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.
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).
uhm
the 1920's is not ancient
the brooklyn bridge was built over 100 years ago....there are bridges in europe that are 500-1000 years old
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.
From the last article.
Q: In a TV ad, the Moroun family says building the public bridge would cost Michigan taxpayers $100 million a year. True?
A: At this point, the charge seems like a stretch.
If there was going to be no costs to the people of Michigan, the answer would have been a clear "False" not it "seems like a stretch".
The story about this bridge is an excellent illustration of everything that is WRONG with the USA at this time.
First of all, there is no question that this bridge is badly needed. This international crossing carries one of the most if not the most $$$ value in trade in the world. The Ambassador bridge is old, worn out and does not meet the requirements in any way.
The owner of the present bridge is Manuel Moroun. He is a billionaire who seems to own the GOP political party of Michigan. This guy is more important than the vital interests of two nations. He has successfully been able to stop a new bridge for years. This new bridge will be so good for the cities of Windsor and Detroit that it will be just unbelievable the benefits both will recieve.
Now just let me show you just how bad is the state of American politics that one single person and their own personal interests can trump everyone elses.
When PM Harper made the announcement the other day the bridge was going to be built, these dough headed idiots in Lansing still were not done with their selling out to one single billionare. They said, "HA ha ha, We will still block it by passing a bill preventing any state money being spent on the project". Well, Ha ha ha to you goofballs. Canada is paying for the whole project and we will recoup the money from the tolls.
This story is a very sad example of how the American system of politics works in all areas and at all levels.
Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by tea party movement backers Charles and David Koch, is mounting a campaign against the proposed NITC/DRIC border crossing.
Just because they may have donated money for Tea Party causes does not make this the position of the Tea Party. I have to dismiss the rest of the article. If you feel there was something important I've missed, feel free to find it and post it.
The story about this bridge is an excellent illustration of everything that is WRONG with the USA at this time.
First of all, there is no question that this bridge is badly needed. This international crossing carries one of the most if not the most $$$ value in trade in the world. The Ambassador bridge is old, worn out and does not meet the requirements in any way.
The owner of the present bridge is Manuel Moroun. He is a billionaire who seems to own the GOP political party of Michigan. This guy is more important than the vital interests of two nations. He has successfully been able to stop a new bridge for years. This new bridge will be so good for the cities of Windsor and Detroit that it will be just unbelievable the benefits both will recieve.
Now just let me show you just how bad is the state of American politics that one single person and their own personal interests can trump everyone elses.
He says he will build the new bridge with his own money for far less than what the governments are going to spend. Again, nobody is arguing that a new bridge shouldn't be built.
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.
The Canadians are so desperate to releave this transportation bottle neck which is retarded the growth in trade between Ontario and the US that they've offered $550 million in subsidies and lined up private sector backers to finance the rest of the bridge. That would mean the new bridge would be built without a penny in US taxpayer money or money from the state of Michigan. Why then are Republicans at the state level opposing the new bridge? Simple, old fashioned political corruption. The man who owns the ambassador bridge (who makes tens of millions in profits on tolls each year since he controls the only bridge for hundreds of miles) happens to be a state Republican Party big whig and the single largest donor to the state Republican Party and he doesn't want any competition in the form of a new bridge even if it costs taxpayers nothing.
This Maloun guy also has gotten lots of anti-capitalist, anti-competitive tax carve outs for himself and no one else like how the chain of gas stations he owns (and only the gas stations he owns) don't have to pay a penny in state gasoline taxes. He charges the same as the other stations which are charged the gas tax but he pockets the money instead of passing it on to consumers. No one should be getting rich off of government but this guy clearly is, lowering taxes on all gas stations would be good & natural capitalism but giving one politically connected guy (and only him) tax exemption is just old fashioned political corruption at its worst. It distorts the market and favors the politically connected which is bad and all of us should be able to agree on that especially conservatives.
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.
The Canadians are so desperate to releave this transportation bottle neck which is retarded the growth in trade between Ontario and the US that they've offered $550 million in subsidies and lined up private sector backers to finance the rest of the bridge. That would mean the new bridge would be built without a penny in US taxpayer money or money from the state of Michigan. Why then are Republicans at the state level opposing the new bridge? Simple, old fashioned political corruption. The man who owns the ambassador bridge (who makes tens of millions in profits on tolls each year since he controls the only bridge for hundreds of miles) happens to be a state Republican Party big whig and the single largest donor to the state Republican Party and he doesn't want any competition in the form of a new bridge even if it costs taxpayers nothing.
This is all new to me but if there was no cost to taxpayers the question about the tax payers being on the hook above would have been concise and clear. It wasn't.
Quote:
This Maloun guy also has gotten lots of anti-capitalist, anti-competitive tax carve outs for himself and no one else like how the chain of gas stations he owns (and only the gas stations he owns) don't have to pay a penny in state gasoline taxes. He charges the same as the other stations which are charged the gas tax but he pockets the money instead of passing it on to consumers. No one should be getting rich off of government but this guy clearly is, lowering taxes on all gas stations would be good & natural capitalism but giving one politically connected guy (and only him) tax exemption is just old fashioned political corruption at its worst. It distorts the market and favors the politically connected which is bad and all of us should be able to agree on that especially conservatives.
If you want to argue that Detroit is full of corrupt politicians, I won't argue against that.
the brooklyn bridge was built over 100 years ago....there are bridges in europe that are 500-1000 years old
The current bridge is private and needs and over haul (which is perfectly fine though it would have to be shut down during the over haul thus cutting a vital international trade route). Canada is offering to out right pay for 5.5/9ths of a new bridge while private investors would pay for the other $400 million or so (originally the Canadians wanted to pay half and the US the other half but when neither the US nor the state of Michigan came up with funds they found private partners) so now it wouldn't cost tax payers in the US anything and the investors would get paid back via tolls from users. The Canadian government has even agreed to co-sign the debt to insure the bridge gets built because increasing trade by eliminating the bottle neck means that much to them. The problem is Republicans in Michigan are refusing to agree to permit the new bridge because Maroun, a big time state Republican Party donor, doesn't want competition for the bridge he owns. Essentially he's trying to use the power of government to block a new competitor from entering the market and that's both anti-capitalist and wrong.
If you want small government then surely you should oppose what the state Republican Party is doing here because it's pure favoritism and an attempt to create a legalistic restriction to protect a politically connected special interest from free market competition.
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.
