http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story...fRjA-y4Mg.cspx
Printable View
Don't you know Matty Moroun is "King of the World"? He can do whatever the frick he wants to do. Be it the Coast Gaurd, Canadien Government, the State, the Feds he doesn't care, he is a god.
His little puppet boy Dan Stamper can spin shit all day, Mongo can speak his shit for the $'s, and Momma CK can get thousands over and under the table, but it is all catching up with him soon.....................:D
I am just amazed how someone can just start building a bridge and no one notices. And for that matter, how does a construction company get hired to build part of a bridge and no one notices or says anything about it?
I don't know of anyone who thought this was new news except the Coast Guard. Everyone else in the world is well aware of what Manny's been doing.
In fact there was a big spread about the bridge options in the News awhile ago. It mentioned that Manny had already started construction and even showed a picture of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
Well, when a billionaire is lining your pockets, it's easy "not to know"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Green
What I don't get, is if you are building a second span, what purpose does the new one serve 50 fucking feet from the original???
I'm glad he is building a new one. It will cut down on traffic.
D.mcc, I don't understand your question. The newer Blue Water Bridge is probably 50 feet or less from the original, and they function just fine.
Moroun say that he wants to close the Ambassador to make repairs to it. Either that or probably just leave it there to rot.Quote:
Originally Posted by d.mcc
I'm glad someone finally realized that those huge pillars etc. right along Fort Street are not part of the Gateway project to access the Ambassador Bridge. That is the approach ramp for the new cable-stayed bridge which Matty is hoping to leave as his legacy while building over Riverside upper Park, Sandwich, and some of Southwest Detroit. No chance that 6 lane monstrousity which ends at Fort Street is for the current bridge. No chance.
Also funny how their plans first called for the new bridge to Supplement the Ambassador, and now it will completely replace it. If his new bridge does get built, how long before he is submitting plans to remove the old historic 1929 structure? Probably not too long...
Since when does the Coast Guard have jurisdiction over construction on land that does not interfere with waterway navigation? Until The Bridge Company starts construction in the river, I don't see why the Coast Guard is sticking their nose into it.
Furthermore, I can't understand why the Canadians are upset about the proposed location of the new bridge next to the old bridge. Wouldn't it make sense to keep the bridge traffic in the same location rather than to relocate it all to someplace else where you are going to have the same opposition?
Actually, the current location is far more controversial than the location the public bridge is planned for.
And, yes, the Ambassador will either be gone before you know it if he gets his way, or he will allow it to rot for decades like he does most of his properties in the area. He seems not to have any shame, so he'd have no problem letting the Ambassador rot if opposition to demolishing it was high. Using it as 'auxiliary' is complete bull, and everyone knows it.
If he leaves it to rot, maybe the Coast Guard will fine him for posing a hazard to navigation, unlike the Detroit City Council who apparently doesn't believe in Code Enforcement.
I don't know if I missed this somewhere on this thread, but this is the full video of the bridge animation from YouTube that they showed a portion of in that article. At the end, it doesn't really look like they're utilizing the old bridge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrVM_ReGCSE&NR=1
I totally agree with the above, how the hell can you miss it ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Green
When you are surreptitiously paid to glance the OTHER way...