Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2012, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Dearborn
179 posts, read 273,805 times
Reputation: 129

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
If the state was funding this project, they should have had better oversight.
They sued IMMEDIATELY when it became apparent he had no intentions of fulfilling his contractual obligations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2012, 07:11 PM
 
Location: North of Canada, but not the Arctic
21,142 posts, read 19,722,567 times
Reputation: 25673
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnr83 View Post
To get onto Southbound I-75 you have to take Fort St. to the Boulevard to Lafayette, and Lafayette is a residential street.
Okay, I'll take your word for it. But that's not what the graphic shows. It shows that Matty's plan uses the same freeway entrance. If they have to use Lafayette, then that is a problem. But looking at Google Maps, it appears that there is a road that leads from the toll booths back onto the freeway. I don't see the need for this connection. It seems like they could easily connect this entrance ramp to Grand Blvd.


Quote:
The bait shop is closed, Matty bought the property, but that used to be a neighborhood, Matty bought all of the property surrounding the shop, and decided to steal the road from the city, cutting off access to the shop, necessitating an access road.
Even in the state's plan, that neighborhood would have been incorporated into the tollway plans. That would have negated the need for 23rd Street.

Quote:
Honestly though, none of this even needs justification, he clearly broke the law, the state's been suing him for years, and he refuses to obey the law. When people refuse to obey the law they go to jail, otherwise, we have chaos, that's why we as a society choose to have laws, courts, jails, governments.
If a person has a justifiable reason for breaking the law, they shouldn't have to go to jail. Seems to me like MDOT is being unreasonable because it wants to build its own bridge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Dearborn
179 posts, read 273,805 times
Reputation: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
If a person has a justifiable reason for breaking the law, they shouldn't have to go to jail.
lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Huntington Woods, MI
1,742 posts, read 4,003,279 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnr83 View Post
lol

That was my exact reaction as well. At this point, it sounds like a troll job from Retroit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 07:15 PM
 
Location: North of Canada, but not the Arctic
21,142 posts, read 19,722,567 times
Reputation: 25673
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolls View Post
What don't you understand about a legally binding contract? Mouron had no authorization to change the plans.
Contracts change all the time. It seems to me like the changes were minor and an improvement upon the original. The basic road pattern is similar. Matty's plan seems much more logical and incorporates more than the MDOT plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Huntington Woods, MI
1,742 posts, read 4,003,279 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
Contracts change all the time. It seems to me like the changes were minor and an improvement upon the original. The basic road pattern is similar. Matty's plan seems much more logical and incorporates more than the MDOT plan.

A contract is useless if one person can change it without repercussion. Mouron did it solely for his benefit so traffic can flow past the duty free shop he built and owns. In what way is it more logical?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 07:23 PM
 
Location: North of Canada, but not the Arctic
21,142 posts, read 19,722,567 times
Reputation: 25673
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolls View Post
That was my exact reaction as well. At this point, it sounds like a troll job from Retroit.
No. I think I've made legitimate points which no one has countered except for the use of Lafayette Road.

If you go over the speed limit because you are rushing someone to the hospital, you shouldn't be given a speeding ticket. If you shoot someone who is breaking into your house but they aren't technically inside your house, you shouldn't be tried for murder. I know what the law says in both cases, but a reasonable person would see the law was not intended for such situations.

Regarding the bridge: If Matty had deviated substantially from the plans, then I could see the outrage. But honestly, I looked over the plans and it took me a while to figure out the minor differences. It just seems very petty on the part of the state. With such a large project like this, even if Matty followed it to the letter, they could have found some little thing that "violated the contract".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Dearborn
179 posts, read 273,805 times
Reputation: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolls View Post
A contract is useless if one person can change it without repercussion. Mouron did it solely for his benefit so traffic can flow past the duty free shop he built and owns. In what way is it more logical?
And he knew MDOT would have never thrown the money into the Gateway Project if they knew what he was planning, so he agreed to build a ramp he had no intentions of building. Do you like having your money thrown away as a taxpayer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 07:24 PM
 
Location: North of Canada, but not the Arctic
21,142 posts, read 19,722,567 times
Reputation: 25673
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolls View Post
A contract is useless if one person can change it without repercussion. Mouron did it solely for his benefit so traffic can flow past the duty free shop he built and owns. In what way is it more logical?
Where would the duty free shop have been located in the MDOT plan?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2012, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Dearborn
179 posts, read 273,805 times
Reputation: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
Where would the duty free shop have been located in the MDOT plan?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:48 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top