Canada may pay for US Customs Plaza for NITC Bridge. Expedite process

**SpartanDawg** · May-06-14, 04:06 PM

Very interesting development.. really hope this helps speed up this process

"Looks like Canada may agree to pay upfront for US Customs plaza to move delayed NITC bridge project ahead. See upcoming #freep story"

https://twitter.com/JGallagherFreep/...83845561511937

**ferndalien** · May-06-14, 04:16 PM

One step forward, one mile back:

Lansing — Senate Republicans launched another attack on Gov. Rick Snyder’s new bridge to Canada Tuesday by prohibiting the state from purchasing any land for it as part of a $3.8-billion transportation budget for 2015.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz30yLeF0pL

**Scottathew** · May-07-14, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by ferndalien

One step forward, one mile back:

Lansing — Senate Republicans launched another attack on Gov. Rick Snyder’s new bridge to Canada Tuesday by prohibiting the state from purchasing any land for it as part of a $3.8-billion transportation budget for 2015.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz30yLeF0pL

I refuse to vote republican for anything in Washington, and I'm very damn close to doing the same for the state.

That's very frustrating that folks that preach competition are trying to protect an evil man's monopoly at the expense of public interest.

**Khorasaurus** · May-08-14, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by 48307

I refuse to vote republican for anything in Washington, and I'm very damn close to doing the same for the state.

That's very frustrating that folks that preach competition are trying to protect an evil man's monopoly at the expense of public interest.

It's not that they're Republicans. Snyder is a Republican and he's the number one proponent of the bridge. It's that they're corrupt and Maroun shrewdly paid off Republicans because it's easy for them to pretend their opposition has something to do with government spending [[even though the bridge will cost Michigan taxpayers basically nothing...)

Also note that the Democratic White House/USDOT are dragging their feet on this project, which makes no sense whatsoever.

**Honky Tonk** · May-08-14, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

It's not that they're Republicans. Snyder is a Republican and he's the number one proponent of the bridge. It's that they're corrupt and Maroun shrewdly paid off Republicans because it's easy for them to pretend their opposition has something to do with government spending [[even though the bridge will cost Michigan taxpayers basically nothing...)

Also note that the Democratic White House/USDOT are dragging their feet on this project, which makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes sense because a Republican is spearheading the effort much to the dismay of his own MI Party.

That Great Guy · May-08-14, 06:17 PM

If the Federal and State governments won't pay then we could have a County Property tax pay for this. It would only take about a 2.5 mil tax or about $180 per year per household to pay for this.

I think also we should have a write in ballot for the SMART August tax and cross out 1 mil and write 3 mil.

I'm very sure we can afford to pay more for SMART, the bridge, a water authority and other regional projects for maybe say another $500 per year more in taxes. And ya know $500 per year more in new taxes is cheap and I'm sure no one will protest this enough to get these jobs done.

Just imagine a great bus system, a new bridge and bringing back Detroit for such a small price.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-08-14, 06:30 PM

TGG, I don't see county voters supporting that idea at all. Many homeowners are loathe to increase their taxes at all, let alone to have one county foot the bill for something benefiting 2 large and affluent countries. Also, potentially problematic, is the fact that the powers/responsibilites for Michigan municipalities are limited by state law; although I can't say for sure, I would be surprised if those powers could be read to include building a federal customs plaza at an international bridge.

**animatedmartian** · May-06-14, 05:09 PM

Matty must be paying his goons a pretty penny.

**downtownguy** · May-07-14, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Matty must be paying his goons a pretty penny.

Especially Pappageorge...

But Sen. John Pappageorge, the Troy Republican who supports the restrictions on land acquisition, said the privately owned Ambassador Bridge is operating at 35 percent of capacity while carrying the bulk of trade goods between the United States and Canada across the Detroit River.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz313Ne6pzY

If it is indeed at 35% of capacity, then why did Matty want to build a second span?

**Honky Tonk** · May-07-14, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by downtownguy

Especially Pappageorge...

If it is indeed at 35% of capacity, then why did Matty want to build a second span?

Better question: Why would he spend $30 mil in advertising to try to stop the State from building theirs? EVEN BETTER QUESTION: Why is he STILL pursuing his second span erection? And there's no revenue to be had from a newer, bigger, bridge. What bull-poop.

**Bham1982** · May-07-14, 02:53 PM

It's still a pretty bad deal for Michigan.

If Canada agrees to pay for Michigan's debt on the Blue Water twin-spanning, and Michigan's debt on the Ambassador gateway reconstruction, then I support this. Otherwise this will hurt Michigan's ability to repay those bonds.

Both the Blue Water and Ambassador are seeing traffic well below capacity, and Michigan taxpayers are on the hook if traffic drops more on those two bridges. Currently the Blue Water debt is so bad that current traffic will never allow for repayment.

**Khorasaurus** · May-07-14, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

It's still a pretty bad deal for Michigan.

If Canada agrees to pay for Michigan's debt on the Blue Water twin-spanning, and Michigan's debt on the Ambassador gateway reconstruction, then I support this. Otherwise this will hurt Michigan's ability to repay those bonds.

Both the Blue Water and Ambassador are seeing traffic well below capacity, and Michigan taxpayers are on the hook if traffic drops more on those two bridges. Currently the Blue Water debt is so bad that current traffic will never allow for repayment.

The Ambassador is a four lane bridge constructed in 1929. It is also the busiest trade crossing between the US and Canada. How is it possibly operating below capacity?

I don't doubt your points about the Blue Water, though.

**Honky Tonk** · May-07-14, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

It's still a pretty bad deal for Michigan.

If Canada agrees to pay for Michigan's debt on the Blue Water twin-spanning, and Michigan's debt on the Ambassador gateway reconstruction, then I support this. Otherwise this will hurt Michigan's ability to repay those bonds.

Both the Blue Water and Ambassador are seeing traffic well below capacity, and Michigan taxpayers are on the hook if traffic drops more on those two bridges. Currently the Blue Water debt is so bad that current traffic will never allow for repayment.

You're probably right. The Ambassador Bridge is operating way below capacity and a new bridge would be a losing proposition for Michigan. That's way Matty Maroun is pursuing his second span tooth and nail. He's in too high a tax bracket and is looking for some way to shed some of his billions.

**401don** · May-06-14, 05:16 PM

As you may know I'm Canadian, but if the US Feds won`t pony up a lousy 250 million to get a 2nd span built then all this Homeland Security stuff is a joke.

**Honky Tonk** · May-06-14, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

As you may know I'm Canadian, but if the US Feds won`t pony up a lousy 250 million to get a 2nd span built then all this Homeland Security stuff is a joke.

It's embarrassing is what it is. The proposed new bridge is an international crossing, not a State or Detroit crossing. A foreign government [[and I love Canada) has to pony up to make it happen? Shameful.

**EastsideAl** · May-06-14, 05:58 PM

They won't and it is.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-06-14, 06:56 PM

It is absurd. It is one of the more basic functions of government. The bridge may be controversial, but having proper border screening should not be. And it is a comparative bargain for the feds anyway. Get half of a multi-billion dollar bridge project for the cost of screening people and cargo on one side.

**Wesley Mouch** · May-06-14, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

It is absurd. It is one of the more basic functions of government. The bridge may be controversial, but having proper border screening should not be. And it is a comparative bargain for the feds anyway. Get half of a multi-billion dollar bridge project for the cost of screening people and cargo on one side.

Mikey, you know better than that. Governments are not rational entities. They are creatures of politics. That's why we need a constitution and a judiciary -- to keep the politicians from making each and every decision with politics in mind.

And 'bargain'. Irrelevant word to most government.

**Király** · May-06-14, 07:13 PM

We Canadians shouldn't be paying for the US customs plaza. I say let the bridge get built without a US customs plaza and then LET'S GO SHOPPING!

**ABetterDetroit** · May-06-14, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Király

We Canadians shouldn't be paying for the US customs plaza. I say let the bridge get built without a US customs plaza and then LET'S GO SHOPPING!

As a American I'm ashamed to admit it, but Canadians should have never offered to pay for the whole bridge.
Instead they should have bought 50 mill in TV adds here, it would have saved them a lot of money and headache.

**BillyBBrew** · May-06-14, 11:15 PM

Sounds good to me. I actually thought that this could be a good test pilot project to have US Customs on the Candian side and the Canadian Customs on the US side. That way people are screened BEFORE crossing the bridge. What's the point of screening for "terrorists" if they are on one of the potential targets before they are screened....Duh....

Originally Posted by Király

We Canadians shouldn't be paying for the US customs plaza. I say let the bridge get built without a US customs plaza and then LET'S GO SHOPPING!

GUSHI · May-06-14, 08:23 PM

don't build it, we have enough bridges and tunnels

**Hypestyles** · May-06-14, 09:11 PM

... So has Duggan taken a public position on the development of a second bridge?

I doubt that this will get addressed one way or another even in a few years. Horrible.

**Downriviera** · May-06-14, 09:32 PM

Let them build our new hockey arena too...after all, its their sport.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-06-14, 11:31 PM

It should be remembered that the Canadians are issuing and guaranteeing the bonds. If all goes as planned, the revenue from the bridge is to pay off the bonds. Canadian taxpayers hopefully will not lose a loonie on the venture.

As for state Senate Republicans blocking necessary land acquisition: they are being stupid. Snyder lacks much pull with them because they are activist, ideological conservatives [[many of them anyway). Snyder isn't. He arrives at his policies through what he views as practical, not due to a sense of right or wrong. Hope they get it worked out.