Tea Party opposition to Detroit Windsor bridge (Congressmen, Canada, border)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been reading about this new bridge that's going to be built between Detroit and Windsor lately. It seems the Canadian government will be paying for it because the Republicans in Michigan are dead set against this happening, but the governor is forcing it through. The Tea Party is up in arms about us building what seems like a pretty important piece of infrastructure (I've heard congestion on the 100 year old bridge between the cities costs the economy 16 billion dollars a year). Republicans who oppose this bridge, what's your side of the story? Why don't you want a free bridge, I thought the Right was in favour of trade and was pro-business? They tell us the opposition is because the billionaire owner of the current bridge is funding this opposition because it's against his interests, but is that the whole story? I don't want to hear liberals saying it's because the Tea Party hates America or something, I'm interested to hear how they justify this.
Sorry, you really need to provide some context as in a news article explaining the positions IMO before anyone can comment. Your take on the positions are just that.
Sorry, you really need to provide some context as in a news article explaining the positions IMO before anyone can comment. Your take on the positions are just that.
I've been reading about this new bridge that's going to be built between Detroit and Windsor lately. It seems the Canadian government will be paying for it because the Republicans in Michigan are dead set against this happening, but the governor is forcing it through. The Tea Party is up in arms about us building what seems like a pretty important piece of infrastructure (I've heard congestion on the 100 year old bridge between the cities costs the economy 16 billion dollars a year). Republicans who oppose this bridge, what's your side of the story? Why don't you want a free bridge, I thought the Right was in favour of trade and was pro-business? They tell us the opposition is because the billionaire owner of the current bridge is funding this opposition because it's against his interests, but is that the whole story? I don't want to hear liberals saying it's because the Tea Party hates America or something, I'm interested to hear how they justify this.
The Tea Party's insane. That's all the explanation you need.
It's a very busy border crossing and the current bridge is ancient (built in the 1920's) and has been slated to be replaced for decades now. I'm not sure why anyone would oppose the replacement of much needed infrastructure especially one covering an international border which is clearly part of the Fed's job.
Unless, of course, their goal is to simply obstruct everything in an attempt to prevent much needed construction and manufacturing jobs (someone has to build the steel for the new bridge).
Thanks for the links but none of them state the positions of the groups mentioned so again, there is really no way to comment on their positions but I will note.
Q: What would a new bridge cost?
A: The publicly owned bridge itself would cost an estimated $950 million. The customs and inspection plazas to be built on either end of the bridge and the connections to nearby expressways add major costs. In Windsor, connecting a new publicly owned bridge to Canada's 401 via the planned Windsor-Essex Parkway would cost about $1.7 billion. Add that $3.8 billion.
Moroun estimates that his replacement span for the Ambassador Bridge would cost about $500 million.
I have no idea if these numbers are factual but this is what is listed. If I'm a Detroiter and my options are $3.8 billion for the government to build this knowing that the government is broke or allow a private group build it for $500 million, I'm going with the private group.
It's a very busy border crossing and the current bridge is ancient (built in the 1920's) and has been slated to be replaced for decades now. I'm not sure why anyone would oppose the replacement of much needed infrastructure especially one covering an international border which is clearly part of the Fed's job.
Reading the links I did not see where anyone opposed building a new bridge.
Thanks for the links but none of them state the positions of the groups mentioned so again, there is really no way to comment on their positions but I will note.
Q: What would a new bridge cost?
A: The publicly owned bridge itself would cost an estimated $950 million. The customs and inspection plazas to be built on either end of the bridge and the connections to nearby expressways add major costs. In Windsor, connecting a new publicly owned bridge to Canada's 401 via the planned Windsor-Essex Parkway would cost about $1.7 billion. Add that $3.8 billion.
Moroun estimates that his replacement span for the Ambassador Bridge would cost about $500 million.
I have no idea if these numbers are factual but this is what is listed. If I'm a Detroiter and my options are $3.8 billion for the government to build this knowing that the government is broke or allow a private group build it for $500 million, I'm going with the private group.
Well, it won't cost Michigan or the US anything because the Federal Government of Canada is paying Michigan's part and all of the upfront money. The rest is being paid for through a public private partnership that will be financed by tolls on the Canadian side. I wanted to give you articles I'd read about the opposition but you need to have subscription to those papers, the articles unfortunately aren't available to the public. I guess I sort of assumed the details of this controversy would be common knowledge in the United States but I guess that was naive and I am mistaken. The Michigan legislature has voted to oppose this bridge and wouldn't allow tolls to be collected on the US side as a result, but the governor is on board.
Reading the links I did not see where anyone opposed building a new bridge.
Yeah. I'm still waiting for the OP to show there is teaparty opposition.
I do know the owner of the rival toll bridge has been throwing money at politicians for years and recently has thrown a lot at republican state congressmen to try to gum things up.
I don't have a problem with this, a private business often lobbies in their own interests. I personally hope the bridge is completed. Politicians are just $$$ ho's and he is most likely trying to recruit politicians from other parts of the state that won't see as much immediate benefit.
That's mainly my guess, the areas that would benefit the most from the bridge favor one party so he's merely throwing money at the politicians from other areas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
