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.
Even though Matty's bridge would save taxpayers money, it will waste money for everything else. The area around the Ambassador bridge is built up on the Canadian side. The road that connects the bridge to the Canadian freeway is obviously congested with truck traffic, so it's easy to assume that it erodes quicker, and from a Windsor taxpayer POV, that probably seems way more wasteful than what Americans consider wasteful.
So it's our fault they've been sitting on their asses for 90 years? Why don't they use some of that money they have lying around for the new bridge to update their roadways?
Quote:
...I really don't care if Matty loses money because you know what? He's a billionaire. He can invest in Detroit, maybe actually use MCS for something useful, or do whatever else billionaires do to stay wealthy. They dude's like 90 years old anyway, why doesn't he do some charity work and give back to the community? The only thing he's been able to do is keep the community in the same situation while continually filling his own pocket with cash.
I'll chalk it up to just another day in Detroit...
Lose money? Part of the money that he collects in tolls goes toward building a new bridge. Guess who gets to keep that if he doesn't have to build a new one?
"I ahve a problem with what I consider to be unscrupulous business people who are willing or even desiring to crush other people, disrgard the law, the rights of others or even simply disregard the imact that your actions have on other people's lives in order to promote your desire for ever greater riches."
Nah. You would like it if it fit your view or if the idea was made glossy enough.
You described the 'organic' Warehouse District getting condemned for the manufactured 'Foxtown'.
You also described the casinos. The voters said if Detroit's population falls below a certain threshold the casinos have got to go.
Well, the population did fall below the threshold. Tell us what happened.
The Woodward rail is another scam. Any rail into the Downtown center should reach in from Ann Arbor or the Airport. Not an abandoned fairground on Eight Mile Road.
The Westin Book Cadillac replaced The Detroit Riverside Hotel (which now stands vacant).
Well there is also the little side issue that the Country of Canada does not want the bridge there, and they do not want Maroun ownership. They might have some say in the matter as well. We cannot just say "We want the bridge here, so we care going to connect it to your coutnry whether you want it or not"
We could jsut take the Maroun approach and start building it on our side hoping that once it is partly done, the politicians in Canada will not be able to condone the waste of just letting it sti there.
Canadians DO NOT like it when businessmen OWN their INFRASTRUCTURE.
It's a NO-NO up here. Even among the right-wing conservatives.
Ontario had a premier Harris (a Canadian version of Bush) who allowed a private business group to build a highway in Toronto.
Believe me.....he's cursed EVERY DAY.
People are being GOUGED.
They avoid the 407 tolls, go back to 401, and 401 is already so congested. Traffic is a nightmare.
And it's not like a highway can have easy COMPETITION.
That was the only remaining land for an additional highway in Southern Ontario.....and HE HANDED IT OVER to a private group.
It's a quasi-monopoly now.
Initially, they promised us fair prices....
That was BEFORE they got the deal.
ps. Canadians want low-cost and efficient:
infrastructure, healthcare, education, daycare
so they can dedicate themselves to living, learning, work and play.
Quebec even offers public (read: gov't) car insurance.
It's about 60% cheaper than in Ontario.
Last edited by SadieMirsade; 01-03-2012 at 08:02 PM..
So it's our fault they've been sitting on their asses for 90 years? Why don't they use some of that money they have lying around for the new bridge to update their roadways?
I'm talking about routine maintenance.
Quote:
Lose money? Part of the money that he collects in tolls goes toward building a new bridge. Guess who gets to keep that if he doesn't have to build a new one?
That is, if he chooses to build a bridge. He doesn't have to in order to make more revenue.
Then again, last I heard, Matty doesn't own the bridge anymore...
Moroun's attorneys try to get him excused from Ambassador Bridge penalty hearing | Detroit Free Press | freep.com (http://www.freep.com/article/20120103/NEWS05/120103042/Moroun-s-attorneys-try-to-get-him-excused-from-Ambassador-Bridge-penalty-hearing?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE - broken link)
Quote:
In a motion filed with the court, Moroun’s attorneys argued that Moroun himself is not the owner of DIBC, which is owned by an entity called DIBC Holdings Inc., of which the Manuel J. Moroun Trust, dating to 1977, is a minority owner.
So if that were true, that would mean Matty isn't making hardly enough money to be able to build a new bridge. At least not within his lifetime.
I don't know specifically about the ownership arangement in this case, but most businesses are not technically owned by an individual, but by a trust that they set up so that it passes along to their heirs. (This should be done by anyone that has assets, called a "Living Trust"). In Maroun's case that would include his son who is heavily involved in the business. There may be other relatives invloved.
i.e. you can be a "minority owner" if your son owns 51% and you own 49%
In other words , you still have control of the money.
Canada needs us a lot more than we need them. Why do you think they are "promising" to fund a new bridge? (answer: 'cause they need our money). The only legitimate complaint I've heard from Canada is that they don't have adequate roads on their side. Well, , the bridge has been there for 90 years, what the hell have they been waiting for? We just completed a meg-million-dollar mega-project on our side a couple years ago, now the anti-Maroun faction wants to scrap it all apparently.
It was completed with knowlege that the bridge location was not approved on the US side and tha it was rejected on the canadian side. He just built it. (And took over public land to do it). He thought that if he built it, they woudl be forced to approve the location. - Surprise!
On the Canada side not only are the existing roads inadequate, but there is no place to build a new road. I do nto think that the Canadians are into taking people's proerty for the benefit of private interests the way we are. Even on our side, there really is no room to handle substantially increased traffic. That is why they were going to put it over Zug Island which seems a perfect location for it. The only problem with that location? Manny does not own it. Otherwise it is perfrect, there is a ton of room, the freeway aces is better and it will casue far less congestion, the property cannot be used for much else, it will cost nothing to acquire the property and easments, it will not ruin anyone's home or standard of living, the town wants it there (deseperately), the river location is deal.
I see this frequently: A project prposed in a stupid location just becasue some rich guy owns the land and wants it there. That does not change the fact that it is a stupid lcoation for this project.
If Manny pays for construciotn of the bridge in this location who is going to pay to widen the 75 so that it will still be useable with hundreds of trucks parked on it each day?
That would be you and I.
We already frequently get dozens of trucks parked ont he 75 when things get backed up. Double the traffic and it will get worse. At the Zug island location there is room for more inspection plazas and room for the trucks to be parked at the crossing facility, not on the freeway.
It was completed with knowlege that the bridge location was not approved on the US side and tha it was rejected on the canadian side. He just built it. (And took over public land to do it). He thought that if he built it, they woudl be forced to approve the location. - Surprise!
On the Canada side not only are the existing roads inadequate, but there is no place to build a new road. I do nto think that the Canadians are into taking people's proerty for the benefit of private interests the way we are. Even on our side, there really is no room to handle substantially increased traffic. That is why they were going to put it over Zug Island which seems a perfect location for it. The only problem with that location? Manny does not own it. Otherwise it is perfrect, there is a ton of room, the freeway aces is better and it will casue far less congestion, the property cannot be used for much else, it will cost nothing to acquire the property and easments, it will not ruin anyone's home or standard of living, the town wants it there (deseperately), the river location is deal.
I see this frequently: A project prposed in a stupid location just becasue some rich guy owns the land and wants it there. That does not change the fact that it is a stupid lcoation for this project.
If Manny pays for construciotn of the bridge in this location who is going to pay to widen the 75 so that it will still be useable with hundreds of trucks parked on it each day?
That would be you and I.
We already frequently get dozens of trucks parked ont he 75 when things get backed up. Double the traffic and it will get worse. At the Zug island location there is room for more inspection plazas and room for the trucks to be parked at the crossing facility, not on the freeway.
A few years ago, the taxpayers rebuilt the highways and toll plazas leading to the Ambassador Bridge. Of all that was spent, Maroun spent a tiny fraction to incorporate a new ramp that would lead to the new Ambassador Bridge. This was done obviously so that existing traffic would not be disrupted during the building of the new bridge. It is a very small ramp and its construction made a great deal of sense.
If the roads on the Canadian side are inadequate, then that is their fault. The US has been constantly updating their side of the river. Is it too much to expect Canada to do the same. Maroun didn't build this bridge yesterday. It has been there for a very long time (1929).
I keep hearing these complaints that the Ambassador Bridge causes too much noise, pollution, and/or congestion in its current location. Well, guess what? The new bridge is going to cause the same noise, pollution, and congestion. It would be like arguing that we should abandon the city of Detroit and build a new city of Detroit down near Grosse Ile because the current city of Detroit can't handle all the noise, pollution and congestion.
If the roads on the Canadian side are inadequate, then that is their fault. The US has been constantly updating their side of the river. Is it too much to expect Canada to do the same. Maroun didn't build this bridge yesterday. It has been there for a very long time (1929).
Canadians aren't fond of bulldozing residential neighbourhoods in favour of superhighways like they did in the US in the 50s and 60s.
There is no way the Canadian government will build a highway to connect to the Ambassador Bridge that will destroy historic and established residential communities. We're currently building a new highway where there is room for it - leading toward the new downriver bridge.
Canadians aren't fond of bulldozing residential neighbourhoods in favour of superhighways like they did in the US in the 50s and 60s.
There is no way the Canadian government will build a highway to connect to the Ambassador Bridge that will destroy historic and established residential communities. We're currently building a new highway where there is room for it - leading toward the new downriver bridge.
So no property on either side of the river will be taken by eminent domain? I find that hard to believe.
Maybe the state of Michigan and the responsible party in Canada should disclose to the public how much property will be confiscated. I would also like to here what their plans will be for the current Ambassador Bridge once the new ones open. Since the new bridge will likely put the old one our of business, are we going to be left with an abandoned bridge standing there for decades to come, like we have been with the Michigan Central Station? It would be quite ironic to hear the same people who are blasting Maroun about the station to blast him about the bridge.
A few years ago, the taxpayers rebuilt the highways and toll plazas leading to the Ambassador Bridge.
I may have erred with this. I believe the state only paid for the highways and a portion of the ramps, and Maroun paid for the rest. But not positive.
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.
