.-Canadian bridge called New International Trade Crossing.

Also at the 2½-hour meeting in an office at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce building were U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson, Canadian federal transportation minister Denis Lebel, Deputy U.S. Transportation Secretary John Porcari and a deputy administrator of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the Windsor Star reported.

Canadian officials told the newspaper that the bridge project was the topic of the meeting but offered no details.
From Crains

---

Its nice to see him doing something constructive . I was beginning to wonder that he was too busy passing no helmet laws and now we can use tasers lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

It appears that the Governor is pressing forward with the new bridge efforts and while I may not agree with him on other issues, he gets my kudos on this one.

I am not optimistic of agreement happening this year with Mr. Moroun being able to throw his millions in opposition at the current legislature in an election year.

What really needs to done is the development of an advocacy group for the new bridge. One would think that with many potential winners in the construction industry and labor unions one would develop. The sentiment is there, there is just nothing to coalesce it.

---

You're right about the need for an advocacy group. I think in the end, Moroun will lose. This isn't just a Detroit or a Michigan issue. It goes all the way up through the state department in both here and Canada. Both American and Canadian ambassadors state that the bridge is of national interest. If advocacy resources are pooled at federal level here and the equivalent in Canada, plus here in Michigan as well, Moroun will eventually lose.

The key word, of course, is "eventually".

Let Snyder buy the Amabassador bridge, with his millions, then put his name on on it. Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

It appears that the Governor is pressing forward with the new bridge efforts and while I may not agree with him on other issues, he gets my kudos on this one.

I am not optimistic of agreement happening this year with Mr. Moroun being able to throw his millions in opposition at the current legislature in an election year.

What really needs to done is the development of an advocacy group for the new bridge. One would think that with many potential winners in the construction industry and labor unions one would develop. The sentiment is there, there is just nothing to coalesce it.

---

There is an advocacy group. It's called the Corrigan Group. They've been spending money just like Matty has been during the entire process. In many ways, they're the ones who manufactured all of this controversy. In the beginning, everyone, the City of Detroit, Windsor, M-DOT, and both federal governments were all on board with Matty's plans for a second span. The Corrigan Group spent a ton of money securing a no bid contract to do the DRIC study and have been engineering things behind the scenes ever since.

While we may like to see this as a Matty is the bad guy issue. It's really just a fight between parties with large sums of money trying to make even larger sums of money. The biggest difference here is that the Corrigan Group is trying to get the public to pay for their bridge, lock stock and barrel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canuck

I second the motion.

---

I agree. I have strong opinions about various people in public life, including businessmen and politicians. But I would never want anyone physically hurt or killed. Sure, where someone commits a crime, they should do the time. Kinda sick to wish that kind of harm on someone.

About Matty, while I don't like him, and would make many different decisions than he does if I owned his businesses, I don't think he's pure evil, as is the most posted opinion of him. I wish community leaders here would get half as worked up about drug dealers as they do about Matty Moroun. He might be hampering the new bridge, might not have renovated and reopened MCS [[not that anyone else has produced an idea with money attached to do anything with it), but he is not the source of our budget, ecomonic, crime, education or other problems. And while I do favor the NITC, he has both a right and legit self-interest to criticize it. The NITC is not a perfect plan financially or otherwise. NITC supporters should ignore Matty and just keep pushing for it. It's supporters certainly have enough money to counter Matty's ads and lobbyists. They just might not be as motivated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbara_10

Let Snyder buy the Amabassador bridge, with his millions, then put his name on on it. Problem solved.

---

You've been watching too much TV and have done too little reading.

"Snyder wants his monument" is all made up by Moroun. This bridge has been planned way, way before Snyder.

Your post suggests that we don't need a second bridge, when keep in mind that even Moroun himself is trying to build a second bridge.

The only difference is that Moroun wants the new bridge next to the existing one, using the same plaza, the same freeways, and dumping traffic into downtown Windsor where there's no room for highway expansion.

MDOT, Snyder, Ontario, and the Canadian government ALSO want a second bridge. But they want a second bridge that's in a different spot, with its own toll\inspection plaza, it's own freeway access, and one that connects to a new freeway on the south side of Windsor.

What makes sense? Dumping more traffic into an already congested, small footprint? Or having a separate crossing that has its own plaza, access to the freeway at a different point on the US side, and a totally different freeway on the Canadian side?

One plan is what's best for Moroun's wallet, the other plan is what's best for the people of the United States and Canada.

Quote:

---

MikeyinBrooklyn

I agree. I have strong opinions about various people in public life, including businessmen and politicians. But I would never want anyone physically hurt or killed. Sure, where someone commits a crime, they should do the time. Kinda sick to wish that kind of harm on someone.

About Matty, while I don't like him, and would make many different decisions than he does if I owned his businesses, I don't think he's pure evil, as is the most posted opinion of him. I wish community leaders here would get half as worked up about drug dealers as they do about Matty Moroun. He might be hampering the new bridge, might not have renovated and reopened MCS [[not that anyone else has produced an idea with money attached to do anything with it), but he is not the source of our budget, ecomonic, crime, education or other problems. And while I do favor the NITC, he has both a right and legit self-interest to criticize it. The NITC is not a perfect plan financially or otherwise. NITC supporters should ignore Matty and just keep pushing for it. It's supporters certainly have enough money to counter Matty's ads and lobbyists. They just might not be as motivated.

---

Well said Mikey, I find that it is easy for us to look for identifiable culprits in the blame game. There are many variables in the levels of abandonment, either political, financial or emotional in Detroit. The fact that violence and blight are occuring in a city with fewer means to counter these problems makes for a dizzying picture.

I sometimes wish Michigan had a leader that could clearly focus on Detroit's metropolitan area by comparing notes with cities that merged, and provide an alternative to the status quo. Your experience of New York City with all its problems probably comes first as a probable model for a successful amalgamation, maybe? I know there are huge hurdles to making the metro be more cohesive, but I cannot imagine another way to go for a stronger region.
When you have people calling for the National Guard to come in; it starts making sense, doesnt it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

You've been watching too much TV and have done too little reading.

"Snyder wants his monument" is all made up by Moroun. This bridge has been planned way, way before Snyder.

Your post suggests that we don't need a second bridge, when keep in mind that even Moroun himself is trying to build a second bridge.

The only difference is that Moroun wants the new bridge next to the existing one, using the same plaza, the same freeways, and dumping traffic into downtown Windsor where there's no room for highway expansion.

MDOT, Snyder, Ontario, and the Canadian government ALSO want a second bridge. But they want a second bridge that's in a different spot, with its own toll\inspection plaza, it's own freeway access, and one that connects to a new freeway on the south side of Windsor.

What makes sense? Dumping more traffic into an already congested, small footprint? Or having a separate crossing that has its own plaza, access to the freeway at a different point on the US side, and a totally different freeway on the Canadian side?

One plan is what's best for Moroun's wallet, the other plan is what's best for the people of the United States and Canada.

---

"You've been watching too much TV and have done too little reading."

No need to get nasty. How would you know what I have been doing?
I am entitled to my opinion just as you are.
That money could be better spent elsewhere. Ask the residents of Detroit.
And, please don't tell me that that bridge will pay for itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbara_10

"You've been watching too much TV and have done too little reading."

No need to get nasty. How would you know what I have been doing?
I am entitled to my opinion just as you are.
That money could be better spent elsewhere. Ask the residents of Detroit.
And, please don't tell me that that bridge will pay for itself.

---

Just a few actual facts will clear up your concerns.

The bridge will be paid for by a Canadian loan. The loan will be repaid via future tolls. That means it will cost us zero tax dollars.

Furthermore, the Federal government is allowing us to count the Canadian loan as matching funds and will grant us federal funding for OTHER projects.

So the NITC bridge actually gives us MORE money for road repairs.

Source: http://www.ongo.com/preview_article.php?a=568104


Why does Canada want this bridge so badly? Because it's the best plan and distributes traffic around the heart of Windsor, not through it.


And yes, I do know you've been watching too much TV. You're parroting Moroun's commercials, instead of referencing actual FACTS about the proposal that are in many newspapers, MDOT's website, and other independent sources that don't stand to lose money by a government owned bridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

Just a few actual facts will clear up your concerns.

The bridge will be paid for by a Canadian loan. The loan will be repaid via future tolls. That means it will cost us zero tax dollars.

Furthermore, the Federal government is allowing us to count the Canadian loan as matching funds and will grant us federal funding for OTHER projects.

So the NITC bridge actually gives us MORE money for road repairs.

Source: http://www.ongo.com/preview_article.php?a=568104


Why does Canada want this bridge so badly? Because it's the best plan and distributes traffic around the heart of Windsor, not through it.


And yes, I do know you've been watching too much TV. You're parroting Moroun's commercials, instead of referencing actual FACTS about the proposal that are in many newspapers, MDOT's website, and other independent sources that don't stand to lose money by a government owned bridge.

---

"The bridge will be paid for by a Canadian loan. The loan will be repaid via future tolls. That means it will cost us zero tax dollars."

That's all I need to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbara_10

Let Snyder buy the Amabassador bridge, with his millions, then put his name on on it. Problem solved.

---

No he and his buddies at GE have already spent
millions in Areo the bridge is the finial link
and needed as part of the package .

Once Areo is in play anything transit related
planes,trains,trucking etc will be diverted from
the new bridge over to the other side of the city
so it is a bit more involved then a bridge.

Is it really wise to put everything transit
related over there ? So all that's really happening
is that it is a shift or takeover of a private
company and not only just the one you love
to hate. Is it wise to use the position of Gov to
push this for personal gain?

If it was such a good deal for the taxpayers
why worry about paying for it ? Your going
to pay for it in so many ways but as it stands
you will get no return CDA will and of course
GE so it is hard to judge Matty without asking
full disclosure from Snyder And GE .

Two facts.

First of all, Mr. Moroun's second bridge cannot be built because the Government of Ontario will never approve it. This has been stated, publicly and often, by Ontario officials. So all the money he spent on the approaches on the Detroit side were an expensive fantasy and a waste of time.

Second of all, nearly every toll bridge and toll road in North America is successful, by which I mean the tolls are sufficient to be able to pay off the construction bonds over time, and then sufficient to pay for maintenance and upkeep. There are, I believe, four border crossings [[and for sure at least three) in the Buffalo, NY area; all are bridges, all are tolled, and none cost the State of New York or the Province of Ontario any money. Buffalo and Fort Erie are much smaller towns than Detroit and Windsor. Detroit, at the present time, has two border crossings.

Not only do toll bridges and toll roads pay their own costs, they are the ONLY form of transportation infrastructure which do so.

The only reason Mr. Moroun's specious arguments hold any weight with the public is that he has sufficient resources to produce television advertisements and buy air time for these advertisements, and we are all conditioned to believe the bullshit that comes out of our television speakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbara_10

"You've been watching too much TV and have done too little reading."

No need to get nasty. How would you know what I have been doing?
I am entitled to my opinion just as you are.
That money could be better spent elsewhere. Ask the residents of Detroit.
And, please don't tell me that that bridge will pay for itself.

---

I'll try to use a less hostile tone... it's true that you are [[as we all are) entitled to one's own opinion. We should, however, be arriving at that opinion using the same set of facts.

Here's what I believe to be true, though someone can jump in if I'm inaccurate:

[[1) as said above, Canada will be funding the construction with a loan from their own funds

[[2) Canada has also made it publicly clear that they will not accept any bridge - regardless of who owns it - in the location Moroun prefers to do so

[[3) There may be better uses for that money, but since it's Canadian money, they will not be using it here

[[4) Generally when people on both sides of the aisle begrudgingly agree to something, it's got some validity. When the business community and the working class and the poor are all on the same side, it's got some validity. The bridge is an example of this. The only politicians who are against the bridge are those who are ideologically against government spending at all, unless it's either medicare, social security, or military.

The one thing bridge proponents have working against them is that tea party politicians are more interested in maintaining ideological purity than solving problems. There's a large segment of the Republican party whose long-term strategy is just to let the Tea Party take over so that the reactionary public can really see how in effective a purist ideology would be.

Honestly, sometimes, I totally dream about letting Palin and Bachmann run the country. They represent a constituency that is mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. Well, making financial decisions when your judgment is clouded by emotions -- especially anger, fear, or greed -- generally doesn't turn out well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

There is an advocacy group. It's called the Corrigan Group. They've been spending money just like Matty has been during the entire process. In many ways, they're the ones who manufactured all of this controversy. In the beginning, everyone, the City of Detroit, Windsor, M-DOT, and both federal governments were all on board with Matty's plans for a second span. The Corrigan Group spent a ton of money securing a no bid contract to do the DRIC study and have been engineering things behind the scenes ever since.

While we may like to see this as a Matty is the bad guy issue. It's really just a fight between parties with large sums of money trying to make even larger sums of money. The biggest difference here is that the Corrigan Group is trying to get the public to pay for their bridge, lock stock and barrel.

---

sorry but this is complete non-sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

I agree. I have strong opinions about various people in public life, including businessmen and politicians. But I would never want anyone physically hurt or killed. Sure, where someone commits a crime, they should do the time. Kinda sick to wish that kind of harm on someone.

About Matty, while I don't like him, and would make many different decisions than he does if I owned his businesses, I don't think he's pure evil, as is the most posted opinion of him. I wish community leaders here would get half as worked up about drug dealers as they do about Matty Moroun. He might be hampering the new bridge, might not have renovated and reopened MCS [[not that anyone else has produced an idea with money attached to do anything with it), but he is not the source of our budget, ecomonic, crime, education or other problems. And while I do favor the NITC, he has both a right and legit self-interest to criticize it. The NITC is not a perfect plan financially or otherwise. NITC supporters should ignore Matty and just keep pushing for it. It's supporters certainly have enough money to counter Matty's ads and lobbyists. They just might not be as motivated.

---

You can't have it both ways. Either you support the DRIC/NITC or you support Matty Maroun, not both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wardwood

You can't have it both ways. Either you support the DRIC/NITC or you support Matty Maroun, not both.

---

You can hate the game instead of the player.
You can hate the actions instead of the actor.
You can hate message instead of the messenger.
You can find fault in the rules of the game instead of blaming the one who exploits the rules for his own favor.

I don't support Matty Maroun's policy on the bridge at all. I think his policy puts his own interests first at the expense of the greater good or any societal interests.

But that does not, in my mind, make Maroun bad or evil or the enemy. He is simply exercising his rights, within the rules of the game, to serve his own interests.

Recognition of that fact does not translate to an endorsement of his behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I'll try to use a less hostile tone... it's true that you are [[as we all are) entitled to one's own opinion. We should, however, be arriving at that opinion using the same set of facts.

Here's what I believe to be true, though someone can jump in if I'm inaccurate:

[[1) as said above, Canada will be funding the construction with a loan from their own funds

[[2) Canada has also made it publicly clear that they will not accept any bridge - regardless of who owns it - in the location Moroun prefers to do so

[[3) There may be better uses for that money, but since it's Canadian money, they will not be using it here

[[4) Generally when people on both sides of the aisle begrudgingly agree to something, it's got some validity. When the business community and the working class and the poor are all on the same side, it's got some validity. The bridge is an example of this. The only politicians who are against the bridge are those who are ideologically against government spending at all, unless it's either medicare, social security, or military.

The one thing bridge proponents have working against them is that tea party politicians are more interested in maintaining ideological purity than solving problems. There's a large segment of the Republican party whose long-term strategy is just to let the Tea Party take over so that the reactionary public can really see how in effective a purist ideology would be.

Honestly, sometimes, I totally dream about letting Palin and Bachmann run the country. They represent a constituency that is mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. Well, making financial decisions when your judgment is clouded by emotions -- especially anger, fear, or greed -- generally doesn't turn out well.

---

"The only politicians who are against the bridge are those who are ideologically against government spending at all, unless it's either medicare, social security, or military."

This is off topic, but the government should be spending less than they take in, as we all must do, to reduce the debt and stay on budget. I disagree with parts of your statement that refer to Social Security and Medicare as government spending. Those were trusts to be kept separate from the government's general funds. The people that are recieving those benefits [[not entitlements) paid into them for many years, and are still having about $100. a month taken out of their Social Security checks to help fund Medicare. Plus Supplemental insurance premiums to pay for the 20% that Medicare doesn't cover. There is an $1,100. deductable to be admitted to a hospital. Then there is the premium for Medicare Part D. The trust was working until the government decided to 'borrow' from it and fill the box with IOU's.
Granted the government does "spend" for the military.
Sorry for the rant.
Now back on topic. Any one that believes that the "borrowed" money from Canada will be paid back with tolls is dreaming. The taxpayer WILL be stuck with the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbara_10

...This is off topic, but the government should be spending less than they take in, as we all must do, to reduce the debt and stay on budget. I disagree with parts of your statement that refer to Social Security and Medicare as government spending. Those were trusts to be kept separate from the government's general funds. The people that are recieving those benefits [[not entitlements) paid into them for many years, and are still having about $100. a month taken out of their Social Security checks to help fund Medicare. Plus Supplemental insurance premiums to pay for the 20% that Medicare doesn't cover. There is an $1,100. deductable to be admitted to a hospital. Then there is the premium for Medicare Part D. The trust was working until the government decided to 'borrow' from it and fill the box with IOU's.
Granted the government does "spend" for the military.
Sorry for the rant.
Now back on topic. Any one that believes that the "borrowed" money from Canada will be paid back with tolls is dreaming. The taxpayer WILL be stuck with the bill.

---

Great honest post from the heart.

I don't think its necessary for the bill to be paid back. Infrastructure investment that improves the economy should be government funded -- that is paid for by all for the benefit of all.

So I don't know what 'stuck with the bill' means.

By the way, who was stuck with the bill for the 'Gateway' project at the Ambassador Bridge? Or the cost of the 696/275 interchange?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbara_10

Now back on topic. Any one that believes that the "borrowed" money from Canada will be paid back with tolls is dreaming. The taxpayer WILL be stuck with the bill.

---

Once again, the deal is that it will be paid back with future tolls.

"Stuck with the bill", once again, is a line straight from Moroun's advertisements which you keep parroting.

Moroun is a liar with only the interests of a single person, himself, in mind.

Moroun entered an agreement with the people of Michigan that if we spent tens of millions of dollars improving access to his bridge, which greatly benefited him, that he would construct certain things on his property to be a part of the project.

The Gateway project has been a huge benefit to Moroun, but yet he couldn't construct his part to specifications because he's too busy trying to make more money than trying to comply with the contract and MULTIPLE court orders telling him to complete the project.

The project has since been ripped out of his hands and is being completed by MDOT after a 2-year court battle.

So, my point is, that Moroun is a crooked billionaire only looking to get more money by any means necessary. He lies. He disobeys court orders. He couldn't give a crap about the public. Moroun only cares about lining his pockets and if he has to spend a couple million dollars on push lies through the airwaves in hopes that a few people will believe him, he'll do it.

First of all there is not ONE single person on this site that is quoting this and that, that KNOWS ALL the facts....it is ALL speculation!!!!
Secondly if there are two bridges, then based on common sense & math would tell me that tolls will be less for both bridges.....Having said that, the question I have is what if the tolls are not enough to pay the loan off? Who is going to pay that bill? I have the answer.....You and I.
One final thing.....if its such a good idea then Why doesn't his [[Snyder's) own party want it? NO ONE on here can really answer any of these questions with any certainty!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Searay215

First of all there is not ONE single person on this site that is quoting this and that, that KNOWS ALL the facts....it is ALL speculation!!!!

---

This is a fair sentiment, though I think it would be more accurate to say that no one knows all the facts, some of it is speculation. There is a degree of unknown to this issue, as with most issues. But I believe it to be a bit of a reach to say that this is all blind guesswork.

Quote:

---

Secondly if there are two bridges, then based on common sense & math would tell me that tolls will be less for both bridges

---

That would be true at the most primitive level of common sense. Common sense would dictate that if there's a lot of traffic on I-275, then adding 2 lanes in each direction will lighten traffic flow. That has now been proven to be false....adding two lanes simply results in more cars choosing to drive on I-275, with no improvement in congestion.

Common sense would dictate that if you owned a coffee shop and Starbucks opened up next door to you, your business levels would go down because you now face new competition. I'm sure at some point that becomes true, but both anecdotal and scientific evidence indicates that the "common sense" actually contradicts the reality.

"Why Starbucks actually helps mom and pop coffeehouses," Slate.com [[December, 2007)

Quote:

---

One final thing.....if its such a good idea then Why doesn't his [[Snyder's) own party want it?

---

Snyder's party is heavily influenced by a constituency whose anger about the current economic state overshadows in-depth policy analysis and sometimes even rational discussion.

Quote:

---

NO ONE on here can really answer any of these questions with any certainty!!!!!!

---

In considering both sides of this debate, the credibility of arguments drops significantly as emotions rise. As the emotional intensity of advocates on either side reaches a feverish pitch, the less concerned about facts they seem to be...which is a recipe for short-term thinking and abysmal decision-making.

You're right that there is uncertainty with this question. It is inaccurate to state there are no certainties at all. And after eliminating the bluster and fury on either side of the argument...and then adjusting for conflicts of interest...it becomes fairly clear that those opposed to the bridge are doing so either out of self-interest or out of ideological fury.

As one distances themself from the actual people and political arguments involved, and as you speak with thinkers outside of the State of Michigan, the prevailing opinion is that we need a new bridge. The questions is simply, "Where?"

And since Canada has already outright excluded Moroun's proposed span repeatedly, the answer is almost self-evident.

Or, in short, the more your arguments rely on the use of exclamation points, the less believable the arguments are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

This is a fair sentiment, though I think it would be more accurate to say that no one knows all the facts, some of it is speculation. There is a degree of unknown to this issue, as with most issues. But I believe it to be a bit of a reach to say that this is all blind guesswork.



That would be true at the most primitive level of common sense. Common sense would dictate that if there's a lot of traffic on I-275, then adding 2 lanes in each direction will lighten traffic flow. That has now been proven to be false....adding two lanes simply results in more cars choosing to drive on I-275, with no improvement in congestion.

Common sense would dictate that if you owned a coffee shop and Starbucks opened up next door to you, your business levels would go down because you now face new competition. I'm sure at some point that becomes true, but both anecdotal and scientific evidence indicates that the "common sense" actually contradicts the reality.

"Why Starbucks actually helps mom and pop coffeehouses," Slate.com [[December, 2007)



Snyder's party is heavily influenced by a constituency whose anger about the current economic state overshadows in-depth policy analysis and sometimes even rational discussion.



In considering both sides of this debate, the credibility of arguments drops significantly as emotions rise. As the emotional intensity of advocates on either side reaches a feverish pitch, the less concerned about facts they seem to be...which is a recipe for short-term thinking and abysmal decision-making.

You're right that there is uncertainty with this question. It is inaccurate to state there are no certainties at all. And after eliminating the bluster and fury on either side of the argument...and then adjusting for conflicts of interest...it becomes fairly clear that those opposed to the bridge are doing so either out of self-interest or out of ideological fury.

As one distances themself from the actual people and political arguments involved, and as you speak with thinkers outside of the State of Michigan, the prevailing opinion is that we need a new bridge. The questions is simply, "Where?"

And since Canada has already outright excluded Moroun's proposed span repeatedly, the answer is almost self-evident.

---

Nice try Snyder/Bridge supporter.....and yet you ignore the biggest most important question that everyone wants answered.........if tolls don't cover the loan/maintainence/workers salaries....who is on the hook for the balance?

If you can PROVE to me that Michigan will NOT be on the hook for ANY FUNDS then yes build it. Otherwise.....its just a gamble....leave that to the casinos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Searay215

If you can PROVE to me that Michigan will NOT be on the hook for ANY FUNDS then yes build it. Otherwise.....its just a gamble....leave that to the casinos.

---

Ok.

Quote:

---

In addition, the Canadian government has committed an additional equity investment of up to $550 million to cover costs incurred by the State of Michigan for the U.S portion of the project. Canada has also pledged to fund any revenue shortfalls.

---

From Senate Bill 410, "New International Trade Crossing Act"

Quote:

---

"...the authority may receive funds form a Canadian contribution. An agreement involving the authority and a public agency of Canada relating to a Canadian contribution shall not impose any obligation on the department, the authority, this state, or a political subdivision of this state to repay the Canadian contribution from revenues other than project revenue and project contributions."

---

By the way, I am not a "Bridge or Snyder" supporter. I'm supporting logic and reason. If someone can present a reasonable or logical argument about why we shouldn't go forward with this, I'm all ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Searay215

Nice try Snyder/Bridge supporter.....and yet you ignore the biggest most important question that everyone wants answered.........if tolls don't cover the loan/maintainence/workers salaries....who is on the hook for the balance?

If you can PROVE to me that Michigan will NOT be on the hook for ANY FUNDS then yes build it. Otherwise.....its just a gamble....leave that to the casinos.

---

First off, the bridge will be paid for by tolls.

Secondly, even if it is not, can you tell me how many self-funding infrastructure projects there are in Michigan? As a matter of fact the only public infrastructure that I can think of are bridges. Buses are only partially funded by fares. Roads in Michigan are wholly subsidized by taxpayers. Michigan has thousands of bridges that have been built by taxpayers for the greater good.

So your point is not valid on both counts because:

#1 The bridge will be funded by a Canadian loan, that loan is repaid through future tolls

and #2 Even if the bridge wasn't funded wholly by future tolls, public infrastructure in nearly all cases with only a few specific exceptions is wholly subsidized by tax dollars

The more important question is, do we need a bridge? And even Matty Moroun says that we need a bridge. He just wants the lucrative tolls to go to him.

There's enough toll revenue to pay for Matty's bridge and give him a nice profit. Now wouldn't it make sense that the same tolls that would pay for the private bridge could instead be used to pay for a public bridge, in a better location, with new plaza structures, that bypassed downtown Windsor using a new freeway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Searay215

...Secondly if there are two bridges, then based on common sense & math would tell me that tolls will be less for both bridges.....Having said that, the question I have is what if the tolls are not enough to pay the loan off? Who is going to pay that bill? I have the answer.....You and I...

---

Your error is that you are using math, not economics. I'm sure both were used in toll projections.

That aside, driving this discussion with toll revenues is absurd.

Is the I-280 bridge in Toledo paying itself back with toll revenue? Does anyone know?

Well to all you supporters of building the bridge...you have your opinion...and that's fine....personally, I do not, and do not condone circumventing the due process of the government and will continue to write my representatives to fight the building of this and will vote against Snyder in the next election...that is MY opinion and I am entitled to that, as are you entitled to your opinion.

Also in writing....all the revenue from the lottery is going to go to the schools....LOL Believe what you want......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Searay215

Well to all you supporters of building the bridge...you have your opinion...and that's fine....personally, I do not, and do not condone circumventing the due process of the government and will continue to write my representatives to fight the building of this and will vote against Snyder in the next election...that is MY opinion and I am entitled to that, as are you entitled to your opinion.

---

Like I said. You can have your own opinion. Whether you choose to make up your own facts is up to you.

Quote:

---

Also in writing....all the revenue from the lottery is going to go to the schools....LOL Believe what you want......

---

When using a past, unrelated event to prove a conclusion in the present, the burden is on you to demonstrate how the past example is similar to the present question. If the correlation is that some government entity made some promise and then broke it later, then you're off to a start -- albeit a weak one. But to do so is to state that "x entity promised something in the past and did not deliver. Therefore they can never and will never do so in the future". It's a stretch.

But it does go to the true heart of the matter. It doesn't matter what reasons you're given or what contractual obligations are put into place. It seems that if your premise is that government can't be trusted with anything, anywhere, at anytime...then it's understandable why hundreds of thousands of people are against this bridge.

They're so blinded by their anger and distrust of government that they are no longer willing to listen to reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Like I said. You can have your own opinion. Whether you choose to make up your own facts is up to you.



When using a past, unrelated event to prove a conclusion in the present, the burden is on you to demonstrate how the past example is similar to the present question. If the correlation is that some government entity made some promise and then broke it later, then you're off to a start -- albeit a weak one. But to do so is to state that "x entity promised something in the past and did not deliver. Therefore they can never and will never do so in the future". It's a stretch.

But it does go to the true heart of the matter. It doesn't matter what reasons you're given or what contractual obligations are put into place. It seems that if your premise is that government can't be trusted with anything, anywhere, at anytime...then it's understandable why hundreds of thousands of people are against this bridge.

They're so blinded by their anger and distrust of government that they are no longer willing to listen to reason.

---

Call it what you want....blinded, anger distrust....yes they have been so honest with all of us, don't you agree? Oh that's right you said I have weak agrument on thier honesty.....seriously? I have whatever your drinking or smoking.....

I am 65 years old and have been around since before you were a twinkle in your dad's eys.....so please don't try to BS me about how the government is so honest and forthright.... You have no facts.....

Go ahead tell me how I'm wrong and your right......I am done. Your not going to convince me and I am not going to convice you....let it go. I am now and always will be against the building of this bridge.

I got better things to do.....I'm going out to my boat and relax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Searay215

I am 65 years old and have been around since before you were a twinkle in your dad's eys.

---

Ah yes.

We present you with facts and hard evidence about what's really going on with the NITC bridge and your retort is, "I'm going to ignore all your facts and say they you're wrong because I'm 65 and probably older than you."

And yes, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, as are we. We just merely giving you actual hard facts and truth about the bridge, instead of what the contemptuous Matty says in his commercials that are design to sway public opinion so that he can make more money.

Dave Bing on Gov. Rick Snyder's plan for a new bridge.

"What's the big ideal for another bridge proposal with the Canucks! Maroon, the baffoon made a bridge but it went nowhere. Snyder want's a bridge that would destroy half of Southwest Detroit in the process. Me, Detroiters and the rest of Michigan will get the tax bill. So much for Snyder's reinventing Michigan!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Searay215

Go ahead tell me how I'm wrong and your right......I am done. Your not going to convince me and I am not going to convice you....let it go. I am now and always will be against the building of this bridge.

---

If you think that my purpose was trying to convince you, then you have misunderstood. My purpose is to weigh ideas in hopes of identifying the highest and most reasonable ones to consider.

Enjoy the boat. It's gorgeous out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

Ah yes.

We present you with facts and hard evidence about what's really going on with the NITC bridge and your retort is, "I'm going to ignore all your facts and say they you're wrong because I'm 65 and probably older than you."

---

Lol. Is the counter to this argument, "I'm young enough to be able to have learned from past mistakes without having become irrationally jaded and bitter"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

Dave Bing on Gov. Rick Snyder's plan for a new bridge.

"What's the big ideal for another bridge proposal with the Canucks! Maroon, the baffoon made a bridge but it went nowhere. Snyder want's a bridge that would destroy half of Southwest Detroit in the process. Me, Detroiters and the rest of Michigan will get the tax bill. So much for Snyder's reinventing Michigan!"

---

Here is what the first phase will take.and it is wondered why speculators are sitting on the land by the airport.

http://detroitregionaerotropolis.com/

There have been links posted that are supposed to represent the facts ,lets look at a few even though the report is over 7 years old and in itself uses data that is over 10 years old maybe we can agree that the world is a much different place
7 to 10 years later.Who made the report anyways?

"Additionally, the construction
of this new border crossing system is expected to generate and/or preserve as many as 25,000 jobs
within Michigan and 70,000 jobs nationally.3"

It will take or is stated to take 750 jobs to run the plazas etc when completed where are they coming up with the other 24000 plus jobs as the companies that will build it already have employees.

The U.S. government will cover the federal portion of the U.S. plaza.

How can you say no US taxpayer monies will be spent then add that part?Where does the US government get their money?

The State of Michigan would bear no responsibility for repayment of the Canadian funding.

Really? Why are they being so specific when they say The State of Michigan?

We have a deep pool of talented workers, plenty of usable land, and an abundance of natural resources that can be leveraged to help any industry flourish.

So all of those reports about the lack of talent in the past weeks were just news fillers? Where are the 60,000 acres coming from?

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sn...w_362601_7.pdf

So really that piece could have been written by either side to support their argument.

But really one needs to look at the whole big picture and not just tunnel vision on the bridge,look at what is coming after and the real reasons behind it and the impact it will have on the city good and bad ,nobody wants the state to come into Detroit with a EFM or anything else but is anybody paying attention to what is happening and what the real goal is?
Run by the state and corporations.

The city does not have a plan because it does not need one it has already been laid out for you.

So in theory the bridge is a mott issue, its a jumping point to what is to come and that is where the real issues are going to be.

I bet that Snyder took the tunnel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

Two facts.

First of all, Mr. Moroun's second bridge cannot be built because the Government of Ontario will never approve it. This has been stated, publicly and often, by Ontario officials. So all the money he spent on the approaches on the Detroit side were an expensive fantasy and a waste of time.

Second of all, nearly every toll bridge and toll road in North America is successful, by which I mean the tolls are sufficient to be able to pay off the construction bonds over time, and then sufficient to pay for maintenance and upkeep. There are, I believe, four border crossings [[and for sure at least three) in the Buffalo, NY area; all are bridges, all are tolled, and none cost the State of New York or the Province of Ontario any money. Buffalo and Fort Erie are much smaller towns than Detroit and Windsor. Detroit, at the present time, has two border crossings.

Not only do toll bridges and toll roads pay their own costs, they are the ONLY form of transportation infrastructure which do so.

The only reason Mr. Moroun's specious arguments hold any weight with the public is that he has sufficient resources to produce television advertisements and buy air time for these advertisements, and we are all conditioned to believe the bullshit that comes out of our television speakers.

---

Opinions change every election. Some other politicians may view things differently. Which is probably what Matty is holding out for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wardwood

sorry but this is complete non-sense

---

Please explain why it's nonsense [[no hyphen). Every statement in the first paragraph is a documented fact. As far as the second paragraph goes, that's my opinion, but it's not without merit. Except for the part about the Corrigan Group [[feel free to look them up) trying to get the public to foot the bill for them. That's not only a fact, it's their stock in trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wardwood

You can't have it both ways. Either you support the DRIC/NITC or you support Matty Maroun, not both.

---

First, I can have it any way I want; it's an opinion. Second, I don't "support" Matty at all. I just don't hate him. If he wants to build another bridge on his own, I have no opposition to that [[I know Ontario does, so it likely won't occur). And I support NITC. I do think they need to be very careful about it's finances [[particularly who pays for overruns, which always occur). Detroit/Windsor/Michigan/Ontario/Canada/United State/Construction Companies/Chambers of Commerce/and Construction Unions would have it built already if they had all their own ducks in a row. Matty Maroun has no ability to stop a bridge, other than to advertise and lobby. Pro-bridge people are more numerous, wealthy [[collectively), and weild more power. Reminds me of when the Lions sucked. The Lions were never terrible BECAUSE the other teams were good. They lost on their own. I hope the NITC gets built [[although I hardly think it's a be-all-and-end-all issue for the city or region). I also hope Matty builds a new Ambassador. But whatever. A new bridge would be beneficial. Two bridges would be better. I'm not sure that revenue would justify 2 spans, nice as that would be. It's just a bridge. Won't fix Detroit all by itself.

The Canadian / Ontario/Windsor Government has said that they don't want another bridge in the downtown Windsor area , they want it further down the river . I guess they have some say where it goes ? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Searay215

Nice try Snyder/Bridge supporter.....and yet you ignore the biggest most important question that everyone wants answered.........if tolls don't cover the loan/maintainence/workers salaries....who is on the hook for the balance?

If you can PROVE to me that Michigan will NOT be on the hook for ANY FUNDS then yes build it. Otherwise.....its just a gamble....leave that to the casinos.

---

I don't have ALL the facts , but I'll give you a couple facts.
1) Windsor, Ont, and Canada will NEVER, in our life time ,allow a second span right next to Matty's How many ways do they have to say it?
2) if he wants to waste money on TV ads that will go nowhere let him .
3)as stated earlier he went back on his deal to work with the state and build spans from I75 to his current bridges .
4)Every year He [[MATTY) holds up a bridge, that Windsor, Ont, Canada and the US agrees on, money that would go across a second span downriver goes to NY or elsewhere,he uses his UNFAIR advantage i.e [[money) to influence to get his way.
5) He's hell bent on getting his way, even if he had to go to jail. He's like a 3 year old child, he wont be happy until he gets his way , which the people who make the rules on both side of the boarder already said it's not going to happen , no matter who he has in his pocket on this side of the bridge, thank goodness his money doesn't work in Windsor, and no matter how many of those one sided commercials he airs , some people really get it .
6) Since fees are down and tolls would never pay for it , why is he so ready to build another one right next to his current one?
He's a successful business man, does that sound like something a successful business man would do ?.
A second span can work and he knows it ! he just wants right next to his and the money coming to his pocket ! anyone can see that ... well maybe not ?
I've been across many toll bridges in this country and 99% pay for themselves, if not he would have gotten rid of the ambassador a long time ago .If anyone can't see this then I don't know what to tell ya?
Can I PROVE that the folks in Michigan won't be on the hook for it , NO, no one can until it's built up and running , however history proves when you build a toll bridge it will pretty much pay for it self 90% of the time ,if it is run right. Also with as busy of a span and truck traffic here in Southeast Michigan matty sure seems to bet on it ,
I'm not saying I know everything , but I'm pretty sure these are all facts. I'm just using my common sense, I may be wrong , if so please let me know.
I'm always ready to learn.
keep an open mind all the best !

99% of all toll bridges are increasing tolls to be self supporting
due to decreased useage because of higher fuel costs.

How is Canada's Port Mann toll bridge doing lately ?
Not so self supporting Hugh? But hey we can say this one
will be.

Play nice with Matty maybe he will give a discount on trucking
the bulk shipping of 55 gallon drums of grease to help ease the
pain for the city folk being hung out to dry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

How is Canada's Port Mann toll bridge doing lately ?
Not so self supporting Huh? But hey we can say this one
will be....

---

The Port Mann bridge is not open yet. Toll will be $3.00 for cars, photographically collected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

The Port Mann bridge is not open yet. Toll will be $3.00 for cars, photographically collected.

---

Thanks,I was reading search results from the Vancover press where they were not expecting self supporting for at least ten years as per thier financial commission.

The Mackinac Bridge was supposed to be toll free after the initial pay back was achieved. Since then the toll has remained and raised in price. I do think it is self sufficient though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheels

The Mackinac Bridge was supposed to be toll free after the initial pay back was achieved. Since then the toll has remained and raised in price. I do think it is self sufficient though.

---

Many toll roads/bridges that were supposed to be paid off and then made free have not been, but I have a hard time thinking of any that weren't able to pay off their construction costs. In any case, just in principle, it is preferable not to have the same entity having a monopoly on the crossing. Since Maroun already controls the bridge and the tunnel, it would be poor public policy to allow him to control a new bridge. Not that this region is a stranger to poor public policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

There is an advocacy group. It's called the Corrigan Group.

---

Tell me more about this 'Corrigan Group'. I am aware of a real [[tm) engineering and planning firm working on the bridge planning and prep work. But their name is more Italian, less Irish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

They've been spending money just like Matty has been during the entire process. In many ways, they're the ones who manufactured all of this controversy. In the beginning, everyone, the City of Detroit, Windsor, M-DOT, and both federal governments were all on board with Matty's plans for a second span. The Corrigan Group spent a ton of money securing a no bid contract to do the DRIC study and have been engineering things behind the scenes ever since.

While we may like to see this as a Matty is the bad guy issue. It's really just a fight between parties with large sums of money trying to make even larger sums of money. The biggest difference here is that the Corrigan Group is trying to get the public to pay for their bridge, lock stock and barrel.

---

You are confusing cause and effect. The state and DIBC had a fallin out back while DeSana was the MDOT director.

And yes, there has been some engineering going on in the background. http://www.partnershipborderstudy.co...%20PPTnews.pdf

This 'nefarious' group has even managed to put a former employee on the state legislature. That's the kind of influence the 'Corrigan Group' has. [[Note, that is sarcasm. The current state rep has been involved in the community beyond his professional work. I could imagine him getting elected had he worked at PB, HNTB, Parson, OHM, SD, URS, Somat, et al.)

if Snyder were to "go around" the legislature as some articles have speculated is an option, how exactly would that work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

if Snyder were to "go around" the legislature as some articles have speculated is an option, how exactly would that work?

---

It's interesting that people put it that way, because ordinarily road and bridge projects happen all over Michigan without any action by the legislature at all.

One might say, for instance, that M-59 was widened in a way that "went around the legislature", or that even as we speak, nobody consulted the legislature about MDOT finishing up the approaches to the Ambassador Bridge.

Construction projects, even big ones, don't ordinarily involve legislative action or approval. Gov. Snyder may have tried to bring in the legislature before, as a courtesy or because it was a fairly significant project, but it's not at all common in this realm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Thanks,I was reading search results from the Vancover press where they were not expecting self supporting for at least ten years as per thier financial commission.

---

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Not sure if I understand correctly. Are you saying that the bridge won't be self-supporting until:

[[1) 10 years from now?
[[2) 10 years from when the bridge is complete?
[[3) 10 years from when the construction started in 2008?

I really hope it's not #3, because considering that the bridge won't even have its first full year of operation until 2014, then saying it'll be 10 years to be self-supporting is somewhat of an unfair statement.

That's like saying, "It took me 17 years to get my college degree" without saying that stopwatch started on your first day of kindergarten.

Is there a source you could cite?
Do you believe that the tolls will be unable to support the proposed bridge in Michigan?
Do you reject the obligation that Canada promises to be responsible for any shortfall?

Canada will never allow the Ambassador to be spanned into there because it makes the trucks run through the city.

According to Mr, Crain they do have an option and what is wrong with this option?

Maybe a possible compromise is for the Ambassador Bridge to pay for a short extension of the Windsor Essex Parkway [[WEP) from its presently planned end at the DRIC Canadian Plaza to the Canadian plaza of the Ambassador Br. That would take the trucks off the local streets of Windsor.

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5121

Ambassador Bridge "monopoly"?Read the numbers here and you will have a more educated outlook.Just look at the numbers and ignore the overtones.

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5895

Matty owns the tunnel also? Not according to this .

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5791

RE: Port Mann bridge

As for the second, the government's own financial statements indicate the corporation will not turn a steady profit until the last year of the current decade.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...2-211438e34e54

Self-Supporting Debt
A bond, especially a municipal bond, where the coupons and principal are paid with funding from the project the debt seeks to finance. It may be used, for example, to build a hospital or a toll bridge, and bondholders are repaid with the revenue the hospital or toll bridge derives. Self-supporting debt is usually slightly higher risk than a general obligation bond because if the project fails to generate revenue, the bond will default. However, self-supporting debt is generally low risk and highly liquid.

http://financial-dictionary.thefreed...pporting+Debts

Private toll roads are built cost effectively and most have a life span of ten years before resurfacing so any future proceeds coming back to the community will never appear.

Do I believe that toll roads and bridges can be self supporting? Yes I do because all they have to do is raise the toll to increase revenue to make up for shortfalls .

But at what point does it end? If you have less traffic and need to raise tolls to make up for it do you not get into the same situation as if you lose taxpayers so you raise taxes on the remaining taxpayers to make up the difference.Detroit is a prime example of that.

When the tolls are raised just like fuel costs the difference is passed on to the consumer when it comes to moving goods.So who is really paying for the loss?

If you do a Yahoo string search of "self supporting toll bridges" you will see that all across the country just about every toll road is increasing tolls to make up for less demand.

Do you reject the obligation that Canada promises to be responsible for any shortfall?

Yes in a way I do because I have not heard from the Canadian taxpayers saying that they would feel comfortable covering the losses should they incur and they would be the ones that could sway that promise.If they say no way who then foots the bill?

FTR I do not appose the bridge theory on its own in the future ,I appose it now because of Areo being attached to it.

Because if the bridge gets built now and Areo comes into play it will be the largest disinvestment within the city of Detroit sense "white flight" it will be in direct conflict with everything good happening now in the city when it comes to diversification.

Look at the players.

GE: Has already spent millions on it and by putting GE Capital at the disposal of future potential business players in Tech,Bio,alternative energy,and research it will undermine all the recent start ups within the city and create a very un leval playing field by stacking the deck against future start ups.

But they need help politically.

Second player.

Ann Arbor Spark which is a VC firm backed by GE.

Mr Snyder is the founder of Ann Arbor Spark.VC funding firm
Mr. Dillion State treasurer served as vice president of GE Capital and as president of the Detroit Steel Co.
Michael Finney Ceo of Ann Arbor Spark became Ceo of MEDC.

Talk about stacking the deck.

So to me and my speculation it appears as if there is another reason to push for the bridge to be built and it appears like there is a big conflict of interest involved in it.

There is a write up in Crains today about the state wanting to help with Detroit airport , I have not read the write up but it does kinda fall into place,why all of the sudden the interest?

So I have personally two questions for the Canadians on this board and they all seem to be level headed so far.

#1 , Do you feel comfortable supporting the bridge knowing that you are paying for it with no return?

#2 Do you feel comfortable paying for a bridge with your tax dollars knowing that the bridge is being put into play to make US private enterprise billions while getting you to pay for the bridge?

So like I posted previously it is not just an issue of a bridge there is a lot more at stake in the larger picture and it is hard to base a decision on just the bridge as a stand alone theory.

All good points and thought-provoking. Thank you for raising the level of discourse on this issue. Maroun soundbites were getting old. I'm inferring that you are against the Aerotropolis idea. Am I misunderstanding? And if so, why? Ann Arbor Spark is revered in Washtenaw County and has helped spur business after business as well as create a culture of entrepreneurialism that -- frankly -- Detroit lacks.

The aerotropolis has been a vision since the days of Detroit Renaissance, which is now Business Leaders for Michigan. I see their involvement in anything Detroit-related as a net positive, bringing with them access to capital and sorely lacking leadership and expertise to the city and the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

...<snip>
RE: Port Mann bridge

As for the second, the government's own financial statements indicate the corporation will not turn a steady profit until the last year of the current decade.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...2-211438e34e54
...<snip>...

---

That quotation is from a critic of the government. The article was about a dispute over how the bridge is classified and how the debt is to be recorded or shown. It has nothing to do with profitability.

Many investments require both capital debt and a few years of operating losses before profit. I don't see anything here that suggests that this bridge can't support itself.

And even if this bridge and a few others are in trouble, that doesn't really address the general case of whether one should investment in infrastructure anymore than Jeffrey Dahmer's existence proves that the human race is incapable of compassion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

All good points and thought-provoking. Thank you for raising the level of discourse on this issue. Maroun soundbites were getting old. I'm inferring that you are against the Aerotropolis idea. Am I misunderstanding? And if so, why? Ann Arbor Spark is revered in Washtenaw County and has helped spur business after business as well as create a culture of entrepreneurialism that -- frankly -- Detroit lacks.

The aerotropolis has been a vision since the days of Detroit Renaissance, which is now Business Leaders for Michigan. I see their involvement in anything Detroit-related as a net positive, bringing with them access to capital and sorely lacking leadership and expertise to the city and the region.

---

Areotropolis has worked well in other cities because they did not have much going for them to begin with.I do not believe as it stands it is not a good fit for Detroit because in its design as it stands now it will be a direct conflict with what is happening now or could happen in the future.

As an example or hypothetical situation lets use the Fisher body plant.

A potential business person says to the state , I want to research and make these widgets and my research shows that I can use the Fisher body facility to my advantage and make it cost effective ,so standard procedure would be to go to MEDC and say I am making this investment and employing x amount of workers,as they would in any state right or wrong to apply for what ever tax credits are available.

So MEDC says hey why do you not look over here in Areo we can help you get the building built utilizing tax credits ,we can help with start up funding and finance it all through GE capital using the tax credits as your down payments all in one neat little package.

What route would you take? meanwhile fisher body looses one more opportunity to be productive once again.

If the bridge is built without the Areo concept and free enterprise was allowed due course without a stacked deck then yes okay build the bridge and make it an enterprise zone.

They will have the power to direct investment into Areo verses the city or surrounding burbs.

culture of entrepreneurialism that -- frankly -- Detroit lacks.

I do not believe for one second that Detroit lacks entrepreneurialism, I believe it has been controlled and stymied by a government in place that creates more red tape,past pay to play,corruption,and now in this case Areo a complete lack of support by the city and state which all combined keeps creative juices at bay.

I think Detroit/Windsor probably has the highest concentration of intelligence and entrepreneurship potential in a variety of different ways verses many different cities that are specific in just one area so the base is there.

Areo is designed as a hub for transportation,Think Little Rock of the east,a hub for research,a hub for technology, so take everything diversified from the city and move it there? What happens to the city then and suburbs.

Spark or any other funder has done well in its realm but when it has the power to direct investment based on what and where they see fit verses public good and free enterprise then you have problems.

Remind you of anybody else that is a quasi private/gov enterprise within the city?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

That quotation is from a critic of the government. The article was about a dispute over how the bridge is classified and how the debt is to be recorded or shown. It has nothing to do with profitability.

Many investments require both capital debt and a few years of operating losses before profit. I don't see anything here that suggests that this bridge can't support itself.

And even if this bridge and a few others are in trouble, that doesn't really address the general case of whether one should investment in infrastructure anymore than Jeffrey Dahmer's existence proves that the human race is incapable of compassion.

---

I think we can agree that the gov needs critics from time to time.

So what I would do is look at the numbers in the link I posted and if those numbers said yes it is feasible to build the bridge then to me it should be built by the US using taxpayer dollars as an infrastructure project.

But on the other hand sense it would be an international border project the burden should fall on the entire country,no difference then the Mexican border crossing as according to what we are told it would benefit the entire country in trade.

Because then it really does not matter it will be clear as day to the taxpayer,it will cost X amount of dollars to build then in 10 years give or take it will become self supporting so it becomes no longer a burden on the taxpayer,how much does it cost to cross from Mexico to the US?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

I think we can agree that the gov needs critics from time to time.

So what I would do is look at the numbers in the link I posted and if those numbers said yes it is feasible to build the bridge then to me it should be built by the US using taxpayer dollars as an infrastructure project.

But on the other hand sense it would be an international border project the burden should fall on the entire country,no difference then the Mexican border crossing as according to what we are told it would benefit the entire country in trade.

Because then it really does not matter it will be clear as day to the taxpayer,it will cost X amount of dollars to build then in 10 years give or take it will become self supporting so it becomes no longer a burden on the taxpayer,how much does it cost to cross from Mexico to the US?

---

I agree 100% this should be federal project. And I don't think there even should be a toll. Why are we debating the payback or toll revenues? By doing this, we are playing into Matty's hand.

I spent years as a municipal finance attorney and will weigh in when I have the time to read over the details, under the assumption that I'm not being presumptuous in weighing in.

Nonetheless, as I currently understand it, Snyder and the other US actors have basically leveraged the Canadians' desire to get this bridge built into a sweetheart deal for us [[Det, MI, and US).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous

I spent years as a municipal finance attorney and will weigh in when I have the time to read over the details, under the assumption that I'm not being presumptuous in weighing in.

Nonetheless, as I currently understand it, Snyder and the other US actors have basically leveraged the Canadians' desire to get this bridge built into a sweetheart deal for us [[Det, MI, and US).

---

It would appear so except for the Republican State Legislature. If you look past all of Matty's propaganda and posturing it seems like a pretty sweet deal for the U.S, and to be honest, Canada. The only loser in this equation is Matty, or so it would appear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeg19

It would appear so except for the Republican State Legislature. If you look past all of Matty's propaganda and posturing it seems like a pretty sweet deal for the U.S, and to be honest, Canada. The only loser in this equation is Matty, or so it would appear.

---

He's only a 'loser' if you mean the downgrade from extreme profitability to significant profitability.

He probably makes enough avoiding fuel taxes to stay quite happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I agree 100% this should be federal project. And I don't think there even should be a toll. Why are we debating the payback or toll revenues? By doing this, we are playing into Matty's hand.

---

The bridge is most likely going to be packaged as a design/build/finance/operate concession. The projected toll revenues and payback period is critical for investors.

As far as AA Spark getting involved--I have a really hard time seeing why they would touch the project. The bridge is a) out of their geographic scope, b) out of their expertise, and c) require financing orders of magnitude larger than their typical project.

Quote:

---

Matty owns the tunnel also? Not according to this .

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5791

---

I stand corrected. I should have remembered that isn't true. I still think it would be a bad idea for him to control both bridges though, as so much of the traffic can't use the tunnel.

I think it is obvious from the backups on the Ambassador that there should be another bridge. And I think it is obvious that a better connection to the bridge on the Canadian side would be desirable. The project makes sense on that basis without any possible Aerotropolis impact, and I don't really see how the Aerotropolis would have a negative impact on the city--do we really think these are similar locations competing for similar businesses? I don't.

In general I believe a healthier region is good for the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

In general I believe a healthier region is good for the city.

---

A healthier region is much better for the city. But for you skeptics out there, then surely it's easy to see that a worsening region only makes it harder for the city to pool resources for a greater good.

The aerotropolis is a good idea. Brooks Patterson was vehemently against it for years, for the same reason why others have expressed doubt...that steering development into a concentrated area would likely mean less for Oakland County and more for Wayne County. But even he realizes that a healthier region benefits the O.C. as well.

I believe in free markets as well. But I also know that if we don't coordinate and plan together, what we will end up with is 6 stadiums in 5 cities. 20+ different "downtowns". No public transportation from the airport. This aerotropolis, if done right, will not just benefit Belleville, Romulus, etc. It will make Detroit relevant again to the rest of the US.

This stimulates population growth and economic expansion...all of which Metro Detroit is in desperate need.

Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't the backups on the bridge more to do with Customs than the limited bridge roadway volume limits?? :confused:

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but with all the so called Facts that have been stated on here, by so called experts as to all the advantages and proof that it won't cost the taxpayers a dime. Then why is a Vast majority of 148 elected officials in Lansing against it and ONLY the governor for it?

You'd think they'd want to do it according to all the info on here....I mean after all there is 148 of them and only a few of you? You guys should run for office......

Oh I can hear you people now.......it's the constituents that are against it and the legislators are afraid for their jobs.....sorry, that does not hold water. They have recently passed a flood of unpopular items.....Helmet law, Fireworks, taxing pensions....to name a few of the many.

Now if you will excuse me I have to get ready to go out to the boat. Have a great day!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Searay215

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but with all the so called Facts that have been stated on here, by so called experts as to all the advantages and proof that it won't cost the taxpayers a dime. Then why is a Vast majority of 148 elected officials in Lansing against it and ONLY the governor for it?

You'd think they'd want to do it according to all the info on here....I mean after all there is 148 of them and only a few of you? You guys should run for office......

Oh I can hear you people now.......it's the constituents that are against it and the legislators are afraid for their jobs.....sorry, that does not hold water. They have recently passed a flood of unpopular items.....Helmet law, Fireworks, taxing pensions....to name a few of the many.

Now if you will excuse me I have to get ready to go out to the boat. Have a great day!!!

---

Because sometimes what's popular doesn't always mean what's right.

p.s. jealous re: boat. another gorgeous day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Because sometimes what's popular doesn't always mean what's right.

---

Let's be very frank. Legislators are opposed to the MDOT bridge project because Mr. Maroun's companies have paid them enormous sums of money to be opposed to it.

The vast sums he has spent on lobbying, advertising and campaign donations are well known. Money talks. It is a mystery to me why he has not been able to buy the influence of our counterparts in Ontario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gistok

Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't the backups on the bridge more to do with Customs than the limited bridge roadway volume limits?? :confused:

---

Roadway capacity isn't an issue. It is all about customs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I agree 100% this should be federal project. And I don't think there even should be a toll. Why are we debating the payback or toll revenues? By doing this, we are playing into Matty's hand.

---

So how do they pay for maintenance then? Oh yeah...the TAX PAYERS....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin

So how do they pay for maintenance then? Oh yeah...the TAX PAYERS....

---

And road tax on gas. Just like every other road.

Seems like kinda putting the cart before the horse , how about making the tunnels so they can allow double deckers and offer them a tax rebate at years end to encourage the use there.

But the whole concept about it not costing taxpayers becomes Mott anyways when you say Feds are paying for the plaza,then you have to build customs search points which is more tax dollars .

What else?