Bouchard slams second bridge span

**kraig** · April-30-10, 01:08 PM

http://www.freep.com/article/2010043...nd-bridge-plan

**1KielsonDrive** · April-30-10, 01:22 PM

Didn't even have to read it. Bouchard is scraping for the Head of Bridge Security job, reputedly paying more than a CEO's job to the successful candidate. Qualifications requirements are few : adept at sucking up, groveling, a*+ kissing and contorting ideologies. Oh yeah, one more : must believe in the 'free market" - as it applies to your benefactors.

**esp1986** · April-30-10, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Didn't even have to read it. Bouchard is scraping for the Head of Bridge Security job, reputedly paying more than a CEO's job to the successful candidate. Qualifications requirements are few : adept at sucking up, groveling, a*+ kissing and contorting ideologies. Oh yeah, one more : must believe in the 'free market" - as it applies to your benefactors.

have got to agree with bouchard on the bridge... why spend billions of taxpayer money we dont have to do something that Moroun will do for free, no public money? the whole terrorism threat theory is a load of BS.

**EastsideAl** · April-30-10, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by esp1986

something that Moroun will do for free.

Another knee-slapper! Matty's working for free!! No cost to the public at all!!

**Detroitnerd** · April-30-10, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

Another knee-slapper! Matty's working for free!! No cost to the public at all!!

Our gung-ho "free enterprise" folks here seldom take externalities into account.

**kraig** · April-30-10, 02:44 PM

All of you have a point on this one. Another thing to look out for is Granholm setting up a golden parachute for her and some of her appointees.

**R8RBOB** · April-30-10, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by esp1986

have got to agree with bouchard on the bridge... why spend billions of taxpayer money we dont have to do something that Moroun will do for free, no public money? the whole terrorism threat theory is a load of BS.

Matty Moroun didn't get to become a billionaire doing things for free. He would take that 500 million Canadian dollars in a heartbeat to save himself some cash and he would have control of the new bridge.

**1KielsonDrive** · April-30-10, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by esp1986

have got to agree with bouchard on the bridge... why spend billions of taxpayer money we dont have to do something that Moroun will do for free, no public money? the whole terrorism threat theory is a load of BS.

I don't agree with the first part, but the terrorism threat, by and large, is manufactured and exxagerated by the security and defense industries, in collusion with politicians, to control us and monitor our activities, and retain their power.

**Detroit** · April-30-10, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by esp1986

have got to agree with bouchard on the bridge... why spend billions of taxpayer money we dont have to do something that Moroun will do for free, no public money? the whole terrorism threat theory is a load of BS.

Tolls collected will ultimately pay for the bridge. Money will be raised to build the bridge by selling bonds. That is not tax money. Those bond holders will be paid back through the tolls collected.

**Novine** · April-30-10, 05:54 PM

Bouchard is an idiot and the fact that he's the Majority Leader in the Senate is yet another example of how messed up Lansing is these days.

**dtowncitylover** · April-30-10, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

Bouchard is an idiot and the fact that he's the Majority Leader in the Senate is yet another example of how messed up Lansing is these days.

lol. Bishop is Majority Leader, Bouchard is Oakland County Sheriff.

**unclefrank** · May-01-10, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

Bouchard is an idiot and the fact that he's the Majority Leader in the Senate is yet another example of how messed up Lansing is these days.

Roger that on the idiot part.

**Hermod** · April-30-10, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Detroit

Tolls collected will ultimately pay for the bridge. Money will be raised to build the bridge by selling bonds. That is not tax money. Those bond holders will be paid back through the tolls collected.

Ever heard of the Chicago Skyway bonds?

**BShea** · May-03-10, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Detroit

Tolls collected will ultimately pay for the bridge. Money will be raised to build the bridge by selling bonds. That is not tax money. Those bond holders will be paid back through the tolls collected.

The private sector civil engineering/construction firms and the banks [[BMO, Scotiabank) that have filed official interest bids on DRIC say tolls won't pay for it, and instead they want taxpayer subsidies.

Scotiabank is already the official financial adviser for the Windsor-Essex Parkway portion of DRIC, and it's filing says the bond market and senior lenders aren't going to want to finance this based on toll revenue. Toll projects are starting to go bankrupt, too, making lenders more nervous about P3 arrangements.

This is a huge deal because it contradicts what DRIC backers have been telling the public. Yes, a few of the firms think toll can pay for it -- but they have not conducted a toll revenue projection study, and the one MDOT is doing is still ongoing and won't be given to the bidders. The people who have are sounding quiet warnings that this won't work as a P3 w/o the subsidized government payments to the private operator.

I wrote about the basic math of this in Crain's this week. It simply doesn't add up, whether you support DRIC or not. If Canada is willing to subsidize Michigan's costs at a low interest rate, and Canadian taxpayers are willing to foot the bill on what toll revenues don't cover for debt obligations and operational costs, then it's basically risk-free for Michigan.

**smogboy** · May-03-10, 10:31 PM

I just think the Canadian government is sick and tired of Maroun running the border crossing. And as someone who crosses somewhat regularly, I have no problem with having another choice on the border to cross. What Maroun fears is an end to his monopoly; his cash cow might dry up a little or gosh forbid, he might actually have to lower his tolls and make less profit. All one has to do is check anywhere else on the US/ Canadian border and see that we Detroiters/ Windsorites pay the highest in tolls ANYwhere along the border. And if the Canadian government wants to build a bridge to come across here [[and stick it to old man Maroun), who are we to be less than accommodating?

**1KielsonDrive** · May-03-10, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by BShea

The private sector civil engineering/construction firms and the banks [[BMO, Scotiabank) that have filed official interest bids on DRIC say tolls won't pay for it, and instead they want taxpayer subsidies.

Scotiabank is already the official financial adviser for the Windsor-Essex Parkway portion of DRIC, and it's filing says the bond market and senior lenders aren't going to want to finance this based on toll revenue. Toll projects are starting to go bankrupt, too, making lenders more nervous about P3 arrangements.

This is a huge deal because it contradicts what DRIC backers have been telling the public. Yes, a few of the firms think toll can pay for it -- but they have not conducted a toll revenue projection study, and the one MDOT is doing is still ongoing and won't be given to the bidders. The people who have are sounding quiet warnings that this won't work as a P3 w/o the subsidized government payments to the private operator.

I wrote about the basic math of this in Crain's this week. It simply doesn't add up, whether you support DRIC or not. If Canada is willing to subsidize Michigan's costs at a low interest rate, and Canadian taxpayers are willing to foot the bill on what toll revenues don't cover for debt obligations and operational costs, then it's basically risk-free for Michigan.

I guess the obvious question to be asked here is : do you trust a bank? Personally, I don't.

**aerotropolis** · May-03-10, 06:13 PM

Apparently, candidate Bouchard doesn't care what the south side of the river has for concerns- " I don't want the Canadian Govt telling MI how to spend its money"... Alas

Originally Posted by esp1986

have got to agree with bouchard on the bridge... why spend billions of taxpayer money we dont have to do something that Moroun will do for free, no public money? the whole terrorism threat theory is a load of BS.

**rb336** · May-04-10, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by esp1986

have got to agree with bouchard on the bridge... why spend billions of taxpayer money we dont have to do something that Moroun will do for free, no public money? the whole terrorism threat theory is a load of BS.

in case you didn't know this, Manny plans to use the same type of bonds to build HIS bridge. the big difference? once we are done paying, HE will own the bridge instead of US

also, BShea, if what you say is true for the DIRC, why does the same not hold for the new ambassador? once again, WE will pay for it, the biggest difference is that Manny will own the new ambassadr span after we pay for it

Your article mentions ScotiaBank as one, but the same article lists several firms that prefer the toll model. Why did you not mention them here? The UT study is for project where truck tolls are NOT the majority

There are also going to be at least two options, probably cheaper, within close proximity to the DRIC. Which will more than likely, effect its toll revenues.

the tunnel can not take commercial traffic, the new ambassador will have the same costs for construction as the new DRIC.

once again, when paning for bridge traffic volumes, you have to look 10-15 years out. I would rather have BOTH built, because by the time some people realize that they are needed, it will be too late to do anything about it

**BShea** · May-04-10, 11:24 AM

also, BShea, if what you say is true for the DIRC, why does the same not hold for the new ambassador? once again, WE will pay for it, the biggest difference is that Manny will own the new ambassadr span after we pay for it

Moroun's contractors won't be asking for a taxpayer subsidy because there's no one to ask. Most of the companies interested in DRIC are seeking that very thing -- guaranteed payments from the governments. They don't want tolls.

This is not what I am saying. This is what the private sector is saying.

in case you didn't know this, Manny plans to use the same type of bonds to build HIS bridge.

The preliminary bids on the project include a variety of financing models. Bonds are just one of them. They express worry that bond rating agencies like S&P won't rate the project debt highly enough [[A+) to make it attractive enough. Governments typically get better ratings more easily on such projects than the private sector.

Some of the companies say they want to look at using export credit agencies, Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act funding in addition to private activity bonds to fund the project.

Your article mentions ScotiaBank as one, but the same article lists several firms that prefer the toll model. Why did you not mention them here? The UT study is for project where truck tolls are NOT the majority

I identified three companies in the dozen-plus that said tolls might pay for the project. They didn't get into the comprehensive details on the financing. The companies that did, including those already involved in DRIC [[Macquarie, Scotiabank) are strongly recommending availability payments rather than a pure toll concession. BMO Capital Markets is another lender recommending the guaranteed payments.

once again, when paning for bridge traffic volumes, you have to look 10-15 years out. I would rather have BOTH built, because by the time some people realize that they are needed, it will be too late to do anything about it

That's the recommendation from Toll Roads News -- get the project ready to build, then wait for a more realistic time. Have all the legal and other hurdles taken care of, buy the land, etc. Build when the time is right. When I chatted with Matt Moroun a couple years ago [[the son), he told me they also believe there will eventually be a need for a new bridge, but that time wasn't now. The toll guys -- who have no love for DIBC -- agree with that notion.

**schulzte** · April-30-10, 03:39 PM

The essential question here is what enterprises should be under governmental control and which should be under private control. Major international bridge crossings to me would fall under the category of things governments should control, not an 80 year old slumlord. Not everything in this nation needs to be under private, for profit ownership. We won't turn into a communist nation tommorrow if the government invests in modernizing the transportation system, like it has for the past 200 years. Or should we sell off the enitre highway system and allow it be converted to all privately held toll roads? That would have sounded ludacrous 50 years ago even under McCarthyism, now some folks think it would be a great idea. If the Canadian government wants to replace an 80 year old bridge span and is going to help finance it, we should do our part and cooperate.

**1KielsonDrive** · April-30-10, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by schulzte

The essential question here is what enterprises should be under governmental control and which should be under private control. Major international bridge crossings to me would fall under the category of things governments should control, not an 80 year old slumlord. Not everything in this nation needs to be under private, for profit ownership. We won't turn into a communist nation tommorrow if the government invests in modernizing the transportation system, like it has for the past 200 years. Or should we sell off the enitre highway system and allow it be converted to all privately held toll roads? That would have sounded ludacrous 50 years ago even under McCarthyism, now some folks think it would be a great idea. If the Canadian government wants to replace an 80 year old bridge span and is going to help finance it, we should do our part and cooperate.

Very well put.

**Novine** · April-30-10, 10:20 PM

"lol. Bishop is Majority Leader, Bouchard is Oakland County Sheriff. "

Yup, my goof. They're both idiots but Bouchard "graduated" from his role as a Lansing idiot to come spread his stupidity back here in OC.

**Gistok** · April-30-10, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"lol. Bishop is Majority Leader, Bouchard is Oakland County Sheriff. "

Yup, my goof. They're both idiots but Bouchard "graduated" from his role as a Lansing idiot to come spread his stupidity back here in OC.

Novine... term limits sure makes it difficult to stay current, doesn't it?

One former idiot mayor works for an IT shop in Texas another former idiot governor works for an IT shop in Virginia....

Lord knows what the next idiot politician will be working as....

**iheartthed** · May-03-10, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Novine... term limits sure makes it difficult to stay current, doesn't it?

One former idiot mayor works for an IT shop in Texas another former idiot governor works for an IT shop in Virginia....

Well, the former gov now works for an auto lobby firm on K Street.

But yeah, the gov went to work for an IT firm that was founded by a kooky billionaire, and is HQ'd in the Dallas area. That company had significant operations in Detroit.

The former mayor went to work for an IT firm that was founded by another kooky billionaire[[?), and is HQ'd in Detroit. That company has significant operations in Dallas.

And both Dallas and Detroit start with the letter D.

**fionalowther** · May-01-10, 10:53 AM

Anybody figure out how much Moroun's capricious litigation is causing the taxpayers?
Now he accuses Granholm of being an agent for Canada and claims he's being discriminated against because he's an Arab American. Aw, c'mon, Matty; ain't you ashamed? -- What about the oft-repeated claim that your bridge toll money goes to Hezbollah terrorists? [[Aren't they the ones who killed so many of our Marines?)
I know that "whoever dies with the most toys wins," but Matty, forget about the stupid bridge: It's time to retire and start counting your money. Or even better: Think of something worthwhile to do with it . . . after all, when you go, God won't want it.