Tag: DRIC (page 3)

The Meeting will take place in the Sterling Heights Public Library at 7:00pm on September 6th.

Never let the list of questions WHY the governor wants this bridge project to go on become shortened prematurely.  The Canadians are considering this a "done deal" and are building a road to the presumed location of a new bridge.  The one that has no investors, no Michigan money tied up, and is not going to cost us a dime, if one were to believe promoters of it. Even though $41 million has already been spent by Michigan taxpayers the Canadian government is sure they are not building a road to nowhere:

"What if Michigan doesn't approve it?" some nervous Nellies wailed on The Star's comment threads of the new bridge. "Then it really will be a road to nowhere!"

Relax, people. That Road to Nowhere meme is just a catchy advertising slogan dreamt up by the Ambassador Bridge and its allies. It's a last-ditch attempt to preserve the lucrative private monopoly they hold on commercial traffic and sales of duty free fuel and goods.

The control they exert over two national economies is simply unheard of anywhere else in the world, and it's high time it came to an end.

Oh yeah.  Thats right its about power and taxes.  

I guess no private entity should EVER hold that kind of power, that would be bad.

Why is that?  Why is it important to destroy a Michigan business for the sake of another country's desires? Why is it so important to this governor that he would put our tax dollars at risk by continuing to promote in a different way what could be done in the same location already?

This type of activity by two governments is exactly the reason the original owners of the bridge sought the treaty that grants that authority to the owners of the bridge in perpetuity. Is it the end of that treaty that a private entity controls that these two governments seek?

Both sides will be participating in a larger than (earlier) expected forum. From a recent press release:

A local town hall meeting next week on the Detroit-Windsor bridge proposals will move to a larger venue to accommodate a higher than expected turnout, state Reps. Earl Poleski and Mike Shirkey announced a couple days ago.

The event, still scheduled for Tuesday, June 28 at 7 p.m., will now take place at Jackson High School's auditorium, 544 Wildwood Ave., Jackson.  It was also announced that Michigan Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, of Gov. Rick Snyder's administration, and Mickey Blashfield, of the Ambassador Bridge Company, will attend to give both sides of the issue.

"People continue to ask me about the potential for a new international bridge, whether I'm at my local office hours, the grocery store or at church," said Poleski, R-Jackson.  "We're delighted that Lt. Gov. Calley and Matthew Moroun have agreed to take time out of their busy schedules.  Outside of a formal legislative committee meeting, this will be the first time we have officials from both sides of the issue together in one room to publicly address the issue."

WKHM-Radio Program Director Marc Daly will host the meeting, and residents will be allowed to submit questions.

"The town hall is a testament to open government and our continued efforts to ensure transparency in the democratic process," said Shirkey, R-Clarklake.  "We encourage all citizens who have an interest in the issue to attend."

What if Canada didn't care about the $550 million dollars it has promised to Michigan.

What if it doesn't even have to give it up (the money)in the first place?

What if the entire charade is to force what Canada has not been able to do, however hard it has tried through court actions for decades?  To force the Moroun family to relinquish its holdings on the ambassador bridge?

A lot of questions:

Ms Borges is hiding Canada's real goal: to buy out the Ambassador Bridge Company as the PM instructed his Ttransport Minister to do over a year ago in a secret mandate letter!

Are being asked.  Read the rest.

Oh..  and before you go, ask yourself what if

The image below the line is just the first salvo from both sides of the bridge issue.

Its good to see the arguments made from the different perspectives. Plenty to be said about whether or not we actually pay for it in one way or another, but surprisingly no one yet doing what will ultimately provide the most accurate answer.

The math equation.

20,000 Crossings a day now.  Unless the Ambassador bridge is FORCED to close, then the traffic would split.

Average ticket of $6 Gross $120,000/day (if the ambassador is FORCED to close) $44 Million a year

Debt service (interest only) of $30 Million a year. Then add to this the cost of operations, ongoing liabilities (you know those pesky benefits) and maintenance.   An additional $30? $50 million? A year?  

My goodness So who DOES pay for it when it doesnt even pay its bond?  mmmm?

The post writes itself.

Dick Morris says Rick Snyder should act like a Republican, and in the process draws out the hard core "re-distributionists."  Darrell Dawsey writes at MLive:

Matty Moroun is rich enough. He doesn't need or deserve a second bridge. (Personally, I wish someone could take the first one from him, too.) Free enterprise is fine, but private citizens shouldn't be in the business of owning international border crossings. Our borders, and the economic and national security issues they generate, are a matter of public interest.

Snyder's wishes of another bridge makes perfect sense in some ways, and little in others.

He is a "Milliken Republican" which brings a brand of centrism that has too much in common with the Dawsey think, that government ought to have control of all things no matter how miserably they fail under government control. Detroit Schools? Detroit itself?  Perfect examples of Centrism allowing a minor scratch to develop into full blown gangrene.  Why not invite such catastrophe when given the opportunity?  Perhaps a little brick and mortar money poured into the patient's [amputation inviting] open sore infested hole will fix it?

Maybe such things need to be questioned a little more thoroughly.