Lafayette Bait & Tackle- SOLD.

**REL** · December-08-10, 02:04 PM

http://www.freep.com/article/2010120...in-MDOT-battle

A lawyer for Manuel [[Matty) Moroun's Detroit International Bridge Co. said today that the holdout owner of a bait shop near the Ambassador Bridge sold the property to Moroun's Ambassador Bridge company.

What impact the sale of the property would have on an ongoing dispute between the bridge company and the Michigan Department of Transportation wasn't immediately clear. Moroun lawyer Craig John and officials from MDOT declined to comment this afternoon.

John mentioned the sale during proceedings this morning before Wayne County Circuit Judge Prentis Edwards. The bridge company was ordered to explain to Edwards today why the company shouldn't be held in contempt of court for not following MDOT's designs for ramps and roadways directly connecting the bridge to the freeways as part of the state's $230 million Gateway Project to revamp freeways and their access to the Ambassador. The case resumes this afternoon before Edwards.

The issue of 23rd Street has been a sticking point, because it's the only road to get to the bait shop. MDOT had said that maintaining access to that shop required Moroun's company to build bridges over 23rd Street so truck and passenger traffic could get to the Ambassador in a newly designed bridge plaza.

John said the DIBC now owns all property along that segment of 23rd Street, make the issue of building the bridges moot.

The former bait shop owner could not be reached immediately for comment this afternoon.

The bridge company has twice appealed to federal courts but lost, and again today asserted that Edwards doesn't have the jurisdiction to enforce the matter.

MDOT in recent years rebuilt sections of Fort Street, I-96 and I-75 near the bridge and wants new ramps and roads to connect traffic directly between the bridge and freeways, without running vehicles onto local streets.

The bridge company built the ramps but changed the designs to accommodate a new duty-free store and, MDOT says, to allow for a twin bridge adjacent to the Ambassador.

The issue before Edwards won't determine the outcome of the proposed Detroit River International Crossing, a second bridge between Detroit and Windsor that MDOT and the Canadian government want built about two miles south of the Ambassador. The state Senate did not take up legislation on the DRIC, which Moroun bitterly opposes, before it adjourned for the year.

**drjeff** · December-08-10, 02:32 PM

Since they didn't build what they were supposed to build, they are still in contempt. And I'm surprised the bait shop stayed open this long considering there's no way to get to it.

**REL** · December-08-10, 03:14 PM

Agreed, DrJeff. I am wondering how much they sold for...

**SWMAP** · December-08-10, 03:42 PM

I think big, big bucks. The owner had quoted a price before that Matty laughed at and said he would bury the guy. But now the bait shop guy must be laughing! It's so obvious that Matty wanted to come into court today with a "deux ex machina" solution to his problem - "Judge the bait shop owner withdraws all his objections, so let's drop it!" To get that solution he must have had to pay out lots - the bait shop owner [[an attorney himself) had years and years invested, lots of court decisions and nothing to lose by staying in this fight. I can't imagine that he threw in the towel and took less than he wanted and legal costs too. No one was forcing him into arbitration.

**Hypestyles** · December-08-10, 04:25 PM

there still must be a way to stop moroun's expansion of his bridge..

**Johnnny5** · December-08-10, 04:28 PM

I think I remember an earlier thread that mentioned the owner of the bait shop [[The business itself) was renting the space. If this is the case, I hope there was some type of settlement with business owner as well.

**Johnnny5** · December-08-10, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

there still must be a way to stop moroun's expansion of his bridge..

As of right now it's an imaginary bridge to no where. Hopefully our Canadian friends are far enough detached from the corruption and hold their ground.

**yupislyr** · December-08-10, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by drjeff

Since they didn't build what they were supposed to build, they are still in contempt. And I'm surprised the bait shop stayed open this long considering there's no way to get to it.

Well you can get to it via a small driveway to the immediate right of the same entrance that the trucks and cars take. Last I saw there's a small sign that marks it as being for the bait shop.

Pick the wrong road though, and you're stuck going to Canada.

**kraig** · December-08-10, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

I think I remember an earlier thread that mentioned the owner of the bait shop [[The business itself) was renting the space. If this is the case, I hope there was some type of settlement with business owner as well.

As far as the business owner goes, I was thinking the same thing. I hope he comes out of this with something worthwhile.

**Gsgeorge** · December-08-10, 05:23 PM

Amazing how many tricks Matty has up his [[very expensive) sleeves.

**mikeg19** · December-08-10, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

there still must be a way to stop moroun's expansion of his bridge..

Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought that the Canadian government owns the land on the other side needed to complete Mattys second span and doesn't want any more truck traffic in downtown Windsor. To me, I always thought it was essentially up to the Canadians where this bridge was going to be built. Obviously Ontario doesn't want the bridge there or want to deal with Matty if they don't have to.

**kraig** · December-08-10, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought that the Canadian government owns the land on the other side needed to complete Mattys second span and doesn't want any more truck traffic in downtown Windsor. To me, I always thought it was essentially up to the Canadians where this bridge was going to be built. Obviously Ontario doesn't want the bridge there or want to deal with Matty if they don't have to.

It gets tricky. Legally, there are only so many things that a government is allowed to do. If a business is legitimate, the government has to come up with a compelling reason to deny permits and licenses.

**swingline** · December-09-10, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by kraig

It gets tricky. Legally, there are only so many things that a government is allowed to do. If a business is legitimate, the government has to come up with a compelling reason to deny permits and licenses.

Not sure what you mean Kraig. Canada has zoning laws just like the U.S. Even if the Bridge Co. could satisfy its second span needs through the arms-length purchase of only private property, it wouldn't be able to force the Canadian/Windsor/provincial governments to let it build a bridge that they don't want.

Money always talks though. Everybody has a price and perhaps the Canadians have one that the Bridge Co. can satisfy.

**kraig** · December-09-10, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by swingline

Not sure what you mean Kraig. Canada has zoning laws just like the U.S. Even if the Bridge Co. could satisfy its second span needs through the arms-length purchase of only private property, it wouldn't be able to force the Canadian/Windsor/provincial governments to let it build a bridge that they don't want.

Money always talks though. Everybody has a price and perhaps the Canadians have one that the Bridge Co. can satisfy.

Think in terms of the City of Detroit and Strip Clubs. City council keeps denying the transfer of liquor licenses because they don't like the businesses. But, the Strip Clubs are winning in court because not liking the clubs aren't a good enough reason to deny the transfers. As long as a company is operating within its legal parameters, the governments are not in a real position to deny them. There has to be something in the plans that would cause a legal violation.

**old guy** · December-09-10, 11:50 AM

I don't understand why all the stories claim that Canada has already purchased land down river and has plans for a separate bridge.

http://www.joc.com/trucking/canada-b...windsor-bridge

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3955

**swingline** · December-09-10, 11:57 AM

Apples and oranges Kraig. I'm no Canadian zoning expert but I'm certain that under Canadian law the mere financial ability to build an international bridge doesn't bootstrap a property owner into being able to force the government to allow the bridge construction.

**kraig** · December-09-10, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by swingline

Apples and oranges Kraig. I'm no Canadian zoning expert but I'm certain that under Canadian law the mere financial ability to build an international bridge doesn't bootstrap a property owner into being able to force the government to allow the bridge construction.

No it doesn't, and that's not what I'm saying. But, the government does need to supply a valid reason for telling a business no, such as, an environmental impact or something. Otherwise, there's too great a risk of abuse were those that are in favor with the politicians are told yes and those not in favor with the politicians are told no.

**milt721** · December-09-10, 12:18 PM

Somebody didn't tell Matty about Canada's downriver plan. Check out Indian Street in Windsor. Follow the street south to see entire blocks of boarded up perfectly good homes. http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&l...49.25,,0,-0.32

**Novine** · December-09-10, 12:48 PM

An international crossing is a not a strip club. Whatever legal issues would apply to denying a strip club a permit don't even come close to the legal issues involved with getting approval for a crossing at an international border. I'm pretty sure the Canadian government can do what it pleases when it comes to where and how a bridge is built that creates an international crossing. If they go tell Manny to take a hike, no Canadian Court is going to tell the government that they have to allow Manny to build the bridge.

**kraig** · December-09-10, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

An international crossing is a not a strip club. Whatever legal issues would apply to denying a strip club a permit don't even come close to the legal issues involved with getting approval for a crossing at an international border. I'm pretty sure the Canadian government can do what it pleases when it comes to where and how a bridge is built that creates an international crossing. If they go tell Manny to take a hike, no Canadian Court is going to tell the government that they have to allow Manny to build the bridge.

Please refer to my previous post.

Augustiner · December-09-10, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

Please refer to my previous post.

Even if they have to prove an environmental impact, I shouldn't think that would be particularly difficult. The issues with excessive truck traffic on Huron Church Road are pretty well-documented, and it seems self-evident that a higher-capacity bridge at that location would increase the volume of trucks getting dumped into that corridor from it.

**kraig** · December-09-10, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Augustiner

Even if they have to prove an environmental impact, I shouldn't think that would be particularly difficult. The issues with excessive truck traffic on Huron Church Road are pretty well-documented, and it seems self-evident that a higher-capacity bridge at that location would increase the volume of trucks getting dumped into that corridor from it.

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. What can they use that would prove, conclusively, that building a second span would increase the volume of trucks? There's no real study that proves that. That makes it a whole different ballgame.

Besides, how can they accept the DRIC environmental impact study that was based on the DIBC traffic and not accept the DIBC's?

**Danny** · December-09-10, 02:53 PM

Mom and pop vs. corporations and corporations won.

Augustiner · December-09-10, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. What can they use that would prove, conclusively, that building a second span would increase the volume of trucks? There's no real study that proves that. That makes it a whole different ballgame.

I don't know which studies have and haven't been done, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that three lanes of trucks per hour being dumped onto Huron Church is more trucks than two lanes of trucks per hour, or that more capacity at Detroit-Windsor would attract some trucks that would otherwise cross at Port Huron-Sarnia.

Originally Posted by kraig

Besides, how can they accept the DRIC environmental impact study that was based on the DIBC traffic and not accept the DIBC's?

Because DRIC diverts the traffic off Huron Church.

**windsor_shane** · December-09-10, 11:24 PM

honestly.. the backups are not from lack of truck lanes.. its when you get to the customs check on either the us or canadian sides.. and wait in line there.. that is where the backups are happening.. you can add lanes till your blue in the face... but what we need is more customs booths.. on both sides.