Does Moroun EVER quit?

**mikefmich** · January-06-17, 03:36 PM

Yet another lawsuit. How much money has this cost us?

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...roun/96244910/

**Baselinepunk** · January-06-17, 05:40 PM

So all the State has to do is continue forward with or without injunction, or any legal action.

I mean, they've passed countless, knowingly unconstitutional legislation since 2010, and until it fought out in the Courts and eventually lose [[which is most of the time under Bill Shitty), it's the law of the land. Didn't give a crap about the law back then, Golden Tower Republicans shouldn't give a crap about it in this case, either.

So if they halt, the State is favoring Matty - which is not cool.

Why should they not screw him like the screw the rest of the citizenry of Michigan??

**Richard** · January-06-17, 06:49 PM

I like the fluff parts,such as

Moreover, in addition to the construction jobs it would create, the new bridge could help transform Detroit into a logistics capital of the Midwest.

It does not really create jobs,contractors bid on the work and move crews to the job if they win the bid.

Little Rock is considered a logistics capital of the south, ask them how that is working out.
Mr. Maroun is in the logistics business, if it was going to be such massive impact Would he not be supporting it simply because the lost revenues from the bridge traffic would be made up in other aspects.

Call it what it is,a gateway to open up ventures and investment outside of the city of Detroit.

**Danny** · January-06-17, 08:44 PM

He will lose! He can't the both U.S. and Canadian government.

Calltoaction · January-06-17, 10:37 PM

The man needs to be stripped entirely of his ownership of the Ambassador bridge, but the government never seems to do useful things like that.

**Johnnny5** · January-06-17, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Calltoaction

The man needs to be stripped entirely of his ownership of the Ambassador bridge, but the government never seems to do useful things like that.

That's not right. Mr. Moroun owns that bridge and he deserves to keep it!

I say after the Gordie Howe bridge opens MDOT simply builds a maze of construction cones and dead end streets leading to the Ambassador. Just a little payback for when Moroun's companies did the same to that little tackle shop.

http://michiganradio.org/post/bridge...troit-business

Or how about they just put a 8ft chain link fence across the his bridge and leave it there for a couple years? They can just cite "Security concerns".
You know, just like Moroun's goons did at Riverside Park?

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...osed-off-again

There are few people in this world that I hate without ever meeting them, but Matty Moroun is one. Michigan would be a better place if he and his henchmen weren't in it.

**3WC** · January-07-17, 10:57 AM

Bravo, Manny: Don't we all wish we had the financial ability to protect our interests against overreaching government.

The state is, once again, an eminent domain abuser. There is a good chance the state will lose this lawsuit.

The state has the ability to "quick take" Maroun's land IF it follows the statutory mandates for doing so. The aggrieved property owner then has, if the state is successful, the ability to challenge the compensation in court.

The state is taking a huge risk if that they go ahead with the condemnation. If the state loses, Maroun's damages - the purported loss of 75% of his very profitable business, would be astronomical over 30 years.

The more interesting aspect is a factor which might enable Maroun to obtain an injunction. Under case law and our constitution government is prohibited from condemning property for other than a "public purpose;" govt can't take property for the benefit of a third party.

In this case, it's my understanding that the bridge will be owned by a third party, the Canadian govt. The bridge can't be built without the disputed land and therefore the primary beneficiary of the taking is the Canadian govt. Our condemnation laws were not enacted to benefit foreign govts or other private entities. Manny Maroun's lawsuit is not frivolous, and if Snyder proceeds under the quick take statute, if Maroun can't get an injunction, Snyder is exposing the state to a huge financial risk.

Snyder at least should make the Canadian govt. indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the state from any damages awarded Maroun as the result of the impermissible taking of his property. Of course, such an agreement would be a tacit admission that the true beneficiary of the taking is the Canadian govt. and therefore the taking would violate our constitution.

We're going down a slippery slope.

**Richard** · January-07-17, 01:29 PM

It is structured as a P3,which is a public slash private partnership.

https://www.wdbridge.com/en/procurement

So in theory the use of domain would be for a private entity.

**bust** · January-07-17, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by 3WC

Under case law and our constitution government is prohibited from condemning property for other than a "public purpose;" govt can't take property for the benefit of a third party.

This argument was defeated when the New York Court of Appeals allowed the condemnation of properties for Bruce Ratner's Barclays Center, if not before. Unfortunately, now there appears to be case law that they can.

Ruling Lets Atlantic Yards Seize Land
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/nyregion/25yards.html

That said, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me the Gordie Howe bridge is a hell of a lot more a public purpose than the Barclay's Center and its associated real estate development. It has the potential to be great for the region, on both sides of the bridge.

Johnny5: Great suggestions, at least for our fantasies. He deserves it. Even if an eye for an eye is not a good plan for justice. And I'm strongly against the similar dirty tricks Christie used to cause havoc around the GW Bridge in New Jersey.

**3WC** · January-08-17, 03:27 PM

Bust: it's apples and oranges.

First, the U.S.Su. Ct. has ruled in the "little pink house" case that eminent domain may be used for non-govt third parties if there is any benefit to the public.

New York is a state which does not value private property rights and so such takings appear permissible.

However, in response to the aforementioned Su. Ct. decision, there was a referendum and an amendment was made to the MI Constitution prohibiting such abusive governmental conduct. [[Many states did the same thing as the Su. Ct. decision was so odious to so many states that value private property rights.) There was a previous MI Su. Ct. decision prohibiting such conduct but the electorate wanted to protect the holding in that case by amending our constitution. That MI Su. Ct. case had reversed a prior MI Su. Ct. case, the infamous "Poletown Case" which cleared the way for GM to condemn the land for the Hamtramck plant. The U.S. Su. Ct. case therefore has no influence on MI law. That's why Ilitch was forced to buy the land for the new hockey arena rather than having the City using eminent domain.

Good luck Manny, on behalf of private property rights.

**bust** · January-09-17, 02:58 AM

3WC: Very interesting. Thanks for the additional information.

Maybe you can provide further clarification. Under Michigan law, is the government prohibited from condemning property for a third party, or for anything but a "public purpose". Those seem different to me.

If the former, why is the plan for the bridge to be owned by the Canadian government, and not owned jointly by the government on this side?

If the latter, why couldn't a bridge owned by the Canadian government serve the public interest on both sides of the border?

It's clear to me it would. And public infrastructure like this seems just the rare sort of thing eminent domain was intended for -- unlike a sports stadium.

But I don't understand the details. Not the applicable laws. Not the details of this situation on the ground.

It's often the case that lawyers and businesspeople knit details like those into a snarl. And of course I'll concede what seems the best outcome is not always what's permitted by law.

**JoeGeds** · January-09-17, 05:04 AM

Not only is acquiring the land going to be a headache, but the cleanup of the land will be another headache - and HUGE expense. The footprint of the bridge and associated ramps/land needed is historically one of the most polluted in the state.

**mikeg19** · January-09-17, 08:40 AM

Let's be honest, he knows he won't win this battle. At some point that bridge will be built. But as was mentioned in the article, every day that the bridge is delayed is one more day he delays revenue going to the GH bridge and into his pockets.

**3WC** · January-09-17, 10:39 PM

Bust: "Public purpose" isn't the test. All eminent domain abusing governmental entities use that excuse to condemn whole neighborhood so a developer can build high end condos which will bring in more tax dollars, the so-called "public purpose." Same argument for sport stadiums, because for example, they might eliminate blight, the "public purpose."

The true public purposes are roads, parks, govt buildings etc. owned and operated by the condemning authority.

mikeg19:YOU think he won't win this battle. Manny thinks he will. And, so do I. Of course, the big risk is not the law or the facts, it's the judge and/or the jury. Who knows what a judge or jury will do? Frequently, judges and juries don't want to be confused by the law or the facts. Anyone that understands litigation knows it's nothing but a crapshoot.

**mikeg19** · January-10-17, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by 3WC

mikeg19:YOU think he won't win this battle. Manny thinks he will. And, so do I. Of course, the big risk is not the law or the facts, it's the judge and/or the jury. Who knows what a judge or jury will do? Frequently, judges and juries don't want to be confused by the law or the facts. Anyone that understands litigation knows it's nothing but a crapshoot.

I agree, it is a crapshoot and rulings can be a toss up. But to this point, his companies have brought about, what, a dozen lawsuits? And every single one has been dismissed by the governing party. I just think that at this point there is too much money already invested into the GH project where the Canadian or US governments are going to let this fail.

My big confusion here is why at this point the Canadian & US governments are still fighting Matty on a new span. The GH bridge is going to happen, so we get the downriver crossing that's needed. Matty can build his new span and replace the extremely neglected/deteriorating Ambassador. So we get 2 new bridges, the downriver crossing, truck traffic moving out of downtown Windsor, tons of construction jobs for the two spans. And if MDOT or whoever determined the route, why the Hell did they choose to put a part of the span over Mouroun controlled property?

**3WC** · January-10-17, 10:26 AM

mikeg19: That is an excellent question.

I have a very low opinion of governments generally, and decisions such as the placement of the bridge seems to support my low opinion.

**Hypestyles** · January-10-17, 11:16 AM

Mike Cox works for these folks now? Curious. I figured he'd be trying to run for governor at this point. We'll see.

**Honky Tonk** · January-10-17, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

Mike Cox works for these folks now? Curious. I figured he'd be trying to run for governor at this point. We'll see.

I found that a bit odd myself.

**Richard** · January-10-17, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

I agree, it is a crapshoot and rulings can be a toss up. But to this point, his companies have brought about, what, a dozen lawsuits? And every single one has been dismissed by the governing party. I just think that at this point there is too much money already invested into the GH project where the Canadian or US governments are going to let this fail.

My big confusion here is why at this point the Canadian & US governments are still fighting Matty on a new span. The GH bridge is going to happen, so we get the downriver crossing that's needed. Matty can build his new span and replace the extremely neglected/deteriorating Ambassador. So we get 2 new bridges, the downriver crossing, truck traffic moving out of downtown Windsor, tons of construction jobs for the two spans. And if MDOT or whoever determined the route, why the Hell did they choose to put a part of the span over Mouroun controlled property?

Because of this,do not look at today but 20 to 30 years down the road.

http://www.detroitaero.org/site-selection/

**Vic01** · January-10-17, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

...My big confusion here is why at this point the Canadian & US governments are still fighting Matty on a new span. The GH bridge is going to happen, so we get the downriver crossing that's needed. Matty can build his new span and replace the extremely neglected/deteriorating Ambassador. So we get 2 new bridges, the downriver crossing, truck traffic moving out of downtown Windsor, tons of construction jobs for the two spans...

I think that the only "fight" from Canada is against a second span in addition to the existing one. A valid one on two points - it would require a larger footprint and it would increase traffic [[even if only temporarily) into an area where Windsor does NOT want traffic.

I doubt if anyone would object if he'd propose a replacement bridge for the falling apart Ambassador... Yes, it would mean closing the current one down [[I doubt it would break Manny's "bank" to lose revenue during the building project) and likely building from scratch [[same footprint in Canada/Detroit), but it not like he can't afford it and he'd end up with a fresh, modern bridge that would support his great, great, great grandchildren...
He might even get government support and funding if he were to propose to do this after the GH bridge opens, and showed some cooperation for a change... Instead of being his usual obstructionist self.

Then... "we get 2 new bridges, the downriver crossing, truck traffic moving out of downtown Windsor, tons of construction jobs for the two spans".

**mikeg19** · January-11-17, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Vic01

I think that the only "fight" from Canada is against a second span in addition to the existing one. A valid one on two points - it would require a larger footprint and it would increase traffic [[even if only temporarily) into an area where Windsor does NOT want traffic.

I doubt if anyone would object if he'd propose a replacement bridge for the falling apart Ambassador... Yes, it would mean closing the current one down [[I doubt it would break Manny's "bank" to lose revenue during the building project) and likely building from scratch [[same footprint in Canada/Detroit), but it not like he can't afford it and he'd end up with a fresh, modern bridge that would support his great, great, great grandchildren...
He might even get government support and funding if he were to propose to do this after the GH bridge opens, and showed some cooperation for a change... Instead of being his usual obstructionist self.

Then... "we get 2 new bridges, the downriver crossing, truck traffic moving out of downtown Windsor, tons of construction jobs for the two spans".

As I believe he has said, the new span would actually be a replacement to the Ambassador, with once the new span is completed the old one would be shut down except for emergencies or special functions. Now I get where you're coming from on the point that Canada would probably approve a new span if he first knocked down the Ambassador and replaced it with a new one in the footprint. But that would require, what, 4-5 years basically of no income from the bridge? No way in hell any business would go for that.