Poor Matty...

[Vic01]

Wesley, I am not in favor of Matty having a monopoly. That is one reason I support NITC.

Mikey,
Just a point of information... if you support the NITC, you support Matty building a second span alongside his original one and continuing his monopoly.

The Downriver International Crossing [[DRIC) is the new bridge that is a few miles away, and "threatens" Matty so badly.

[Wesley Mouch]

Wesley, I am not in favor of Matty having a monopoly. That is one reason I support NITC. But, I have to say, most people including me would charge the highest rate people would pay to cross a bridge they owned. It's not Matty's fault that there was political inertia about erecting another bridge. Yes, he's lobbied and litigated for years against it, but that is different than controlling whether or not one gets built.

As for Matty paying taxes, if his company is publicly traded, you could get his corporate statements from the the SEC to see what they paid in corporate income taxes. If it's not [[I assume it isn't, but I have no idea), we have no right to know what he pays in taxes. As for property taxes, you could check with the city to see what his property tax assessments are and whether or not he is behind in payments.

Matty is not what I would call a good corporate citizen, but that doesn't make him evil. Not renovating a building no one else is proposing to renovate either and lobbying against losing your cash cow monopoly are not the stuff of crime and corruption.

I agree with you 100% on this. And I also hold no animus towards Mr. Maroun. And so long as you do not have a monopoly, I agree he can charge what we can. But there is an obvious public interest in reducing burdens to international trade. Certainly Detroit has a selfish interest even if one mistakenly distrusts NAFTA.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

The Downriver International Crossing [[DRIC) is the new bridge that is a few miles away, and "threatens" Matty so badly.

I thought NITC was the was the renamed DRIC. Can't wait till it has a name.

[Vic01]

you could be right, it wouldn't be the 1st time that I was "behind the times"...

[Hermod]

You simply can not know that

No, but it is a very reasonable guess on his part.

[rb336]

No, but it is a very reasonable guess on his part.

I know of few other investors who would buy something just to let it rot

[Hermod]

I know of few other investors who would buy something just to let it rot

These long term investors are not buying the buildings. The buildings are pretty uch obsolete and have outlived their purposes. They are buying the land under the buildings in the hope that when the real estate situation begins to improve, the land will become much more valuable. Then they can tear down the rotted remains of the building and develop the land or sell the land to a developer at a fat profit.