New Gordie Howe Bridge Hate Advertisement - Courtesy of Matty Moroun

[3WC]

Meddle: First time I've seen "eminent domain used as a verb. It's not legally possible but Matty wishes it were except for the fact the state couldn't afford to buy it from him.

Jason: The GH bridge will be a disaster for several reasons.

First, one govt building anything like a bridge would end up worse than the roads MI builds. Two govts involved would double the problems.

Second, Trudeau supposedly won't be prime minister after the next election when the Conservatives will probably take over and no leader that can spell "cat" would ever make such a dumb deal is Canada has. It will be talked y a new govt before they've spent much money.

Second, if one assumes it would ever get built, they will advertise for bids to operate it. No non-goat entity has more experience operating bridges than Maroun.

Third, assuming it ever gets built they will advertise for bids to operate the thing. A Canadian company or U.S. one? Let the litigation begin. However, no non-govt entity has more experience operating international bridges than Maroun and one can imagine the litigation, in both countries , if he's not selected. [[As part of his bid he'll take the necessary steps to eliminate conflicts of interest by fixing prices so a fatal - to the GH bridge - price wars won't break out.)

Also, if Maroun is serious about building a second bridge, let him risk his money, not MI taxpayer's money. His new bridge will be much more successful than anything two govt entities could conceive, build and operate.

[Meddle]

Meddle: First time I've seen "eminent domain used as a verb. It's not legally possible but Matty wishes it were except for the fact the state couldn't afford to buy it from him.

Who said anything about the state or buying anything. The Feds on both side of the river just take it from his fat ass under National Security grounds.

[Richard]

Who said anything about the state or buying anything. The Feds on both side of the river just take it from his fat ass under National Security grounds.

How well did that work out for poletown?

Please list your private property so we can see what we can take in the name of national security,that would be for us to decide what constitutes national security.

He could tie that one up in the courts for years.

Let me guess,your mentor in life was Hugo Chavez? Why are you so obsessed with the size of his rear end,if he lost a little weight would it be more appealing to you?

People do not agree with infrastructure in private hands,which on one hand is understandable,but on the other there is the whole being able to hold one accountable.

The roads are public infrastructure,drive a couple of miles and one begins to see there is little accountability for repairs.

[iheartthed]

First, one govt building anything like a bridge would end up worse than the roads MI builds. Two govts involved would double the problems.

Lol... Governments built probably 90% of the bridges on the planet.

[3WC]

Meddle: It's clear you used the term "eminent domain" without understanding it's meaning. If a government entity can legally exercise it ability to condemn private property it must pay the owner the value of the property [[and in MI an amount in excess of the value.)

Also, there's no such government ability to confiscate one's property under "National Security Grounds" and if there were the govt would still have to pay for it.

To condemn private property a governmental entity may only do so for legitimate public purposes. No such public purpose exists in the case of the bridge, and if there were, the govt would still have to pay for it.

[Johnnny5]

3WC, please disclose any relationship you have to the Morouns, the International Bridge Company or any of their other business interests. IMO there's a slim chance that anyone from the Detroit area would defend these POS like you have unless they were somehow connected to them.

[EastsideAl]

Second, Trudeau supposedly won't be prime minister after the next election when the Conservatives will probably take over and no leader that can spell "cat" would ever make such a dumb deal is Canada has. It will be talked y a new govt before they've spent much money.

This is ridiculous. It was a Conservative government under PM Stephen Harper that pushed hard for a new bridge and made the GH Bridge deal in the first place.

Matty, is that you?

[ABetterDetroit]

Meddle: First time I've seen "eminent domain used as a verb. It's not legally possible but Matty wishes it were except for the fact the state couldn't afford to buy it from him.

Jason: The GH bridge will be a disaster for several reasons.

First, one govt building anything like a bridge would end up worse than the roads MI builds. Two govts involved would double the problems.

Second, Trudeau supposedly won't be prime minister after the next election when the Conservatives will probably take over and no leader that can spell "cat" would ever make such a dumb deal is Canada has. It will be talked y a new govt before they've spent much money.

Second, if one assumes it would ever get built, they will advertise for bids to operate it. No non-goat entity has more experience operating bridges than Maroun.

Third, assuming it ever gets built they will advertise for bids to operate the thing. A Canadian company or U.S. one? Let the litigation begin. However, no non-govt entity has more experience operating international bridges than Maroun and one can imagine the litigation, in both countries , if he's not selected. [[As part of his bid he'll take the necessary steps to eliminate conflicts of interest by fixing prices so a fatal - to the GH bridge - price wars won't break out.)

Also, if Maroun is serious about building a second bridge, let him risk his money, not MI taxpayer's money. His new bridge will be much more successful than anything two govt entities could conceive, build and operate.

For Real?

North America can’t build a damn bridge? You need Matty to show you the way?

The French and Chinese build bridges all over the 3rd world but now you think it will be a “disaster” between the US and Canada?

Unbelievable.

[Tig3rzhark]

Let's make one thing clear. Canada made it clear already that there is no way in hell that Matty will get another bridge.

[Lowell]

Let's make one thing clear. Canada made it clear already that there is no way in hell that Matty will get another bridge.

Sad to say he might be happy with that. If he could block the Gordie his ratty crumbling bridge monopoly would continue.

Not sure if this is a balance of trade indicator, but on this trip in April two crowded lanes are flowing into Canada and only one lightly trafficked lane is coming into the US.


Deteriorating guard rails run alongside are a common sight..

[Danny]

Moroun, the Maroon! has LOST! deal with it.

[3WC]

ihearted: Really, any backup for that statement? It's true that governments FINANCE most of the bridges built in the world, but the lowest bider usually designs and builds builds them. Necessary I'm sure.

Johnny5: I have no direct or indirect relationship to the Marouns or their businesses. I doubt if the Marouns would like you either but I doubt if they would call you a piece of shit. Even though, if the shoe fits.........

ABetterDetroit: MI can't build roads, so what makes you think it can build a bridge? Now, Canada may be better at it if you look at it's roads: Toronto has the same weather - freeze/thaw cycles - as we do and its roads are way better than ours and built with materials that don't include corn meal mush.

I'm a Libertarian and don't trust government or people that do.

[Jason]

So you don't have any real opposition to this, just "gubmint"?

Ontario and Ohio have better roads than us in the same weather because they budget way more money for them. Or, dare I say, their governments budget way more money for them?

Or you can hold up Moroun as the shining example of private infrastructure. The Ambassador Bridge is private from construction to today and it's not even 100 years old and it's crumbling.

The contractors and engineers don't change their work based on where the check is coming from. They do what they get paid to do.

[kathy2trips]

Trump knows more about bridges than us and Mourons? Wow, you Trumpers really are brainwashed.

My grandparents were foot soldiers during the fight to organize Ford in the 1930s. My parents kept a photo of JFK on our living room wall as I was growing up.

If you don't like my political POV, don't blame Pres. Trump. Blame Jimmy Carter. It was his policies that drove me away our of economic necessity from Detroit. He showed me the new Democrats were nothing but closet Socialists who did nothing for working people. It was Jimmy Carter who made me what I am today.

[3WC]

Jason: "The contractors and engineers....do what they're paid to do." Really? It appears you've never been a builder or hired engineers and contractors.

And, the Ambassador isn't crumbling; you're a little dramatic don't you think. No car has ever been blown off the Ambassador as one was off the Mackinac [[poor design.)

Do you think MI will "budget" enough money to operate the GH bridge properly if it doesn't budget sufficient money to build and maintain its roads?

By the way, what's that "gubmint" BS supposed to mean.

[leland_palmer]

And, the Ambassador isn't crumbling; you're a little dramatic don't you think.

[Maof]

^^^^the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[Jason]

The "gubmint" BS is because you have an irrational emotional response to the government.

The Ambassador Bridge is crumbling in the literal sense of the word. The concrete is physically crumbling away. https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...assador-bridge There's plenty of news stories about it across many years. The new span is a replacement span, not an additional one.

Michigan will spend however much money on roads and other infrastructure as its politicians and voters want it to. Right now it doesn't spend enough to maintain everything that needs maintaining. And now people are shocked and indignant that the roads are falling apart. It's not because Michigan's g-g-gggggggovernment is inherently bad at roads, it's because we spend barely any money on them [[https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...ichigans-roads). I'd love to live in your world where everything becomes free as long as you don't say the G word.

First, one govt building anything like a bridge would end up worse than the roads MI builds. Two govts involved would double the problems.

So, gubmit and gubmit?

Second, Trudeau supposedly won't be prime minister after the next election when the Conservatives will probably take over and no leader that can spell "cat" would ever make such a dumb deal is Canada has. It will be talked y a new govt before they've spent much money.

So, the involvement of gubmit?

The others have already said it, the bridge project has been supported by all administrations on both sides of the border.

Second, if one assumes it would ever get built, they will advertise for bids to operate it. No non-goat entity has more experience operating bridges than Maroun.

So we need to keep Maroun as being the only bridge operator to prevent Maroun from being the operator of the new bridge?

Who cares? As long as there aren't conflicts of interests, if his bid is the best bid, then it's the best bid.

Third, assuming it ever gets built they will advertise for bids to operate the thing. A Canadian company or U.S. one? Let the litigation begin. However, no non-govt entity has more experience operating international bridges than Maroun and one can imagine the litigation, in both countries , if he's not selected. [[As part of his bid he'll take the necessary steps to eliminate conflicts of interest by fixing prices so a fatal - to the GH bridge - price wars won't break out.)

So we can't build the new bridge because Maroun might sue? He sues everything all the time anyway. He can sue all he wants, all the bridge has to do in court is justify picking a different operator [[if that's what they do).

Or are you saying the government can't build the bridge because Maroun will continue to attack it, so we need to have Maroun build his bridge instead? We need to favor Maroun because Maroun is bad?

Also, governments have border crossings all over the planet, they're the norm. Privately owned border crossings are the exception. It's not like they have to invent how to handle it. Somehow [[somehow!) the Blue Water Bridge was built and is operated.

Also, if Maroun is serious about building a second bridge, let him risk his money, not MI taxpayer's money. His new bridge will be much more successful than anything two govt entities could conceive, build and operate.

Oh, so now Maroun has been fighting for decades to prevent a government bridge from being built because his will just be so amazingly better. Why? Because gubmit of course!

Detroit is one of the busiest border crossings in the world. That's not changing any time soon, and they've already done the studies demonstrating the usefulness of the new bridge [[double the crossing traffic by 2040). The government bridge will be a direct freeway connection on both sides of the border. There's not much risk to this. Or, if the private bridge is so great, then doesn't that just prove that the government bridge is a good investment for taxpayers?


90% of the time when you post you just vaguely assert something and then get cranky when others don't automatically bow down to your great inherent correctness. So again, please explain, using actual reasons, why Howe Bridge is a terrible project. Is there something bad about the physical layout? Do you have any particular reason to think that the companies bidding for the work are not capable of doing it?

[bust]

The 24 Types of Libertarian

[davewindsor]

And which ones do you most relate to? Stoned and creepy?

The 24 Types of Libertarian

[davewindsor]

POTUS wasn't some esoteric professor of BS; he was a builder, or hadn't you heard? I truly doubt he'd be swayed by some slum monger waving the flag. He probably knows more about bridges than you, me and Moron put together. That puts him head and shoulders above the last President Bull****

x2

If POTUS was willing to give that carpet bagging slumlord the time of day and listen to his phone calls, Moroun wouldn't need to spend millions on these Dear President commercials and he'd simply donate millions to the Republican Party. Trump said repeatedly during his campaign that he wouldn't be bought out by wall street billionaires and special interest. Is he going to go back on that promise now? Moroun has a knack for turning politicians against him. I wonder if Detroit's Mayor will help him with anything again in the future after this. He's already made haters out of Windsor's Mayor and Councilors.

[Richard]

^ yey a Canadian Trump supporter,do you feel the MAGA.

What was it that the mayor of Windsor said? Something like " When I first started talking to jr it was okay but after he left I realized he was just another Maroun.

I wonder what he was expecting,as a private business he is going to look out for his business first,it's not a social club.

Why is it Canada found the money to buy out everybody and thing on the American side but did or could not do it on the Canadian side to second span the bridge

They are useing taxpayer monies verses private investment,I have heard the arguments about it does not matter because the American side was in bad shape anyways,but was that not the case for the city as a whole not to long ago?

The people being displaced for the proposed new bridge are different because why?

You are displacing people in order to build a bridge or span saying that it is needed because of the increased trade but only if one side is displaced.

There is no difference in the current bridge owner and the purposed new bridge owner they are both looking out for their own interests.Everybody else inbetween is just in the way.

It does not really matter who owns the proposed new bridge,Canada and the whole P3 thing is Michigan pays for their part on proposed collected revenues and if the revenues never match the debt,either for lack of use or creative paperwork,so what happens when the outcome exceeds the income,you know exactly what is going to happen,your name is on it to so you need to cough up.

It reminds me of when people from another state buy real estate and hire a real estate management company to look after the property for them,for some reason there is always something that at the end of the month that needs fixing so the rental income never materializes over the costs to carry.

At the very least a private bridge is responsible for itself and not taxpayer dependent,look at it as a tale of bridges and not a personal vendetta because you dislike somebody and wish to punish them.

The mindset should be as a collective and what is best for the city and not holding on to the mindset of 50 years ago and punishing detrimental.

Forget about the players and decide what is best for the city as a whole now and into the future,if you think that only one bridge is necessary or it is better to have options.

I just seem to get the feeling that it is really nothing about bridges and all about administering a form of punishment towards an individual,a personal self grafication when it should be about the bigger picture.

Say the personal gratification is rewarded,the new bridge gets built and the old one gets torn down,20 years from now Detroit is prosperous and the demand is there for another bridge,you lost the one that is centralized so the next one gets built even further away,so it now has no benefits to the actual city.

When the future taxpayers are tasked with the bill are they going to look back and say,hey we already had a bridge but the past residents were pissed off at the owner so they had it removed and now we have to pay for another one 20 miles away,why should we have to pay for it while it serves no direct impact or propose.

Cities cannot get caught up in emotions,they have to forge forward and think into the future.

What was the direct impact on Cities when their future was determined based on emotions and forms of punishment verses what was best for the community as a whole.

Can anybody think of any examples? Do we really ever learn from the past as to not make the same mistakes?

You guys notice what happens to cites in this country when the main transportation links are bypassed,all the traffic that comes across the current bridge has zero positive impact on the city?

You are no different then the residents of when the first foundation was layed for the current bridge all of those years ago,making decisions that will impact the future residents for generations to come,it is your responsibility to make those decisions not based on emotions,30-40-50 years in the future people are not going to care if you hated the current owner,but the one thing that is guaranteed is your decisions made today will impact them one way or another,usually the goal is to impact in a positive way.

[archfan]

I just seem to get the feeling that it is really nothing about bridges and all about administering a form of punishment towards an individual,a personal self grafication when it should be about the bigger picture.

Say the personal gratification is rewarded,the new bridge gets built and the old one gets torn down,20 years from now Detroit is prosperous and the demand is there for another bridge,you lost the one that is centralized so the next one gets built even further away,so it now has no benefits to the actual city.

No one's talking about demolishing the Ambassador Bridge, unless it's by the Maroun's, by neglect.

And, it's not about punishment, that's just a side benefit. If the Marouns own the bridge that carries 25% of merchandise trade between the US and Canada, and Canada/US opens a new bridge, Marouns will need to lower the toll to attract people to their crumbling bridge, GH lowers their toll, until prices stabilize at a lower level than now.

The Marouns would lose revenue, but everyone else gets a fractionally smaller price on their goods. The Marouns fighting to protect their profit; the governments are fighting to lower prices for everyone. Everybody's doing their job.

[Richard]

^ you are referring to a government that pays $300 for a toilet seat and has crumbling roads and bridges across the country,so what is the difference other then the power of the government that can force the current owner to repair the bridge.

You cannot use the power of the government to force the government to fix its/our own problems.

By its own nature the government is not profit motivated,nor is it quick to reduce operational costs.

Lowering transportation cost is not going to reduce consumer costs,you are already paying the price why would they lower it?

I still see fuel sur charges on my power power bill and delivery invoices implemented when the gas went to $4 dollars a gallon,once they get people used to paying for it they do not reduce it.

Mc Donald's finds a supplier that will sell them pickles at 5c cheaper per hamburger,do you think that they are going to drop the price of thier hamburger 5c ?

How is Canada any different then their opponent,they are doing the same thing in creating a circumstance that could force their opponent out of business or make it not feasible,for their end game.

It is not about building them both and let the market decide,You are correct it is about seeing who can gain the advantage because they both know already that two bridges will not support,one will most likely end up the loser,and one is backed by an unlimited supply of taxpayer banking of free money.

The govenment can lower their tolls to 1c and take the loss because it is not coming out of their pocket and the managers will still make their salary.

That is what makes this an interesting case,because it is government going into business in direct competition with private enterprise.

Which is what exactly Hugo Chavez did to take government control in Venezuela and eliminating private enterprise in order to make everything government controlled.

It is more then two bridges and here is Detroit smak dab in the middle of it.

It is private enterprise backed by the government competing with private enterprise.

[Wesley Mouch]

...

Deteriorating guard rails run alongside are a common sight..

Coating failure, and a little surface rust. Neither are a problem, unless left unaddressed. Maroun seems to do fine painting the bridge.

I think this might be more an example of the difference between public and private. Public has infinite taxpayer money to spend -- so re-coating allows for more exciting contract-letting moments. Private actually wants to minimize maintenance, and will only re-coat when it is really necessary to prevent actual structural deterioration. Private might even decide to allow the railings to deteriorate structurally and just replace them. Private is more concerned about keeping cash in their pocket than appearances -- which here are meaningless [[from what I can see).