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.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
Sort of what I expected from the Republicans. For 30 years an Arab owned holding company has owned the bridge from the USA to Canada in Detroit. The company is headed by an Arab named Maroun. The Ambassador bridge is too small, it sometimes takes upwards of an hour to cross the thing and it is basically falling apart because it is very old and not well maintained.
Enter Canada. Canada has offered to loan Michigan the money to build a new 6 lane publicly owned bridge and the money will be paid back with tolls. Tolls are collected now but they go in the pockets of Arab billionaires. The new bridge tolls will go back to the taxpayers and once the bridge is paid off, the taxpayers will profit off of it. In addition a new international port will be built in Detroit which badly needs the jobs.
But now the Republicans are having a hissy fit about "the government taking over the bridge". HUH??? Are these not the SAME Republicans that say the government needs to do more "taking over" of the border? Or is that just with Mexico?
Ambassador Bridge future becomes a Detroit political brawl - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ambassador-Bridge-future-cnnm-795528376.html?x=0 - broken link)
Sort of what I expected from the Republicans. For 30 years an Arab owned holding company has owned the bridge from the USA to Canada in Detroit. The company is headed by an Arab named Maroun. The Ambassador bridge is too small, it sometimes takes upwards of an hour to cross the thing and it is basically falling apart because it is very old and not well maintained.
Enter Canada. Canada has offered to loan Michigan the money to build a new 6 lane publicly owned bridge and the money will be paid back with tolls. Tolls are collected now but they go in the pockets of Arab billionaires. The new bridge tolls will go back to the taxpayers and once the bridge is paid off, the taxpayers will profit off of it. In addition a new international port will be built in Detroit which badly needs the jobs.
But now the Republicans are having a hissy fit about "the government taking over the bridge". HUH??? Are these not the SAME Republicans that say the government needs to do more "taking over" of the border? Or is that just with Mexico?
Ambassador Bridge future becomes a Detroit political brawl - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ambassador-Bridge-future-cnnm-795528376.html?x=0 - broken link)
Who is it that controls the bridge and who is allowed to enter the U.S.? Is it:
Actually the Republicans are backing a bridge that is privately financed. If they don't have to pay for it then that is the move to make. In a bad economy, I would agree. However, I also see the reasoning behind not building two bridges right next to each other. I'm not familiar with the area, but the article gives the impression that there is only one bridge crossing into Canada. If that's the case then there must be a terrific bottleneck at that location which a twin bridge may not solve very well. And I would go with the new bridge two miles away just to alleviate the congestion at that one location.
In engineering sometimes the best solution isn't always the cheapest.
Critics say they're concerned that a public/private partnership would hand over too much control to MDOT and Canada.
Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsy says border traffic has been down by 50% over the last decade, making the traffic flow too small to sustain two bridges, much less raise the money to pay back the loan through tolls.
"We have somebody willing to build this at his own cost, with no cost to the taxpayer," says Rep. Dave Agema, who fought the bill's passage in the House. "To me, this is a no-brainer.
I can't blame them. It would give to much control to the government and a foreign country. The man that owns the bridge has said he will use 500-600 million to build a new one so let him do it!Give me a break KevK you are trying to twist things around AGAIN the typical democrat way of twisting and turning things around to fit what you want.
You call yourself a Democrat? You would change the fetus' DNA so he/she won't be gay, and this racist thread. "Want to keep Arab ownership" says it all. That's laughable at best.
Besides the fact that he is a democrat, sorry about that, this is just a joke more like it.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by geofra
Actually the Republicans are backing a bridge that is privately financed. If they don't have to pay for it then that is the move to make. In a bad economy, I would agree. However, I also see the reasoning behind not building two bridges right next to each other. I'm not familiar with the area, but the article gives the impression that there is only one bridge crossing into Canada. If that's the case then there must be a terrific bottleneck at that location which a twin bridge may not solve very well. And I would go with the new bridge two miles away just to alleviate the congestion at that one location.
In engineering sometimes the best solution isn't always the cheapest.
There is also a tunnel that goes to Canada which is only 2 lanes and is even worse. The bridge should be public. If people still wish to use the Arab bridge, they can do so. They are not going to tear that down. I think there should be 2 bridges too- one for trucks and other for cars. Trucks are the reason the lines are long there lots of times.
Thinly veiled attempt at being racist. I guess you don't like a-rabs.
Economies lesson #1: If someone else wants to pay for it, let them.
Republicans want to keep government as small as possible - TRUE. They don't want to advocate spending - TRUE. You're banishing them for being republicans? Well, what a surprise there.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHoss14
Critics say they're concerned that a public/private partnership would hand over too much control to MDOT and Canada.
Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsy says border traffic has been down by 50% over the last decade, making the traffic flow too small to sustain two bridges, much less raise the money to pay back the loan through tolls.
"We have somebody willing to build this at his own cost, with no cost to the taxpayer," says Rep. Dave Agema, who fought the bill's passage in the House. "To me, this is a no-brainer.
I can't blame them. It would give to much control to the government and a foreign country. The man that owns the bridge has said he will use 500-600 million to build a new one so let him do it!Give me a break KevK you are trying to twist things around AGAIN the typical democrat way of twisting and turning things around to fit what you want.
The reason the man wants to keep the bridge is so he can maintain his monopoly over the tolls on it. "Pay me or you don't cross". Hell if I had that deal, I would want to keep it too. The reason that traffic is down on the bridge is because of the economy which will recover sooner or later and because a passport is now required and many people just do not want to bother getting one. But as we get further from 9-11 those restrictions will be lifted I suspect. The final reason is because of the traffic and high tolls on the current bridge. It cost $4 to cross a bridge that is about 1 mile long. And you cannot walk or bike on it. Compare that to the Causeway Bridge that is over 20 miles long, publicly owned and cost $3.
The fact is that the tolls will pay the bridge off probably within 10 years and it will be a cash machine after that. I would rather see the taxpayers get that money than some billionaire Arab.
I'll get upset when they sell off the Statue of Liberty. A bridge that hasn't been ours for 30 years and NOW you are getting upset ???
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.
