[[Part of this) should please people here [Gordie Howe Bridge]

[3WC]

Meddle:M Thanks for pointing out the obvious to Canadian Visitor: It's a relatively minor dollar amount but of course the Federal govt will have to pay two sets of Customs Agents, Homeland security agents etc to staff both bridges, and loss of property tax revenue to Detroit. [[By CV's own words, by denying that, he's a liar. His word, not mine.)

Canadian Visitor: maybe you were truly trying to be helpful [[even in your condescending way) by explaining in such detail how you think the bridge cost will be finalized. You could just have said that it will be a sealed bid process as that term is used over here. Some of us I'm sure have had substantial experience in real estate, including land acquisition, land development, construction and construction lending, and real estate and business operations.

Also, with all of your long winded explanations of the proposed cost of the
bridge, you failed to mention probably the most important one: the time value of money, expressed as interest or lost opportunity costs. Let's assume [[I don't know how they do it in Canada, sell tax free muni bonds or similar maybe) that at a minimum of 3% annually, at a cost, say of $4 billion, the cost is $120,000,000 a year. That's without amortizing the "debt.")

I'm going to paraphrase something you said above, CV: "All you have to do is be awake, pay attention, and voila - you all will be as smart as I am." You then claimed that of all the disagreements you've had with Richard over the years he's never been right once and you've been right every time. Guess what. I don't believe such an arrogant statement and my guess is that no one else on here does either. Frankly, Richard makes a LOT more sense than you you do on this thread.

You made a comment about trusting the government. I'll bet that when some guy tells you, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." you believe him.

CV, I laughed out loud [[and I'm not easily amused) at your claim that "as anticipated" the Ambassador Bridge will close as a result of a new bridge. ho anticipates that? NOBODY. [[I remember when one of H. L. Hunt's sons started the Kansas its Chiefs pro football team and people laughed and said he'd lose $50 million a year. One of his brothers responded that "at that rate he can only hold out for 50 years.") Maroun can cut prices on his bridge for as long as he wishes and the new bridge will not recover its costs in its proposed 125 year life span.

The main impact of a new bridge will possibly move some traffic away from downtown Windsor [[to the dismay of its merchants.)

Canada is a vast and beautiful country. However, its decision to build the new bridge just to spite Maroun is one of the many reasons it's dollar is worth 75% of ours. And, if it weren't for Alberta's oil it would be a lot less.

[Canadian Visitor]

Meddle:M Thanks for pointing out the obvious to Canadian Visitor: It's a relatively minor dollar amount but of course the Federal govt will have to pay two sets of Customs Agents, Homeland security agents etc to staff both bridges, and loss of property tax revenue to Detroit. [[By CV's own words, by denying that, he's a liar. His word, not mine.)

You need to pay attention too, obviously.

Customs agents are assigned based on traffic level.

When the new bridge opens, traffic will fall by a corresponding amount at the Ambassador and to a lesser degree the tunnel.

Staff will be reallocated from two sites to the new site.

There will not be net new hiring unless the traffic volume is higher.

Existing staff are already paid for, there is no new net cost unless the trade volume rises.

Canadian Visitor: maybe you were truly trying to be helpful [[even in your condescending way) by explaining in such detail how you think the bridge cost will be finalized. You could just have said that it will be a sealed bid process as that term is used over here. Some of us I'm sure have had substantial experience in real estate, including land acquisition, land development, construction and construction lending, and real estate and business operations.

I was being elaborate expressly for Richard who had said yet another non-sense thing for which there was no evidence and yet demanded I refute him with evidence and citations.

He got exactly what he literally asked for, I offer no apologies.

Also, with all of your long winded explanations of the proposed cost of the
bridge, you failed to mention probably the most important one: the time value of money, expressed as interest or lost opportunity costs. Let's assume [[I don't know how they do it in Canada, sell tax free muni bonds or similar maybe) that at a minimum of 3% annually, at a cost, say of $4 billion, the cost is $120,000,000 a year. That's without amortizing the "debt.")

This assumes that if this project did not occur, there would have been a better use of said funds.

Richard was arguing about costs to be incurred by Michigan or the United States, which as I pointed out is not applicable.

Therefore there is no money to reallocate.

Unless you assume Canada was going to repave Detroit's roads or build transit or schools and then charge tolls to use Detroit's highways to pay for it. ?

I'm assuming you would not draw such a conclusion. Ergo there is no time-cost to the money in the United States or Michigan.

The way in which this is being structured in Canada through an independent crown corporation means there is no adverse impact on government revenues year to year, nor will the debt show up on government of Canada books [[its assigned to the corporation). So there is no reduction in borrowing capacity or spending capacity here. Ergo there is no long time-cost here either.

I'm going to paraphrase something you said above, CV: "All you have to do is be awake, pay attention, and voila - you all will be as smart as I am." You then claimed that of all the disagreements you've had with Richard over the years he's never been right once and you've been right every time. Guess what. I don't believe such an arrogant statement and my guess is that no one else on here does either. Frankly, Richard makes a LOT more sense than you you do on this thread.

You can side w/Richard if you wish, that doesn't make the moon a ball of green cheese or 2+2 equal 18. Richard's posts in this thread have been factually wrong. As most of his posts usually are.

I am extremely well educated with lots of life experience and a burning desire not to be embarrassed by being wrong, such that I double check myself all the time before posting.

Clearly not something that bother Richard.

Do I think I'm the smartest guy here or anywhere? Probably not, can't say for sure as I really don't know.

Do I care a lot more about the facts than Richard? Yes, absolutely, unreservedly, whole heartedly and that is supported by the facts.

If you wish to review all my posts and you can come back with a factual error I will happily stand corrected and eat crow.

IF I guess, which happens on rare occasion
I always say so.

I never make emphatic statements about which I am uncertain.

You made a comment about trusting the government. I'll bet that when some guy tells you, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." you believe him.

In all my decades of life, I've never had this scenario occur even once.

But if I took it as metaphor, let me say I'm not all gullible nor do I think government is somehow infallible. Governments of all stripes in all countries make some mistakes some of the time.

Likewise there are going to be isolated instances of corruption as well. There millions upon millions of employees and tens of thousands of politicians, and then some.

a 0.1% corruption rate would provide for more than 1,000 instances.

That does not take away from the fact that most governments in Canada get most [[not all) things right, most of the time.

There's no reason it can't be the same in your country, if you fix your system.

CV, I laughed out loud [[and I'm not easily amused) at your claim that "as anticipated" the Ambassador Bridge will close as a result of a new bridge. ho anticipates that? NOBODY.

The Ambassador is falling to bits, its at the end of its useful life.

Unless Matty chooses to spend the $$ to rebuild, which I think is unlikely once the new bridge opens, and satisfies purposefully brutal permit conditions for a new bridge, it ain't happening.

Certainly there are no guarantees one way or the other, but on balance of probabilities it will be gone within the decade.

The main impact of a new bridge will possibly move some traffic away from downtown Windsor [[to the dismay of its merchants.)

Merchants want the new bridge and have asked for it for years.

The fumes and noise and nuisance of the truck traffic harms tourism and local shopping and discourages residential development.

Removing the bridge allows the expansion of Windsor U which will provide more customers [[students + faculty) to support redevelopment than the Ambassador provides now [[virtually nil)

.....is one of the many reasons it's dollar is worth 75% of ours. And, if it weren't for Alberta's oil it would be a lot less.

Not particularly true, but I've spent enough time correcting you today.

Yes that was condescending, on purpose, matching the insulting tone of your post.

[Richard]

All of that and you still have not provided proof or an official guarantee that the United States Taxpayer will bear Zero costs in relation to the bridge.

In the United States it is common to assume zero meens nothing,not a dime,not now and not in the future.

We will let it slide on the part that the current bridge,the citizens of Detroit and the United States taxpayer are just obstacles to over come in the bigger picture and are meaningless in your eyes.

Provide the proof,not that difficult,if you cannot then you are the things that you refer to others when referencing being stupid and liars.

You called it,back it up.

[Canadian Visitor]

All of that and you still have not provided proof or an official guarantee that the United States Taxpayer will bear Zero costs in relation to the bridge.

In the United States it is common to assume zero meens nothing,not a dime,not now and not in the future.

We will let it slide on the part that the current bridge,the citizens of Detroit and the United States taxpayer are just obstacles to over come in the bigger picture and are meaningless in your eyes.

Provide the proof,not that difficult,if you cannot then you are the things that you refer to others when referencing being stupid and liars.

You called it,back it up.

I provided exactly that proof with citations in the text of the agreement.

You are a complete and utter moron.

I can not and will never say anything nice about you.

I consider you beneath contempt.

I go to all the work of finding the actual text of the agreement and quoting it back and instead of being immensely grateful that i did the work you were too lazy to do, you tell me I didn't do it.

There is no forgiving you.

[Richard]

I provided exactly that proof with citations in the text of the agreement.

You are a complete and utter moron.

I can not and will never say anything nice about you.

I consider you beneath contempt.

I go to all the work of finding the actual text of the agreement and quoting it back and instead of being immensely grateful that i did the work you were too lazy to do, you tell me I didn't do it.

There is no forgiving you.

So why did you waste your time sending me a PM on why you are disgusted with me and then waste more of your time writing this,sorry to disappoint you but we will not be swapping spit in the shower and I do not care if you like me or not and I will say it again,you are a shing example of what a free government provided

[Canadian Visitor]

So why did you waste your time sending me a PM on why you are disgusted with me and then waste more of your time writing this,sorry to disappoint you but we will not be swapping spit in the shower and I do not care if you like me or not and I will say it again,you are a shing example of what a free government provided

One comment was for public consumption, one was not.

If you read the desire to swap spit from what I had to say, you're even more hopeless than I imagined; and I hadn't imagined that was possible.

[Richard]

One comment was for public consumption, one was not.

If you read the desire to swap spit from what I had to say, you're even more hopeless than I imagined; and I hadn't imagined that was possible.

Yea that was posted by mistake in the middle of an edit,this is the rest of it.

I provided exactly that proof with citations in the text of the agreement.

You are a complete and utter moron.

I can not and will never say anything nice about you.

I consider you beneath contempt.

I go to all the work of finding the actual text of the agreement and quoting it back and instead of being immensely grateful that i did the work you were too lazy to do, you tell me I didn't do it.

There is no forgiving you.

So why did you waste your time sending me a PM on why you are disgusted with me and then waste more of your time writing this,sorry to disappoint you but we will not be swapping spit in the shower and I do not care if you like me or not,and I will say it again,you are a shining example of what a,free government provided,level of higher education produces.

You are not God,as much as you think you are,so I do not need your forgiveness.

You called people a liar and stupid,and all you had to do was back your claims and accusations up with facts.That was your 1 job.

So your facts are

A 404 link
Personally believing that United States federal funds are not United States taxpayers monies.
The link of the agreement.

Some highlights from that link.

At that time it was estimated that the commission would not see a payback for 50 years,based in the 3 billion estimate,so how many years based on the 10 billion?

The state of Michigan agrees to turn over all federal funds now and in the future allotted to MDOT under the highway and construction act in relation to the Michigan side.

So Highway federal funds are being sought in the construction of,because the state of Michigan can apply for them[[federal transportation funds)and then are required to turn those funds over to the commission,now and in the future.

The wording United States Federal funds are used extensively throughout the entire agreement,because the governor of Michigan is required to appoint somebody to the Commission that person becomes the United States representative on the behalf of the state.

That person then applies for and receives department of transportation funds that by the contract has to turn those funds over for exclusive use of the commission for the bridge.

MDOT gets X amount of dollars from the federal department of transportation for use in road repairs,new projects etc.

There is no cap of the amount of funds received by the state in relation to the bridge,the bridge will all ways take precedence over any other federally funded highway project in the state based on the stated importance,and it is in the contract,sorry agreement.

So they are obligated by the terms of the contract.

Everybody else in the state takes a back seat to the bridge,if the state is allotted $500,000,000 the commission can say, hey we need half of that to fix this road.

Granted it may not be for at least the next 20 years and there has to be a reason,which is determined by the commission,so it is only the future residents that will pay the price.

But anyways,we are back to the whole thing of you providing proof,you still have not and you still do not seem to understand that every time that contract reads US Federal funds and refers to the turning over of those funds to the commission,those are United States Taxpayer funds.

The Canadian government cannot provide the salaries to United States government employees.

The United states government employees and all costs related for the next 100 years including retirement accounts that will continue to snowball are paid by the United States Taxpayer.

They are Federal employees paid by the united states government and taxpayer.

You make it sound like that is a unknown concept to you when I know full well the Canadian government survives off of the collection of taxes from its citizens [[and mysterious military weapon sales that pop up in the most strangest of places) and there is also no free government money in Canada,so why close your eyes and keep screaming NO to the contrary.

You are not lashing out at me out of frustration,you are lashing out because you are wrong and it eats you up.

I think this needs to be reviewed by a Senate committee because it is becoming more clear that it was submitted to the United States Taxpayer under false pretenses in the hopes the word free would overshadow everything else.

CV,I am guessing that you also drive a BMW,you do fit that profile,but in all seriousness,seek some professional help for your own sake,maybe you were not taught any manners and God knows a supposed higher education did not provide any,but in the real world if you call somebody a liar and stupid to their face based on the BS that you have provided,I think it would be safe to say that you would not like the results.

[Canadian Visitor]

You quote passages without understanding what they mean.

Sigh.

Discussions with you are a waste of time.

PS, I don't drive a BMW.

What I do drive is getting older, debating what to buy, kinda thinking an Altima but haven't made up my mind.

[Richard]

I thought you guys were boycotting American products,kinda going against the grain there buying a Nissan.

[Maof]

Did you ever have that one friend that likes to hear themselves talk, is always right, has an answer for everything, can't get a word in edgewise, turns the conversation opposite of what was started, and goes on and on and on?....yeah, me too. It's gets old after a while and at some point, you just have to move on.

https://mattsko.wordpress.com/2017/1...arousel-139314

FYI, not really mad, just had to put this out there.

[Meddle]

Did you ever have that one friend that likes to hear themselves talk, is always right, has an answer for everything, can't get a word in edgewise, turns the conversation opposite of what was started, and goes on and on and on?....

There are a few of those here.

[3WC]

CV: First, I don't intend to stand here and piss in your boots. However, you have called Richard a "complete and utter moron" and beneath contempt." That's prohibited by the forum administrator and will get you kicked off. Personally, I'd hate to see that. I think you are articulate and clever, which makes me overlook somewhat your condescension and arrogance towards the rest of us.

You have accused me of being condescending towards you. I do not believe I have and if you really think so, I apologize.

Now, you contradict my calculation that the bridge will cost the Canadian govt $120,000,000 a year [[at a cost of $4 billion) by saying "that assumes that if the project did not occur there would be a better use of said funds." CV, please. That response is beneath your usual reliance on accuracy [[claimed) and facts, even thought I believe, without anything to base it on, you may be correct. It's true there would be a "different" use for the funds and I believe any alternate use would be better as you possibly do. Deep down, if you weren't having so much fun posting on the topic.

You state that the way the financing will be structured "thru an independent crown corporation, there will be no adverse impact on govt revenues nor will debt show up on the government of Canada's books" Really? In real like, you're not a U.S. politician are you? What you've described is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Since when do governments or crown corporation have their own money? It's your money, CV.

We can tell you're "extremely well educated" [[as many of us on here are, not that education trumps common sense) and strive not to be "embarrassed by being wrong." That's a worthy goal for everyone.

You say you don't know if you're ever "the smartest guy in the room." If you ever think you are, you're not.

The nitpicking continues: I claimed that one of the reasons the Canadian dollar is worth so much less than the U.S. dollar is, by way of example, that Canada intends to build the spite bridge [[a U.S. term usually applied to fences but here used in reference to Manny's bridge). I also said it would be worth a lot less if it were not for Alberta's great oil wealth. [[I just spent some time in Calgary and that's the opinion of the Canadians I spoke with.) You say my comments are not "particularly true." How is anything particularly true. Or, false?

It's not my intention to prolong this thread as in my opinion we've covered all the salient arguments for and against the proposed bridge, and whether any of are correct will be determined if the bridge gets built and is in operation for 5 years or so, if not sooner.

[3WC]

P.S. If I were the Canadian govt and was putting up all the money for the bridge, I'd insist it be named "The Tim Horton Bridge" after one of its great hockey players.

What say you, CV?

[Bham1982]

I never understood how the same people on DYes who are super pro-downtown are also super pro-new bridge and anti-Ambassador Bridge. Very odd.

Obviously if the new bridge is built, more commerce and prosperity will be diverted from Detroit to the fringe. Mexicantown will suffer, downtown Windsor will suffer, and much of the logistics-related infrastructure in SW will relocate.

[Canadian Visitor]

CV: First, I don't intend to stand here and piss in your boots. However, you have called Richard a "complete and utter moron" and beneath contempt." That's prohibited by the forum administrator and will get you kicked off. Personally, I'd hate to see that. I think you are articulate and clever, which makes me overlook somewhat your condescension and arrogance towards the rest of us.

You have accused me of being condescending towards you. I do not believe I have and if you really think so, I apologize.

I apologize if my frustration with what I see as trolling, antagonism and willful misrepresentation of the facts by another poster has caused me to be unduly impatient or rude with others.

I pride myself on having polite, thoughtful exchanges.

That other poster has been reported multiple times for being impolite, breaching etiquette and baiting. The choice of the moderator has thus far been not to act.

I have offered to leave the forum; and have told the mods I can not be asked to abide endless harassment and ignorance without making my displeasure known. If they wish to police posts and posters more aggressively, I'm happy to comply as I have endeavoured to do. If the choice is laissez-faire then I will have to fight back against those that cause my day to be less pleasant again and again and again. I don't do 'punching bag'.

I have also been frustrated by some of your posts as I am by anyone seeming to be an idealogue [[left or right) who seemingly has an irrational devotion to ideas that precludes a thoughtful discussion. Its one thing to suggest you 'prefer an outcome' or ' have heard that something may be a concern' etc. etc. and another to make statements reflexively that suggest you've pre-judged something without yet having the facts in hand.

That said you endeavour to be polite and I should as well.

Now, you contradict my calculation that the bridge will cost the Canadian govt $120,000,000 a year [[at a cost of $4 billion) by saying "that assumes that if the project did not occur there would be a better use of said funds." CV, please. That response is beneath your usual reliance on accuracy [[claimed) and facts, even thought I believe, without anything to base it on, you may be correct. It's true there would be a "different" use for the funds and I believe any alternate use would be better as you possibly do. Deep down, if you weren't having so much fun posting on the topic.

I believe I accurately indicated that 'opportunity or time cost' is in general the supposition that if resources financial or otherwise were not devoted to project 'x'; they would instead be available to pursue some other project, program or purpose.

If I misunderstood your supposition, please correct me.

In so saying, I didn't disagree with your calculation, what I indicated was that no US money is going into the bridge, therefore none would be available for reallocation.

The bridge is being debt-financed by a Crown Corporation [[the bridge authority).

There is no expenditure line for the bridge in Ontario's budget, nor in Ottawa's.

So in terms of Canada, unless were looking at setting up a different Crown Corporation, to pursue a different project, that would also be debt-financed, and also repay that debt though tolls, that was displaced by this project, I'm not sure I can accept a case that the money/time/energy was available for other projects.

You state that the way the financing will be structured "thru an independent crown corporation, there will be no adverse impact on govt revenues nor will debt show up on the government of Canada's books" Really? In real like, you're not a U.S. politician are you? What you've described is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Since when do governments or crown corporation have their own money? It's your money, CV.

As noted above, its debt-financed, directly by the corporation.

The cost is being repaid via bridge tolls, which I will be on the hook for, if and when I used the bridge.

We can tell you're "extremely well educated" [[as many of us on here are, not that education trumps common sense) and strive not to be "embarrassed by being wrong." That's a worthy goal for everyone.

Thank you.

You say you don't know if you're ever "the smartest guy in the room." If you ever think you are, you're not.

A perfect reasonable philosophy and one I am generally governed by myself. Its always more prudent to assume there others with more knowledge in the room.

The nitpicking continues: I claimed that one of the reasons the Canadian dollar is worth so much less than the U.S. dollar is, by way of example, that Canada intends to build the spite bridge [[a U.S. term usually applied to fences but here used in reference to Manny's bridge).

I sincerely believe there are many good reasons to build this bridge from a fiscal and economic perspective, sticking it to Maroun is merely a bonus.

Having said that, I don't accept that currency traders remotely consider this bridge in their decisions, its an inconsequential matter in the context of Canadian GDP.

I also said it would be worth a lot less if it were not for Alberta's great oil wealth. [[I just spent some time in Calgary and that's the opinion of the Canadians I spoke with.) You say my comments are not "particularly true." How is anything particularly true. Or, false?

It just struck me as somewhere between a dig [[you're only good for what you have in the ground) to misinformed.

Alberta as a province is less than 25% of the size of Ontario.

The oilsands are indeed a contributor to Canada's GDP, as are many other resources.

However, Financial services are a huge sector as is real estate and construction.

The total energy sector including conventional oil, oilsands, electricity, nat. gas, pipelines etc. is under 10% of national GDP.

I'm not sure how much of that the oil sands is, but I wouldn't think more than 1/2 tops.

So is it a factor? Sure. It is it particularly consequential, No.

Do they think otherwise in the centre of oilsands development, probably, LOL

[Canadian Visitor]

P.S. If I were the Canadian govt and was putting up all the money for the bridge, I'd insist it be named "The Tim Horton Bridge" after one of its great hockey players.

What say you, CV?

As opposed to Gordie Howe, 'Mr. Hockey' who holds a lot more records than Mr. Horton and is also Canadian?

Besides, his namesake doughnut chain has been getting endless bad publicity up here the last year, its fallen in corporate trust/reputation rankings by several dozen spots.

[Meddle]

Obviously if the new bridge is built, more commerce and prosperity will be diverted from Detroit to the fringe. Mexicantown will suffer, downtown Windsor will suffer, and much of the logistics-related infrastructure in SW will relocate.

I believe both center city areas will be better off without all the heavy truck traffic.

[Meddle]

In fact, it might be interesting to close the Ambassador to trucks and most commercial vehicles, but leave it open to passenger cars. Then do something about walking, biking and some sort of commuter/tourist trolley service.

It may not need to be rebuilt under those conditions making it more unique and a draw. Even allow closing it the night of the fireworks for viewing and a festival of sorts.

[Richard]

I never understood how the same people on DYes who are super pro-downtown are also super pro-new bridge and anti-Ambassador Bridge. Very odd.

Obviously if the new bridge is built, more commerce and prosperity will be diverted from Detroit to the fringe. Mexicantown will suffer, downtown Windsor will suffer, and much of the logistics-related infrastructure in SW will relocate.

Long term and in the bigger picture that is the goal of the aero park concept and the state,it never went away they just renamed it.

Which is also why different uses are being presented for the little airport,it is not in the long term picture.

This whole bridge debate is only one little cog in the wheel and a huge step towards the shift,people are fixated on the bridge and not the long term planning goals and how the bridge plays into it.

It also sets the blueprint for how the city of Detroit moves forward today because anything,hotel,convention,wharehouseing,tech manufacturing etc on a larger scale will be gone from the city.

So then today in order to prepare for the future the city needs to gear up towards being and giving people a reason to visit,because for most it will no longer be a destination and they will have to go out of thier way or have a specific reason to go.

So then today the city needs to decide if being a quaint city by the river is where you want to be,but there are sacrifices that come with a huge amount of commercial potential tax base being diverted outside the city limits,you already live in a City that is a prime example of the outcome of that.

That base,no matter how it looked today in Del Rey is gone,now and forever,you gave it to Canada on a hope and prayer.

Nobody gave you that choice or provided the numbers of what you were giving up in order to make a decision if it was worth it to the city long term,they did two things,played on the matty is an ass let's stick it to him,and said this is what we are going to do because it is in your best interest and we know what is in your best interest better then you do.

There is more self interest then best interest and that is wrong.

The bridge is one thing,where that roads leads to is determining the city's future at least they are going to throw in a transit line so you can live in the city and have a way to to the hub for work.

It is not about me,it is up to the city residents to decide the path,you guys are at a major fork in the road and unfortunately unlike back in the 1920s you really do not have the option of determining the future,if you are not paying attention,others are already deciding it for you.

[RO_Resident]

All of that and you still have not provided proof or an official guarantee that the United States Taxpayer will bear Zero costs in relation to the bridge.

In the United States it is common to assume zero meens nothing,not a dime,not now and not in the future.

We will let it slide on the part that the current bridge,the citizens of Detroit and the United States taxpayer are just obstacles to over come in the bigger picture and are meaningless in your eyes.

Provide the proof,not that difficult,if you cannot then you are the things that you refer to others when referencing being stupid and liars.

You called it,back it up.

You can always look at the crossing agreement signed by Canada and Michigan.

It's right there in the synopsis. Bolded and underlined for emphasis:

Synopsis:The Crossing Agreement provides a framework for a Crossing Authority established byCanada to design, construct, finance, operate and maintain a new International Crossingbetween Canada and Michigan, under the oversight of a jointly established InternationalAuthority with three members appointed by Canada and the Crossing Authority and threemembers appointed by the Michigan Parties, and with funding approved by Canada, butwith no funding by the Michigan Parties. The Michigan Parties are not obligated to payany of the costs of the new International Crossing.

You can read the agreement here: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/b...t_389284_7.pdf

It should be noted that some state and federal transportation programs are being leveraged in the agreement.

[RO_Resident]

I never understood how the same people on DYes who are super pro-downtown are also super pro-new bridge and anti-Ambassador Bridge. Very odd.

Obviously if the new bridge is built, more commerce and prosperity will be diverted from Detroit to the fringe. Mexicantown will suffer, downtown Windsor will suffer, and much of the logistics-related infrastructure in SW will relocate.

The city has been actively moving logistics and warehousing to the Mt. Elliott corridor.
https://goo.gl/maps/wu1ABZDgP8K2

[3WC]

CV:your s a reasoned response, although I still don't understand the financing, and I presume you're the one who an enlighten us.

I understand that the bridge will be built by a crown corporation and apparently the Canadian govt won't be on the hook.

But since neither entity has any money of it's own [[although the govt may have oil royalties etc), The crown corporation must sell some type of bond, maybe similar to our muni bonds.

It's just that I cannot imagine bond buyers would buy such bonds, which I as an investor would deem highly speculative, and I assume that most buyers would insist on insurance on the bond or the floating top 30% or similar; that insurance would be provided by a private insurer if one could be found. Or, as in most cases here, municipal bonds [[other than industrial revenue bonds) would carry the full faith and credit of the municipal entity that issues the bond, in which case the taxpayers of that entity would be on the hook. And, such bonds here are tax exempt as to federal taxes and exempt from state taxes if the owner of the bond resides in the state in which they were issued; those tax exemptions are a burden on all other taxpayers.

How is this deal being treated in Canada?

[Richard]

You can always look at the crossing agreement signed by Canada and Michigan.

It's right there in the synopsis. Bolded and underlined for emphasis:


You can read the agreement here: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/b...t_389284_7.pdf

It should be noted that some state and federal transportation programs are being leveraged in the agreement.

In the initial construction of it,but they are not just sticking a bridge
in and then walking away,it still needs to be staffed,which are federal
govenment employees and eligible for federal transportation funds.

It is not like they are going to throw the thing up and it magically meets costs,
and if it does not meet costs who makes up the loss.

So there is a private bridge if it shows a loss it is not on the public to make up the difference,has the existing bridge ever gone to the taxpayer and asked for help in operating costs?

The public would say no,it's your bridge,you pay it or sell it to us.

Realistically the private bridge has other sources of income,
they say okay tolls are now 50c and absorb the loss,the new bridge has no choice but to raise tolls in order to cover costs or go to the taxpayers.

They can say,hey 50 years down the road half of this bridge could be yours,so you have to help raise it,or lose your interest in it,you know that is coming next.

So what is being traded,is a no cost situation to one that can be a liability,given up a tax base in Del Rey for the privilege of renting the space back,giving up a city asset in exchange for a liability in the hopes that the extra trade will offset the loss,the trade is going to keep rolling past the door and there is no guarantee you will see an increase.

When President Trump left the G7 he told everybody that if they would have free trade across the board he would also match that,but no takers.

So the trade will be different then in the past and not a stable banking platform.

It is kinda like buying a big old house,cheap to buy,but it is everything that comes afterwards is what makes it an expensive endeavor.

[Richard]

It is P3

Explanation of how P3 works and is funded.

http://p3infrastructure.com/aboutp3/

Example of how it is never free to the taxpayer.

https://www.citylab.com/design/2017/...-later/520203/

Your host country and future partner track record with P3.

https://www.financierworldwide.com/i.../#.W0E8xPD3bYU

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/pu...ove-affair-p3s

• These P3 projects have created an estimated $28.5 billion in liabilities and commitments still outstanding to private corporations—a cost Ontarians will have to pay back in the future. Other P3 projects in Ontario would bring total liabilities to over $30 billion owing to P3 consortiums and financiers, the equivalent of $6,000 per household.

New York state survey on P3.

Private financing doesnot alter the fact thatthe entire cost ofpublic infrastructurewill always be borneby the public.




http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/i...eport_2013.pdf



• Ontario hospitals: Ontario’s Auditor-General recently revealed that the province’s flagship P3 hospital, Brampton Civic, cost the public $200 million more than if it had been publicly financed and built directly by the province.
• East Coast Toll Roads: An estimated more than $300 million in tolls were produced on the Cobequid Pass for a deal in which private financiers put up $66 million. The Nova Scotia government is paying an effective interest rate of 10% for 30 years, twice its rate of borrowing. High fines for using adjacent roads force truckers to use the toll road.
• Universities: A P3 project at the Université de Québec à Montréal failed, doubling the cost to the public from $200 million to $400 million.
• West Coast Highways: B.C.'s Sea-to-Sky Highway will cost taxpayers $220 million more than if it had been financed and operated publicly.
Risks can never be completely transferred through P3s, because governments will always be ultimately accountable for delivering public services and infrastructure.
This responsibility is not changed by expensive and lengthy P3 agreements. If problems arise, it is the public that always has to pick up the bill at the end of the day.
If P3 operators run into problems or don't achieve expected returns, they can just walk away, leaving the public sector to pick up the tab.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/pu...e-partnerships

But hey,it is a free bridge,and it will cost the taxpayer nothing.

Seems to me the taxpayer is taking a 10 billion dollar gamble on thier future.

Providing an agreement as proof that the taxpayer will bear no costs is no good because it is proven already that the agreements are not worth the paper they are written on and is not a guarantee.

P3 agreements are not required to disclose financials,so nobody can say it will cost the taxpayer nothing,until they are presented with the bill after the fact,

But everybody else is stupid and a liar.

[Bham1982]

I believe both center city areas will be better off without all the heavy truck traffic.

OK, but that's basically the first time on DYes that downtown advocates are claiming that the core benefits from less commerce. In every other circumstance, from sports stadia, to convention centers, congestion is considered wonderful.

Just to take an example, my family stops in Mexicantown pretty much every time they cross the Ambassador Bridge. If we take, say, the Blue Water Bridge, we obviously aren't stopping in Mexicantown. Obviously if commerce is routed southwards, Mexicantown will get fewer visitors.