Detroit CofC Endorses DRIC

This was quite the surprise. The Detroit Chamber of Commerce has come out in support of the Detroit River International Crossing [[DRIC):

Quote:

---

"We favor the DRIC," said Sarah Hubbard, the Detroit chamber's vice president of governmental relations. "We don't oppose the Ambassador Bridge overtly. And, if they build a second span, we could live with it. But we support the bi-national effort of the DRIC."

---

Not surprisingly, though, the CofC and Brookings don't really make a convincing case for DRIC, either.

So there's not enough traffic to justify a replacement span for the Ambassador Bridge, but there is enough traffic to justify the DRIC? Regardless of how anyone feels about Matty Moroun, he has a good case to say he's being treated unfairly in this instance.

Manny only has one good case he can make - Manny has the MONEY. He's a billionaire BULLY. After his many years of bullying, he has no credibility whatsoever. MONEY is speech. The more MONEY you have the more [[free) speech you have. As a general rule, I might not oppose a privately owned bridge. As long it is Manny's ownership, I completely oppose it. The DIBC is the epitomy of ruthless corporate behavior.

"As long it is Manny's ownership, I completely oppose it."

When the official decision makers treat him that way, he has a case.

As long it is Manny's ownership, I completely oppose it.

Would you rather pay a subsidy to support a failing DRIC bridge because it's built out of bureaucratic inertia rather than need, and a tax has to be levied because the tolls can't cover its bonds? You'd rather pay a "Moroun Tax?"

Build a bridge when traffic dictates it, or will soon dictate it. It doesn't now. That's not being an advocate for Moroun, but it's fiscal good stewardship.

Moroun could be Mother Theresa or the Wicked Witch of the West -- that's beside the point. Public dollars must be spent on needed projects, and the cold, hard numbers show this bridge isn't needed any time soon. The Brookings report says as much.

According to your Masters at the Bridge Company, the 80 year old Ambassador is nearing the end of its life span.

If you take their word for things, as you have said in the past, then that means a new bridge is on the horizon.

Guess you didn't cut n paste their latest press release. so sad

he'll cut and paste it for his article in crain's. isn't there a high school gym ribbon cutting ceremony somewhere you should be writing about, bill?

Seriously folks, is it REALLY necessary to accuse everybody who had a dissenting opinion of being on MM's payroll?

All the delays we have at the bridge NOW are due to hold ups with customs and with the lack of highway access on the Windsor side. The logical thing to do would be to build out that highway, because the US side is almost ready and the bridge is ALREADY THERE. But, the City of Windsor doesn't want that. They'd rather we spend money tearing up a huge section of Detroit and rebuilding yet another stretch of I-75. Think the Gateway Project was a hassle? Get ready for Gateway Project II!

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the point. I don't think it's worth several billion dollars just to "stick it" to Matty Moroun.

I don't think moroun is paying shea. but I believe shea has a hard on for anyone opposed to moroun for whatever reason, and I find his posting on this site shameful and unprofessional, but insightful as to his lack of integrity as a journalist and the lack of objectivity in anything he writes about the subject for crains.

and don't quote hunter thompson again bill. we're not twelve years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dexterferry

I don't think moroun is paying shea. but I believe shea has a hard on for anyone opposed to moroun for whatever reason, and I find his posting on this site shameful and unprofessional, but insightful as to his lack of integrity as a journalist and the lack of objectivity in anything he writes about the subject for crains.

and don't quote hunter thompson again bill. we're not twelve years old.

---

You just used "hard on" in a sentence, so that's not shameful and unprofessional? It's also a smutty statement. If you want credibility, use a little class.

The Chamber of Commerce endorsement is really very strong evidence that DRIC has been on the right track all along. The DRIC bridge will happen. As a Crain's subscriber I hope we can look for analysis and insight on issues that are not thus settled.

D-lover, here is a little heads up.Back in the days when I had hair or shortly after the earth cooled, "hard-on" didn't always mean an erect penis. It has a more nuanced meaning while drawing inspiration from the purple headed beast.

"Hard-on" in the sense used by Dexter was that of being blind to reason, needlessly impassioned, angry, florid in expression and demeanor. For example:

Stinky: "I don't understand the boss. He's always on my back."
Pinky: "What do you mean? Don't you know, he's got a hard-on for anyone who doesn't understand liguistic history."

I understand that this meaning of the term has fallen out of favor as "hard-on" has now come to mean strictly an anatomical condition, ...

just thought you should know.

I just see it as Bill trying to point out the facts, but on every thread I've read it seems to rapidly devolve into something like this:

A. "We don't need two bridges."

B. "But Matty Moroun is an evil slumlord."

A. "Still, there isnt enough traffic to support two bridges."

B. "But Matty Moroun is an evil billionaire."

A. "The billions to be spent on the DRIC would be better spent elsewhere."

B. "You seem to love MM a lot.You must be a paid shill."

I have yet to read a valid argument from anyone as to why we need the DRIC *now*. Maybe in a decade or two, but not now.

Funho, I don't know if your post should be cross-labeled "late-to-party" or "haven't used search function" but in any regard there have been pages and pages written about both bridges. I suggest you take a look-see. Sorry if you aren't grooving on the level of discourse, I'll try to up my game.

You ever been on 23rd lately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnome

D-lover, here is a little heads up.Back in the days when I had hair or shortly after the earth cooled, "hard-on" didn't always mean an erect penis. It has a more nuanced meaning while drawing inspiration from the purple headed beast.

"Hard-on" in the sense used by Dexter was that of being blind to reason, needlessly impassioned, angry, florid in expression and demeanor. For example:

Stinky: "I don't understand the boss. He's always on my back."
Pinky: "What do you mean? Don't you know, he's got a hard-on for anyone who doesn't understand liguistic history."

I understand that this meaning of the term has fallen out of favor as "hard-on" has now come to mean strictly an anatomical condition, ...

just thought you should know.

---

Thanks gmome!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnome

Funho, I don't know if your post should be cross-labeled "late-to-party" or "haven't used search function" but in any regard there have been pages and pages written about both bridges. I suggest you take a look-see. Sorry if you aren't grooving on the level of discourse, I'll try to up my game.

You ever been on 23rd lately?

---

I see now I'm the target for having the unpopular opinion that the DRIC is a massive waste of money. Already you're suggesting that I somehow missed something, or that I'm just not bright enough to "get it." On the contrary, I've read everything posted about MM and the DRIC on this forum since 2007, and in fact looking for information on the DRIC is how I found DY in the first place. I've also followed a lot of the other side of this story on the Windsor City Blog.

What about 23rd? Do you think if the DRIC gets built it's going to undo all the bad stuff Moroun has done to the roads and parks around the Bridge? That stuff needs to be taken care of through the courts, and it's unfortunate that the City seems unwilling to do so at the moment. Unless of course you're suggesting that the primary purpose of the DRIC is to put Matty out of business, which just goes to back to my original question: is it REALLY worth billions of taxpayer dollars just to do that? Wouldn't it just be easier to pull the customs people on both sides and shut it down that way?

It's really kind of sad that only UrbanAlliance has actually replied with something related to the specific story, I posted. The issue, here, should be about your reaction to a surprise endorsement of the business community of DRIC, not whether Bill is getting paid under the table [[which seems absolutely ludicous, to me). Bill is Bill; to constantly belabor the point of his bias everytime this issue gets brought up is silly and distracting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MIRepublic

It's really kind of sad that only UrbanAlliance has actually replied with something related to the specific story, I posted. The issue, here, should be about your reaction to a surprise endorsement of the business community of DRIC, not whether Bill is getting paid under the table [[which seems absolutely ludicous, to me). Bill is Bill; to constantly belabor the point of his bias everytime this issue gets brought up is silly and distracting.

---

Why do you think it's a surprise endorsement? The DRIC website posted a meeting for potential vendors that was to take place at the Chambers offices. You and I even traded posts about that a month or two ago.

Bshea, if I was to buy into your arguments, I might agree with you on some of your points. Unfortunately for you and I having common ground on Manny, the politicians, government funding, cost effectiveness, etc, it's not likely to happen. I'll stick with my contention that Manny is a rich Bully who's buying his political support and he shouldn't be allowed to own one bridge, much less two. As much as I dislike bureaucrats, I'll take the bureaucrats over Manny.

"All the delays we have at the bridge NOW are due to hold ups with customs and with the lack of highway access on the Windsor side. The logical thing to do would be to build out that highway..."

Just curious as to whether this is a post from the Windsor side, or from yet another American who knows what's best for the silly Canadians on the other side of the bridge...

It used to be that building a bridge required an agreement between the two opposite sides, but Maroun's stooges seem to support the neocolonialist "just let the monopolist lying bully shove the bridge where he wants it" approach.

To follow the logic of Maroun's stooges, using some of Maroun's stooges as an example:

"Just let the Kilpatricks run the city, they have money, lots of political experience and it's really expensive to keep changing mayors with this lousy economy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barnesfoto

"All the delays we have at the bridge NOW are due to hold ups with customs and with the lack of highway access on the Windsor side. The logical thing to do would be to build out that highway..."

Just curious as to whether this is a post from the Windsor side, or from yet another American who knows what's best for the silly Canadians on the other side of the bridge...

It used to be that building a bridge required an agreement between the two opposite sides, but Maroun's stooges seem to support the neocolonialist "just let the monopolist lying bully shove the bridge where he wants it" approach.

---

See, here we go again. it's not about whether the DRIC makes financial sense. It's all about "Moroun is evil."

There's ALREADY a bridge that is now well-connected on the US side. It's been there for 80 years. I didn't claim to know what's best for the "silly Canadians." I just said it's the *logical* thing to do to fix the access problem on the other side, rather then spend billions, displace hundreds of poor people, shut down businesses, and screw up I-75 for another 5 years. Not to mention the enormous totally new highway that will need to be built to the DRIC in Canada. And once the lack of sufficient traffic causes the DRIC to go into the red in 5 or 10 years it'll need subsidies to keep it afloat....more tax money down the drain.

I'll tell you right now. At this point I don't give a shit if MM ever builds his second span. I just don't want to see money wasted on the DRIC when we simply DO NOT NEED IT. If anything some of that money would be better spent fighting MM in court to fix all the problems he's already caused, problems which as I mentioned in a previous post aren't simply going to magically go away if/when the DRIC opens. The DRIC isn't going to save 23rd St, nor is it going to magically undo MM's unilateral changes to the gateway project design.

And for the Canadians: the DRIC isn't going to make the Ambassador Bridge go away either. You're still going to have those nasty trucks on surface streets, and I'll bet you the AB will undercut the DRIC's fares by enough to make sure it gets more traffic.

In the last 6 months of the bridge debate, I have heard one good reason for building the DRIC bridge and that came from someone who has not posted much lately. Other than that, I have to side with Funaho. Why spend a few billion dollars on a bridge and then get taxed to death cause we don't have the funds in the first place if someone else already has the funds?

"Moroun is evil". There I've said it again. As far as I'm concerned that is all the reason I need to oppose him in anything he might do. "Moroun is evil" Do you not read the papers and listen to the radio? Morroun has no regards for any individual or community. He's a typical 'Robber Baron'. So, go ahead and make your points and I'll make mine. If you don't like or agree with mine, okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

"Moroun is evil". There I've said it again. As far as I'm concerned that is all the reason I need to oppose him in anything he might do. "Moroun is evil" Do you not read the papers and listen to the radio? Morroun has no regards for any individual or community. He's a typical 'Robber Baron'. So, go ahead and make your points and I'll make mine. If you don't like or agree with mine, okay.

---

You don't have a point, you have an opinion.

Okay, you win. I concede. It's an opointonion. Do you feel better now? Maybe you and CcBats can go at it. That might be fun. You and Bats arguing about where the period and commas go and why using one would make you a fascist and using the other would make you a fundamentalist.

Anyway, back to Manny. His company annexes a city park. Property owned by the citizens, on the excuse it's his company's right under terrorism laws. No requests, no petitions, no legal basis, just take it. His company takes property from the neighborhood and builds on it with no requests, permits or legal basis. His company takes property from citizens that's part of the new freeway interchange, costing us an undetermined amount of money. He surrounds small business owners and prevents them from doing business and making a living becuase he refuses to negotiate with them in purchasing their properties and businesses. There was at least two instances - a Duty Free Store and a Bait Store. This guy is a tyrant. "Moroun is evil".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Anyway, back to Manny. His company annexes a city park. Property owned by the citizens, on the excuse it's his company's right under terrorism laws. No requests, no petitions, no legal basis, just take it. His company takes property from the neighborhood and builds on it with no requests, permits or legal basis. His company takes property from citizens that's part of the new freeway interchange, costing us an undetermined amount of money. He surrounds small business owners and prevents them from doing business and making a living becuase he refuses to negotiate with them in purchasing their properties and businesses. There was at least two instances - a Duty Free Store and a Bait Store. This guy is a tyrant. "Moroun is evil".

---

Has anyone noticed that there hasn't been anymore talk from the City of Detroit about the DIBC taking over a portion of Riverside Park without permission? It may be due to the fact that the City did give permission to the DIBC back in 2003.

Additionally, while MDOT is committting resources to the DRIC, it has been losing out on hundreds of millions of federal dollars because it hasn't been able to provide its matching fund requirements. A lot of roadwork that's needed right now in the state of michigan is being sacrificed for the sake of the DRIC which may not be needed for another 20 years. MDOT's priorities need to be scrutinized.

"Additionally, while MDOT is committting resources to the DRIC, it has been losing out on hundreds of millions of federal dollars because it hasn't been able to provide its matching fund requirements."

How much has MDOT committed to DRIC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

"Additionally, while MDOT is committting resources to the DRIC, it has been losing out on hundreds of millions of federal dollars because it hasn't been able to provide its matching fund requirements."

How much has MDOT committed to DRIC?

---

As of June 30, 2007, they had committed $21.3 million in the study. $4.3 million was supplied by MDOT, the rest by various federal funds.

http://michigan.gov/documents/mdot/D...1_217026_7.pdf

See page 3 for the overall expeditures by year and pages 4 and 5 for funding sources and expenditures by area.

As for the fact of building the bridge itself, the total that has been floated around in several places is $1.5 billion, which seems very small to me considering what they are proposing. That plus the fact that it was proposed right before the economy tanked would suggest that the price would have easily increased. Apparently, they have said that it will be repaid through tolls and no public funds will be used, but I am still very skeptical of that.

http://www.partnershipborderstudy.co..._Responses.pdf

I personally think that SW Sol does a pretty good job of summing up what the community wants to see happen if a bridge is to be built... The issue at hand here is transparency or lack there of. I would like to see no bridge built but if one must be built then whats below should be taken into account...

Southwest Solutions is a nonprofit organization providing mental health, affordable housing, services to the homeless, literacy programs, and community organizing in southwest Detroit. The organization’s annual budget is $23 million and its real estate portfolio $70 million in real estate assets in southwest Detroit.

Since 1999 and in collaboration with other organizations, Southwest Solutions has worked intently to maintain a knowledgeable and educated position regarding international bridge-related issues.

By way of background, the Ambassador Bridge, is owned and operated by the Detroit International Bridge Company [[DIBC), a privately-held corporation. DIBC will strongly benefit from a $200 million investment by the Michigan Department of Transportation [[MDOT) in a complete rebuilding of the infrastructure connecting the existing bridge to the interstate highway system. DIBC’s intention is to build a six lane “replacement� span adjacent to the existing bridge.

In addition to the DIBC’s plans is the Detroit River International Crossing [[DRIC), a bi-nationally sponsored public endeavor to erect and maintain a publicly-owned bridge situated downriver from the Ambassador Bridge. This new bridge would connect the Delray community in southwest Detroit with Brighton Beach, Ontario.

In partnership with the Gateway Collaborative and others, Southwest Solutions has sought to protect the interests of the Southwest Detroit community with respect to bridge-related issues. We believe that the best way to protect the community is to promote vigorous and continuous dialogue between both DIBC and the promoters of DRIC and community residents. This dialogue should include:
o public hearings
o study and analysis of community impacts
o continuous dialogue between the community and the United States Coast Guard, the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration.

In light of recent developments regarding bridge-related issues, Southwest Solutions:

1. Affirms our position that Southwest Solutions seeks to protect the best interests of residents and the small businesses that serve them in connection with both the current Gateway Project and any new international bridge project originating in our community;

2. Stresses that community protections in connection with such projects must be codified through legally enforceable agreements, such as Community Benefits Agreements, before any bridge plan is approved and before any bridge construction can begin;

3. Opposes any plan that fails to reduce bridge-related traffic volumes on surface streets in our community;

4. Will help ensure that community concerns are presented to appropriate governmental and regulatory bodies;

5. Seeks completion of full environmental impact studies and the sharing of results of those studies with the local community.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?to...4420#post93001