City poised to sell land for new bridge

[kraig]

City poised to sell land for new bridge

By Dave Battagello, The Windsor StarMay 4, 2009



The Brighton Beach area of west Windsor is the location for a new border crossing. The city is in the process of selling the federal government the land needed for a crossing and plaza.

Photograph by: File photo, The Windsor Star

Windsor is close to completing a deal that would see the federal government purchase more than 100 acres of city-owned lands in Brighton Beach for a new border crossing.
“There has been active negotiations and discussions for several months,” said Mayor Eddie Francis.
“The City of Windsor is doing everything we can to assist the feds with regards to the plaza and crossing location.
“We are very close to finalizing the arrangement and transaction.”
The deal is expected to be brought forward to city council for final approval sometime before the end of May, Francis said.
The land — mostly former residential lots — was purchased by the city over nearly 20 years starting in the 1980s to create an industrial park on the city's far west end and a buffer zone for the Brighton Beach power plant.
Securing the city-owned land would be “another significant step” in the federal government’s effort to build the next Windsor-Detroit crossing, said Mark Butler, spokesman for Transport Canada.
The federal government is overseeing construction of the bridge and customs plaza, while the provincial government has responsibility for building the planned $1.6-billion Windsor-Essex Parkway linking Highway 401 to the new bridge.
The full project will cost about $5 billion.
The purchase price for the city land is being kept confidential until a report goes to council for final approval, Francis said.
A local real estate agent, whose specialties include industrial lands, did not want to guess at a property value of lands included in the deal, but noted that nearby properties sold recently on Sprucewood Avenue and Weaver Road have fetched in the range of $50,000 to $60,000 per acre.
That would translate into a deal with the feds in the $5 million to $6 million range.
“It turned out to be a smart move on city’s part to assemble [[the land),” said Mark Lalovich, commercial broker with Remax Preferred Realty. “It turned out to be visionary with the new bridge going in the area.”
© Copyright [[c) The Windsor Star

I hope that the Detroit City Officials and the property owners of Delray are paying attention.

[gravitymachine]

interesting they mention the windsor-ssex superhighway, everytime i drive east to ny state i see signs opposing it in the lawns along huron church road

also, next time you copy and paste an article, you can delete the unnesseary portions of it to make it more readable, like this stuff

Story Tools


Font size:
*
*
*
*
Photo visibility:
Hide All
Show Top Only
Show All

[kraig]

interesting they mention the windsor-ssex superhighway, everytime i drive east to ny state i see signs opposing it in the lawns along huron church road

also, next time you copy and paste an article, you can delete the unnesseary portions of it to make it more readable, like this stuff

Actually, next to those should be the photos. Unfortunately, they didn't paste along with the rest of the article once I submitted the post.

As far as the signs of people opposing the superhighway, you're right, but, all of us on this side of the water, aren't supposed to know that there's any opposition to any aspects of the project on the Windsor side. As far as were supposed to know it's all hunky dory and peaches and cream, so don't say anything. Otherwise, will lose our excuses to remain ignorant and deaf, dumb, and blind.

[gravitymachine]

Actually, next to those should be the photos. Unfortunately, they didn't paste along with the rest of the article once I submitted the post.

copy>paste only works for text, not picutres. pictures have to be inserted with [img][/img] tags, with the url of the picture inserted between

[Bearinabox]

copy>paste only works for text, not picutres. pictures have to be inserted with [img][/img] tags, with the url of the picture inserted between

I can see two pictures in the original post. Actually, it looks more like the same picture twice.

[MIRepublic]

There is more opposition to the bridge that'll put more truck traffic through Sandwich than the one being proposed here. There is always some kind of opposition to every project of these sizes, but it's disingenuous, at best, to try and pretend that the opposition level to the Brighton Beach bridge is anyway comparable the plan to make Sandwich town and Mexican/Cork towns an even bigger truck parking lot than they already are. Fact is, the public bridge does far less long-term damage to either community than the 'enchanced' Ambassador Bridge crossing. Sorry. You hope the city's paying attention? You are aware that the city and public have already made it known that they are behind this particular proposal, aren't you?

You can stop trolling, BTW. Posting just to get a rise is the definition of trolling. If you've got something constructive to add to this board, that'd be great.

[kraig]

There is more opposition to the bridge that'll put more truck traffic through Sandwich than the one being proposed here. There is always some kind of opposition to every project of these sizes, but it's disingenuous, at best, to try and pretend that the opposition level to the Brighton Beach bridge is anyway comparable the plan to make Sandwich town and Mexican/Cork towns an even bigger truck parking lot than they already are. Fact is, the public bridge does far less long-term damage to either community than the 'enchanced' Ambassador Bridge crossing. Sorry. You hope the city's paying attention? You are aware that the city and public have already made it known that they are behind this particular proposal, aren't you?

You can stop trolling, BTW. Posting just to get a rise is the definition of trolling. If you've got something constructive to add to this board, that'd be great.

I'm not trolling, I'm informing. One of the reasons that politicians and the residents of Delray should be paying attention is that there is a very significant amount of money being spent on the project. As you can tell from the article, the property is averaging a lot of money per acre. What everyone should note is that, no matter how badly Delray is viewed, for the purposes of this project getting done, the land there is just as valuable as the land in Windsor.

I didn't mention the Ambassador Bridge at all, you're simply trying to deflect the issue. Whether or not there is an expansion, renovation or whatever it's being called this week, has nothing to do with how the people of Delray should be treated. I love and respect all of Southwest Detroit, not just the area that I live in. But you've shown that you have the "not in my backyard but it's okay for your backyard" mentality that has always held this city back.

[BShea]

Fact is, the public bridge does far less long-term damage to either community than the 'enchanced' Ambassador Bridge crossing.

Is that because, in the near-term, the community of Delray will be destroyed to make room for the new public bridge? I guess it's hard to damage something in the long term if it's gone, eh?

[kraig]

Fact is, the public bridge does far less long-term damage to either community than the 'enchanced' Ambassador Bridge crossing.

Fact is, the public bridge does far less long-term damage to either community than the 'enchanced' Ambassador Bridge crossing.


Is that because, in the near-term, the community of Delray will be destroyed to make room for the new public bridge? I guess it's hard to damage something in the long term if it's gone, eh?

I think you're forgetting MIRepublic's type of thinking. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if they do have their boot on my throat." Please cut off my nose, I think it will spite Manny's face.

[Guideboat]

Does the land in Windsor include the Ojibway Prairie area? What a fascinating spot that has somehow managed to avoid development over the years.

[yupislyr]

No, although some of the proposed roads and the plaza will pass near by some of the sensitive areas.

[MIRepublic]

Neither of you give a damn about what's left of Delray [[and you certainly don't give a damn about either Mexicantown or Corktown), making you both disingenuous phoneys.

EDIT: It's not even worth it.

[1KielsonDrive]

MIR, geez who's trolling and who's causing s#*t here? This was a nice discussion, no matter what you thought of it, until you put your 2 cents worth of venom in. If you don't like someone here at DY, drop pretensions of contributing to the conversation and just post expletives. Topics and information aren't even necessary.

[urbanoutdoors]

I think the fact of the matter is that most citizens and representatives of the area would like no Bridge. If they have to choose between the two they are going to take the one that will have community input and will mitigate for damages rendered.
I my self have walked through the delray area and door knocked for various campaigns. There is a sense of relief with most that this may be their ticket out of there. Their are others who who are against it but there is a chance for public comment and ways to mitigate for their concerns.
That is my thought as a citizen who has walked the neighborhood and who lives in the SW/Corktown neighborhood.

[kraig]

Thanks Urbanoutdoors and 1Kielsondrive, for providing rational thought to the discussion. For some reason there are members on DY that feel the need to slam anyone that's not slamming the DIBC. However, I more than welcome MIRepublics comments, at some point he's going to realize that just because we may differ on something doesn't mean we're opposed to each other. Differing viewpoints and styles is one of the things that makes this country as great as it is and MIRepublic is more than welcome to his.


I'm of the opinion that an additional Bridge is coming to our area, period. With that being said, it's up to the community to make sure that our interests out taken into consideration and it's up to the community to hold our elected officials responsible. While I believe that the general consensus on both sides of the river is that the DRIC is more preferred to the DIBC, I am going to make a point that both are going to impact our neighborhoods and air quality. The DIBC has been up for 80 years, therefore, it's not too many things that I can say about it that people don't already know. The environmental concerns and business dealings are well documented. I do feel that the DRIC and some of its biggest supporters have taken advantage of how we feel about the DIBC in garnering support for the project and it will be a huge mistake on our part if we don't acknowledge this and stay aware of what is going on on both sides of the river. Currently, it's the DRIC that's looking to uproot homes in Delray, not the DIBC, and it's the residents of Delray, not the Southwest/Corktown residents, that will be forced from their homes. At this point, I simply think it would be a good idea for all of the residents of Delray that will be affected and all of the public officials that represent the residents of Delray to know how much they can get for the land in Delray. Remember, since everything is going to be torn down, the condition of the homes may be irrelevant as far as determining what the residents should receive. The issue is how important the land will be in order to advance the project. Now, if someone views that as not being genuine, god bless them.

[BShea]

The bottom line is this: When traffic/trade picks up, we're going to need BOTH bridges. Not one. Not just one new one. Not just one new span. Both. Maybe not right now, or in 2013, but eventually. If boom times return, we're probably going to need a new tunnel, too.

If traffic and trade don't pick up, we have far, far bigger problems than bridges.

[ddaydetroit]

http://www.detroitblog.org/ just did a great but sad article on a holdout in this area called last man standing

[1KielsonDrive]

Bshea, I agree we'll need both bridges. In fact we need them now. An additional tunnel for truck and/or train traffic is also necessary for optimal transportation movement. It's a shame it's taken this long just to get in the planning phase. Yes, I do believe the news from the Canadian side is being withheld, but I've never known in my life, there to be an ongoing, interactive, communication from one side to the other. Occasional events, sports and bars, maybe. But I think Windsor and Detroit are as foreign to each other, except in a few cases, as are Cuba and the US. I still hear Canadians say, unintentionally mocking some American suburbanites," I haven't been to Detroit for 25 years" or, "We only drive through on our way to Florida". There's a huge chasm between our closest neighbor and us. All of that said, I used to spend a lot of time in Windsor, going as far as to stay on boats and with Canadian friends. I loved it. You can't go through the border anymore without the ?Homeland Security? guys treating you like s*+t. I know they have tough jobs, but I can't correlate lousy treatment with real security enforcement. Both sides suffer as a result.

[1KielsonDrive]

I forgot to add that the best case scenario for me would be to have King Manny out of the picture altogether. He's an arrogant, overbearing, secretive billionaire who cares nothing about anyone or anything except his power and fortune. He makes the Illitches [[uh, oh, another battle brewing here) look like tooth fairies. It's unlikely King Manny won't be involved, making it even more important we have a bridge built and administered by our national, provincial and state governments. It'd be a truly competitive situation, eliminating a private, corporate, monopoly.

[BShea]

It'd be a truly competitive situation, eliminating a private, corporate, monopoly.

Huh?

Competitive with what? The other government bridge? That's exchanging a private monopoly with a government monopoly. How is that competitive?

With one private bridge and one public one, then you have competition [[which the AB's owner doesn't like, understandably).

And I don't subscribe to the notion that government ownership makes something safer. Have you ever been in the military? LOL. And the big bridge that collapsed in Minnesota a couple years ago was a government bridge. Public ownership is zero guarantee of anything.

I'm typically called a Moroun apologist for this, but the feds already have control of the border. If they had a problem with the Ambassador Bridge, all they have to do is pull the Customs agents off of it -- boom! no more bridge for Moroun. The feds control access to the bridge, while Moroun owns the physical structure.

As a businessmen, it's in his best interest to maintain the bridge and not let it collapse or become otherwise unusable. That's simply good business, not any sort of defense of Moroun and his actions/policies. If you own something, letting it fall into ruin or become unattractive to users is stupid and a money-loser. Say what you will about Moroun but he knows how to make money.

In fact we need them now.

I disagree. The traffic doesn't justify two bridge right now. Eventually it will, and a second bridge needs built prior to that, but those numbers won't reach that level by 2013 [[although I wish they would). Matt Moroun expressed those very feelings to me: They don't oppose a second span in general, just right now.

If the traffic doesn't generate enough tolls on a new bridge, how will they pay off the bonds? Levy a tax on everyone? Raise rates? That'll drive down traffic more. And if traffic is sucked away from the AB and BW bridges, it further makes a mess, for both government and Moroun.

I do concede that the 2013 opening date for DRIC is pure fantasy. The Lions are more likely to win back to back Super Bowls before that happens. Red tape and bureaucratic boobery, not to mention the opposition in Lansing, will drag that timeline down. I'd wager on 2018-2020 for DRIC. By then, traffic had better be back up.

[kraig]

It'd be a truly competitive situation, eliminating a private, corporate, monopoly.

Huh?

Competitive with what? The other government bridge? That's exchanging a private monopoly with a government monopoly. How is that competitive?

With one private bridge and one public one, then you have competition [[which the AB's owner doesn't like, understandably).

And I don't subscribe to the notion that government ownership makes something safer. Have you ever been in the military? LOL. And the big bridge that collapsed in Minnesota a couple years ago was a government bridge. Public ownership is zero guarantee of anything.

I'm typically called a Moroun apologist for this, but the feds already have control of the border. If they had a problem with the Ambassador Bridge, all they have to do is pull the Customs agents off of it -- boom! no more bridge for Moroun. The feds control access to the bridge, while Moroun owns the physical structure.

As a businessmen, it's in his best interest to maintain the bridge and not let it collapse or become otherwise unusable. That's simply good business, not any sort of defense of Moroun and his actions/policies. If you own something, letting it fall into ruin or become unattractive to users is stupid and a money-loser. Say what you will about Moroun but he knows how to make money.

In fact we need them now.

I disagree. The traffic doesn't justify two bridge right now. Eventually it will, and a second bridge needs built prior to that, but those numbers won't reach that level by 2013 [[although I wish they would). Matt Moroun expressed those very feelings to me: They don't oppose a second span in general, just right now.

If the traffic doesn't generate enough tolls on a new bridge, how will they pay off the bonds? Levy a tax on everyone? Raise rates? That'll drive down traffic more. And if traffic is sucked away from the AB and BW bridges, it further makes a mess, for both government and Moroun.

I do concede that the 2013 opening date for DRIC is pure fantasy. The Lions are more likely to win back to back Super Bowls before that happens. Red tape and bureaucratic boobery, not to mention the opposition in Lansing, will drag that timeline down. I'd wager on 2018-2020 for DRIC. By then, traffic had better be back up.

How dare you look at this objectively. You must be on Matty's Payroll. Just kidding. It's funny that you would mention the bridge in Minnesota, while MDOT is putting a lot of its resources into the DRIC project, there are hundreds of bridges/overpasses in the state of michigan that are in the same condition or worse than the bridges in Minnesota and Atlanta that collapsed. I would hope that MDOT spend more of its time and resources repairing the bridges/overpasses that its michigan taxpayers are paying our taxes on.

[1KielsonDrive]

Huh? Whhhat? There's not likely any objective discussion with Bshea about this. Are you one of those, 'The government is all bad' guys, citing your negative military experiences as a rationale to indict the government for every perceived injustice, excluding them from doing anything? Ronald Reagan, George Bushkin and their ilk, implicated the government in every failure known to man, purposely running up HUGE deficits, so they could "drown it in a bathtub", to paraphrase their acolyte, Grover Nordquist. Geez, how'd the Interstate get built? Who was behind the railroads? I guess it was private corporations who put a man on the moon. A private/public partnership might be the best case scenario. Governments could engage the private sector to build, and possibly run, a bridge with proper oversight. That might be ideal. The problem with that scenario is the private sector would have the government conceive of something, engage a private corporation to build and run it, with cost plus contracts and no oversight. Executives would make huge bonuses and the workers and maintenance would suffer. After it was depreciated for years, the corporation would be rid of it. It'd fall back in to the hands of taxpayers, to be rebuilt under another non-compete, cost plus, no oversight, contract. All the while they'd lobby for tax breaks and subsidies. The whiz kids of Wall Street and private, free enterprise, would surely do much better than government. Look around you, I'm sure you see plenty of evidence of the wonders of Wall Street. Whatever happens, I don't want King Manny and another ruthless corporation running another business around here. Certainly not a monopoly.

[kraig]

Huh? Whhhat? There's not likely any objective discussion with Bshea about this. Are you one of those, 'The government is all bad' guys, citing your negative military experiences as a rationale to indict the government for every perceived injustice, excluding them from doing anything? Ronald Reagan, George Bushkin and their ilk, implicated the government in every failure known to man, purposely running up HUGE deficits, so they could "drown it in a bathtub", to paraphrase their acolyte, Grover Nordquist. Geez, how'd the Interstate get built? Who was behind the railroads? I guess it was private corporations who put a man on the moon. A private/public partnership might be the best case scenario. Governments could engage the private sector to build, and possibly run, a bridge with proper oversight. That might be ideal. The problem with that scenario is the private sector would have the government conceive of something, engage a private corporation to build and run it, with cost plus contracts and no oversight. Executives would make huge bonuses and the workers and maintenance would suffer. After it was depreciated for years, the corporation would be rid of it. It'd fall back in to the hands of taxpayers, to be rebuilt under another non-compete, cost plus, no oversight, contract. All the while they'd lobby for tax breaks and subsidies. The whiz kids of Wall Street and private, free enterprise, would surely do much better than government. Look around you, I'm sure you see plenty of evidence of the wonders of Wall Street. Whatever happens, I don't want King Manny and another ruthless corporation running another business around here. Certainly not a monopoly.

When I said "objectively", I was referring to the fact that the government should not be in the business with competing against private businesses, that would be a lose-lose scenario all the way around. As far as me being one of those "the government is all bad guy's" that's not the case either. If you notice I'm encouraging that the government do more in the way of servicing all of the state bridges/overpasses, which I think is reasonable.

If the question was put on the ballot to voters in michigan as to which they would prefer, do you think it would be:

A. Spend the state resources on building a bridge that connects the U.S. to Canada two miles from the existing bridge.

or

B. Spend the state resources on fixing the hundreds of bridges/overpasses that have been determined to be in the same condition as the bridges that collapsed in Minnesota and Atlanta.

Personally, I think most people would go with answer B. Remember, there had been numerous reports for years that something needed to be done with the Levees in New Orleans, those reports were viewed as frivolous until the Levees broke. We have been lucky so far, but sooner or later everyone's luck runs out.

By the way, the Belle Isle Bridge is one those bridges that is in dire need of repair. Think about how many times traffic comes to a standstill on that bridge going both ways. That's a tragedy waiting to happen. If one your loved ones died would you want to hear the state say that their priority was building a public bridge that would compete with a private one?

[MIRepublic]

Huh? Whhhat? There's not likely any objective discussion with Bshea about this.

And, only now do you seem to get what you're dealing with. If you like wasting your time arguing with grossly biased and compromised shills and disingenuous and intellectually dishonest hacks who have no real intention [[regardless of what they portray) of dealing in honest debate. Maybe, you'll remember this next time you want lecture me on how I respond to either of them, in the future, if I ever decide to deal with either, again. If you want to deal with folks that aren't even willing to get on the same honest page as you, be my guest. Please, do not ever, however, think that you can contront me for responding to their nasty sarcasm and trolling in kind and come out unscathed.

[1KielsonDrive]

Huh, whhhat?