Printable View
The Ambassador Bridge received a legal setback today when the Michigan Supreme Court denied its leave to appeal a March ruling that it must live up to the contract it signed with the state concerning the Gateway Project.
The Wayne County Circuit Court earlier ruled that the Bridge Company, which oversees the bridge, had to remove structures it illegally constructed on its plaza, and that it must complete its portion of the project, a decision that would cost the company millions.
[quote=leland_palmer;150100]The Ambassador Bridge received a legal setback today when the Michigan Supreme Court denied its leave to appeal a March ruling that it must live up to the contract it signed with the state concerning the Gateway Project.
The Wayne County Circuit Court earlier ruled that the Bridge Company, which oversees the bridge, had to remove structures it illegally constructed on its plaza, and that it must complete its portion of the project, a decision that would cost the company millions.
Gee, that's unfortunate for Matty:p
Poor Matty, the lieing, cheating billionaire. Anyone else not politically connected [[read : paying politicians off, or as they like to call it - contributing to their campaigns) would likely be in jail for his transgressions if not for his money and mouthpieces. Stealing a loaf of bread could get you more time in jail. I hope he has to pay our government's court costs.
So Matty might not be the model citizen we'd like him to be, but lots of folks aren't. The problem I have is why should we spend valuable [[even more valuable now) taxpayer money to build our own bridge when he's willing to build one himself?
In no Republican, but I'm happy to side with them on this one. The need for a second span is under question and may not be needed for many years yet to come; so please spend my tax dollars on something that we really need, like mass transit, and let Matty build his own bridge.
We cannot continue to allow his monopoly, I don't care HOW much of his lobbying dollars have made it to your pocket...or worse, just infected your mind, unpaid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ststannies
C'mon Matty, we've been over this before. If you're going to post, do it under your own name.
Another one bites the dust
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ststannies
Please do not believe the PR campaign waged by Maroun and Stamper. Your assertion is correct and incorrect at the same time. I don't have the time to lay it all out for you, but believe me, the DRIC is the better plan.
Although the number of yearly bridge crossings has diminished in the past 5 years, that doesn't mean the demand won't come back when the economy is humming along again. So should we construct the bridge now to avoid the major problem of traffic backups and stifled international trade? Or should we wait until the problem is extreme and everyone is going "on my God we need another bridge now"? It doesn't make any sense to wait. Spend the money and get it done NOW.
The game of subterfuge being played by Maroun is truly amusing--in this part of the world traffic is disappearing and will never return and it's outrageous that someone should want to build a bridge to compete with his...drive 4 hours to the Niagara/Buffalo area and Maroun says traffic is about to explode and he ought to be able to build a bridge to compete with the existing spans there.
It's kinda funny how we DON'T want a billionaire to build his own bridge utilizing just his own money... but build another one only with public funds.
... and then on the flip side we DO want another billionaire to completely pay for his own new arena using just his own funds... and no public funds.
I know it's apples and oranges... but ironic nonetheless...
No public funds for a new bridge. There will come a time where there are no tax dollars left. Wait... Already there...
Location, location, LOCATION is the real issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
The latter billionaire will be the primary beneficiary of the new arena no matter who pays for it. Using public funds for a new bridge that has nothing to do with Moroun or the Ambassador is in no way a direct subsidy for Moroun in the way that a publicly-funded hockey arena would be a subsidy for Mike Ilitch. It's an investment in infrastructure that Moroun opposes and that otherwise has nothing much to do with him. I'm just not seeing the irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
If someone was advocating a public subsidy for Moroun to build a second span while opposing public subsidy of a new hockey arena, that would be a rather illogical and inconsistent position, but I don't think anyone is advocating that. Even Moroun doesn't have the balls to solicit public funds for his bridge.
Like "gnome," I don't have the time to explain it all, but Moroun's claim that he would use his own money to twin his bridge is untrue. BOTH his twinned bridge and the publicly owned bridge would be built with bridge toll bonds and PAB [[private activity bonds). Anybody who thinks that Moroun is going to spend his own money on a twinned bridge doesn't understand the profit motive: The way one gets to be a billionaire is by NOT using one's own money, but by using other people's money, and by taking tax breaks to do so. And Moroun is a billionaire many times over.
Stop believing the lies put out by Moroun's high-paid lawyers and henchmen. If you believe that Moroun is such an upstanding fellow, just look at his Michigan Central Depot: Does that not tell you anything?
Bill Ford, Brooks Patterson, John Engler, the Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of other individuals, organizations, manufacturers and officials back the publicly owned bridge. Those who insist on believing Moroun's lies, have, as Jesus said, eyes to see, but don't see. Wake up and smell the coffee burning: This is the USA, a democratic form of government; our citizens are tired of having the equivalent of a 19th-century cattle baron riding roughshod over our livelihood and our laws.
Moroun is a dog in the manger; he has decided that if he can't have what he wants, he will simply lawyer the rest of us to death. Canada has offered to advance a huge amount of funds to help us build a Downriver bridge. We would be fools not to take advantage of that offer -- and fools to continue to allow a single individual to have a chokehold over the economy of two countries. Now that Detroiters have retaken their city from Kwame Kilpatrick; we don't want to turn it over to another autocrat.
Fiona,,,,,,
You are spot on. MM is the devil, nuff said.
One, the money to build the DRIC bridge will come from the Ontario Government. So the notion that Michigan tax dollars will be used to build the DRIC is not accurate. And where is Ontario going to get the dough? according to them they will raise a 1/4 of their half a billion from reserves, and float bonds for the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Where does Matty say he is going to get the money to build his bridge? Float bonds.
So, how about we get off the whole tax dollars argument? It is not the case where tax dollars would be deverted from k-12 or Revenue Sharing or State Police inorder to pay for the DRIC.
Two, there are 17 traffic lights between Mexico and Toronto. 16 of those traffic lights are on Huron and Church Street in downtown Windsor. The Matty bridge could double the congestion for Windsor.
Three, Matty and Dan have yet to formally submit a proposal to the Frost-Backs. If he ever would submit a plan it would take several years for it to be reviewed, so let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that matty has a shovel in one hand and is all ready to dig. The DRIC though is ready to start digging, to start hiring people, to start a building a bridge to the future.
four, least we forget, Matty doesn't have the land to twin the Ambassador. Riverside Park stands in mute defiance to his land grab.
Five, let's talk 9/11 security for a second. Suppose that Matty "twins" his bridge and there is a terrorist incident? Do you think the new span and the old span will be in harms way if they are only 25 feet seperating them?
if the DRIC is built and the Ambassor goes down, there will be two miles seperating them.
Are five reasons enough?
To me, keeping through traffic out of both downtowns is reason enough. Let the heavy truck traffic use DRIC and Bluewater and keep the Ambassador and Tunnel for local traffic.
Gnome,
Simply using logical points doesn't mean you're not a hater.
yep, that's me ... a hater. but only 'cuz I don't cotton to bullies.
Canada simply won't allow a second bridge to be built, period. Maybe, after a new bridge is built Canada would allow the old one to be removed and replaced, but of course Matty's revenue would drop to zero for that period. The Amb is about 80 years old, what is the longest lasting bridge of this design?
Spot-on editorial:
http://www.freep.com/article/2010053...ing-new-bridge
The money from Canada is a loan, stop pretending it's some type of gift. If the revenue from the tolls is not enough to pay back the loan, the difference will have to come from the state. The chances of the tolls generating enough revenue are not good when considering that the Michigan portion of the toll would probably have to generate about $4.50 profit per toll. The entire DRIC project is probably going to have to generate about $185,000,000.00 per year, in profit, in order to sustain itself. Get ready to subsidize.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
On the flip-side, even using bonds, Moroun would have to pay the difference if his bridge doesn't generate enough revenue. But, with the lower cost, his bridge stands a better chance of being able to pay for itself.
Good to see the Free Press admonish the legislators to move forward into the needs of the future.
I hear that! ..."cotton to" have not heard that expression in ages. LOL. Yeah these types are bull dozers "literally" as in this case! I am going to drive down there to see just what this Matty has been up to. Crazy that he is being given such reign to do what he wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome