Windsor-Detroit Bridge

[Topaz]

Baird made the announcement about the money Canada is going to give the state of Michigan for the NEW bridge between the two countries. If anyone has any question just read the following letter from Baird to the Gov. of Michigan. http://www.wxyz.com/media/lib/87/c/5/0/c50bfc5b-142a-4512-a6d7-931e590fb5bc/Letter_to_Governor_Granholm_from_Min_Baird.pdf

[Smallc]

Topaz, once in a while, it would be good idea to get the facts straight. It's a loan, and it's an excellent investment. The bridge...a freeway link between Canada and the US....is very important.

[Jack Weber]

Topaz, once in a while, it would be good idea to get the facts straight. It's a loan, and it's an excellent investment. The bridge...a freeway link between Canada and the US....is very important.

I wonder if we could over charge so we could get the 1 billion dollars they still have of ours from the softwood lumber "deal"?

[Guest American Woman]

Topaz, once in a while, it would be good idea to get the facts straight. It's a loan, and it's an excellent investment. The bridge...a freeway link between Canada and the US....is very important.

It's not a loan. Canada is giving the money for the bridge and anticipates getting it back in future toll charges; Canada will take a larger share of the toll profits. But that's not a loan. Canada is paying for the bridge.

Michigan wouldn't have to put up a penny toward a new $5.3 billion international bridge crossing if Michigan accepts Canada's offer to pay for improvements on the U.S. side, Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Thursday.

The Canadian government is offering to cover the $550 million cost of improvements leading up to the bridge on the U.S. side, which would have been split between Michigan and the U.S. government. The bridge itself is expected to be built by a private investor.

The Canadian government would recoup its investment by taking a larger percentage of the collected tolls.

Granholm: Canada would pay Mich.'s share of bridge

[Smallc]

It's not a loan. Canada is giving the money for the bridge and anticipates getting it back in future toll charges; Canada will take a larger share of the toll profits. But that's not a loan. Canada is paying for the bridge.

Ummmm...no....Michigan is giving up future revenues to repay the...loan. When you give money and expect to get it back at the expense of the person you're giving it to, it's a loan.

In fact:

OTTAWA - Canada has offered to lend $550 million to cash-strapped Michigan to get the ball rolling on a new $5-billion international bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

Infrastructure and Transportation Minister John Baird confirmed the loan offer Thursday, which he said will help leverage more funds from the United States government.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/29/13768506-qmi.html

There are more articles describing it as a loan. The Minister even described it as a kind of credit facility.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

You're quoting news articles, not the Infrastructure and Transportation Minister. Canada would be getting a larger share of the tolls because Canada would be paying for the bridge. That's not Michigan paying the loan back; it's Canada recouping its cost in tolls from those using the bridge.

[Smallc]

You're quoting news articles, not the Infrastructure and Transportation Minister. Canada would be getting a larger share of the tolls because Canada would be paying for the bridge. That's not Michigan paying the loan back; it's Canada recouping its cost in tolls from those using the bridge.

No, Canada isn't paying for the bridge on it's own. The bridge is a joint project. The Canadian money would cover Michigan's share. In exchange, they forfeit future revenues required to repay the amount. They would still be paying for it.

Transport Minister John Baird says Canada will effectively loan the money to the state of Michigan to ensure construction of the bridge can begin quickly.

http://southwesternontario.ctv.ca/news.php?id=7260

Edited April 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Also, the letter from Baird to Granholm uses the words "repaid in full". Usually, when you're repaying something, it means it's a loan.

[Guest American Woman]

Also, the letter from Baird to Granholm uses the words "repaid in full". Usually, when you're repaying something, it means it's a loan.

The letter says Canada would "expect repayment from anticipated toll revenues," which would be payback for their investment. The "anticipated" revenues would (hopefully) eventually recover the cost for Canada; not Michigan, not the U.S. government. What happens if the "anticipated tolls" aren't realized? There are no other "repayment" terms. What happens if the bridge is blown up in a terrorist attack a year after it's built? There go the "anticipated toll revenues," and neither Michigan nor the U.S. government would be required to "repay" a "loan."

Canada apparently wants this bridge more than Michigan/the U.S. does, and Canada is therefore willing to put up the money.

Edited April 30, 2010 by American Woman

[Smallc]

The letter says Canada would "expect repayment from anticipated toll revenues," which would be payback for their investment. The "anticipated" revenues would (hopefully) eventually recover the cost for Canada; not Michigan, not the U.S. government. What happens if the "anticipated tolls" aren't realized?

Yeah, ok. You can call the loan whatever you want. It's still a loan. BTW, the bridge will be privately operated...and will probably be insured.

You are correct that it isn't a completely normal loan, but that's usually true of government to government loans. The way it's being done is designed to sweeten the deal.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Canada apparently wants this bridge more than Michigan/the U.S. does, and Canada is therefore willing to put up the money.

It also helps that Canada is far less financially challenged. The bridge is just as important to Michigan, if not many other states.

[Guest American Woman]

It also helps that Canada is far less financially challenged. The bridge is just as important to Michigan, if not many other states.

Sounds as if Canada is the one pressing the issue:

Baird said Canada cannot afford any further delay in construction of the Detroit River International Crossing.

"This is the most, not one of the most, this is the most important infrastructure project across Canada today and is one of the most important in our history," Baird said.

link

Edited April 30, 2010 by American Woman

[Smallc]

Well of course we are, because he's right, it's the most important thing that we can probably do. It's probably just as important for Michigan....they just don't have the same priorities necessarily given their current situation.

[kimmy]

Michigan probably couldn't chip in more than about $20 towards the bridge anyway. They were chronically broke and depressed even before the Global Economic Meltdown.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Canada apparently wants this bridge more than Michigan/the U.S. does, and Canada is therefore willing to put up the money.

Yes...I think this is very obvious. Michigan hasn't exactly gotten rich importing Canadian garbage to its landfills.

Canada wants to end the private ownership and revenue of the current Ambassador Bridge; Michigan would have to relocate hundreds of homes and businesses for the DRIC project.

Edited April 30, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Wild Bill]

Sounds as if Canada is the one pressing the issue:

Baird said Canada cannot afford any further delay in construction of the Detroit River International Crossing.

"This is the most, not one of the most, this is the most important infrastructure project across Canada today and is one of the most important in our history," Baird said.

link

Of course we're pressing it, AW! The amount of traffic at the old bridge is mindboggling! Have you ever been there in a lineup waiting to get through? The existing bridge was built back in the early Pleistocene Era to accommodate mastodons and sabretooths during their migrations. Things have increased a wee bit since then!

As for the definition of a loan, Canada will get a larger share of the toll revenues than it normally would to pay back the money it gave. Call it anything you like but if we get our money back, reduce the damn waiting times to cross and increase the amount of border trade then we'll be happy!

[Guest American Woman]

Of course we're pressing it, AW! The amount of traffic at the old bridge is mindboggling! Have you ever been there in a lineup waiting to get through?

Nope. I haven't driven into Canada in many years, and when I did, it wasn't at Detroit-Windsor.

The existing bridge was built back in the early Pleistocene Era to accommodate mastodons and sabretooths during their migrations. Things have increased a wee bit since then!

From what I'm reading, traffic at the three existing crossings (the bridge, tunnel, and Sarnia bridge) is down.

At any rate, it's still Canada pushing for this project. I haven't heard any reference to this being "one of the most important infrastructure projects in the history of the U.S.," nor as "the most important infrastructure project in the U.S. today." In fact, Michigan has yet to vote/approve the project.

As for the definition of a loan, Canada will get a larger share of the toll revenues than it normally would to pay back the money it gave. Call it anything you like but if we get our money back, reduce the damn waiting times to cross and increase the amount of border trade then we'll be happy!

Getting a larger portion of profits would be evidence of an investment. You even use the term "if" when you refer to getting your money back, and that's been my point. When a business goes to a bank to obtain a loan, the "repayment" terms don't consist of "payment of anticipated profits." As I pointed out, that's an investment, not a loan. If the "anticipated toll revenue" doesn't come to pass, it's Canada's loss.

But as bush_cheney pointed out, Canada wants to put an end to the private ownership of the Ambassador Bridge and crazy though it may be, it looks as if Canada will be facing a lawsuit over it: Moroun to sue over Canada's bridge offer

In a statement released this morning, Moran said Moroun's company would file a NAFTA claim against the Canadian government based on Canada’s offer made public Thursday to front Michigan’s upfront expenses for the DRIC process.

Moran added that “it is clear that the Canadian government is using its legislative power inappropriately to discriminate against an Arab-American businessman who has owned and operated the Ambassador Bridge for more than 30 years.”

[bloodyminded]

Nope. I haven't driven into Canada in many years, and when I did, it wasn't at Detroit-Windsor.

From what I'm reading, traffic at the three existing crossings (the bridge, tunnel, and Sarnia bridge) is down.

At any rate, it's still Canada pushing for this project. I haven't heard any reference to this being "one of the most important infrastructure projects in the history of the U.S.," nor as "the most important infrastructure project in the U.S. today." In fact, Michigan has yet to vote/approve the project.

Getting a larger portion of profits would be evidence of an investment. You even use the term "if" when you refer to getting your money back, and that's been my point. When a business goes to a bank to obtain a loan, the "repayment" terms don't consist of "payment of anticipated profits." As I pointed out, that's an investment, not a loan. If the "anticipated toll revenue" doesn't come to pass, it's Canada's loss.

But as bush_cheney pointed out, Canada wants to put an end to the private ownership of the Ambassador Bridge and crazy though it may be, it looks as if Canada will be facing a lawsuit over it: Moroun to sue over Canada's bridge offer

In a statement released this morning, Moran said Moroun's company would file a NAFTA claim against the Canadian government based on Canada’s offer made public Thursday to front Michigan’s upfront expenses for the DRIC process.

Moran added that “it is clear that the Canadian government is using its legislative power inappropriately to discriminate against an Arab-American businessman who has owned and operated the Ambassador Bridge for more than 30 years.”

Whether or not the suit has merit (and it may well, under NAFTA), I suspect the "discriminate against an Arab-American" part is a cheap ploy. I could be wrong, but I doubt the Canadian government is acting out of racism on this issue.

[Guest American Woman]

Whether or not the suit has merit (and it may well, under NAFTA), I suspect the "discriminate against an Arab-American" part is a cheap ploy. I could be wrong, but I doubt the Canadian government is acting out of racism on this issue.

I couldn't agree with you more about the "racism" claim; in fact I had to chuckle at the absurdity of it. Of course the Canadian government isn't acting out of racism; of that I'm sure.

The NAFTA part of the suit I'm not sure of at all as I don't know anything about how that would come into play in this instance. I wonder if at the very least it could halt the project if it gets bogged down with legal issues.

[bloodyminded]

I couldn't agree with you more about the "racism" claim; in fact I had to chuckle at the absurdity of it. Of course the Canadian government isn't acting out of racism; of that I'm sure.

The NAFTA part of the suit I'm not sure of at all as I don't know anything about how that would come into play in this instance. I wonder if at the very least it could halt the project if it gets bogged down with legal issues.

Well, clearly you are almost (almost) as ill-informed as I am on this.

[Dave_ON]

I couldn't agree with you more about the "racism" claim; in fact I had to chuckle at the absurdity of it. Of course the Canadian government isn't acting out of racism; of that I'm sure.

The NAFTA part of the suit I'm not sure of at all as I don't know anything about how that would come into play in this instance. I wonder if at the very least it could halt the project if it gets bogged down with legal issues.

We could just respond to it in much the same way Bush did to the softwood lumber dispute. Ignore it.

[Topaz]

Because of the announcement of this bridge yesterday, I listened to a Michigan radio stations and they has the Governor and the owner of the bridge on. Naturally, the Governor was pushing for the bridge and that Canada offered the money up because Michigan in still suffering from job losses etc. By Canada giving the money to Michigan, the debt will be repaid by Canada taking the tolls. Now, the owner says there no need for a new bridge because the only thing that needs to be done to the present bridge is the span itself. He only has to buy a 1/4 acres on the Michigan side vs 125 houses, 50 business and 8 non-profit business needs to be bought up. There's a movement against the location of the bridge on both sides of the border and he says it will be years yet before anything is done because it going to be tied up in court. He also, said the reason Canada is not going to reconstruct the bridge because the city of Windsor was against it, the Feds who really want the bridge had to go to another location. He also said that traffic is down on the bridge and its will cost more for a new bridge than fix the Ambassador. My view is this new bridge is part of the super highway in North America bring in all the maufacturing being done in Mexico and else where into Canada. Do we REALLY need this, who knows?

[M.Dancer]

view is this new bridge is part of the super highway in North America bring in all the maufacturing being done in Mexico and else where into Canada. Do we REALLY need this, who knows?

How else will the Illuminati deliver your tinfoil hat?

[Wild Bill]

Nope. I haven't driven into Canada in many years, and when I did, it wasn't at Detroit-Windsor.

From what I'm reading, traffic at the three existing crossings (the bridge, tunnel, and Sarnia bridge) is down.

At any rate, it's still Canada pushing for this project. I haven't heard any reference to this being "one of the most important infrastructure projects in the history of the U.S.," nor as "the most important infrastructure project in the U.S. today." In fact, Michigan has yet to vote/approve the project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_Bridge

"The Ambassador Bridge is a suspension bridge that connects Detroit, Michigan, in the United States, with Windsor, Ontario, in Canada.[1] The bridge is owned by the Detroit International Bridge Co., which is controlled by Grosse Pointe businessman Manuel "Matty" Moroun.[2] The Detroit-Windsor Tunnel also connects the two cities. A 2004 Border Transportation Partnership study showed that 150,000 jobs in the region and US$13 billion in annual production depend on the Windsor-Detroit international border crossing.[3] It is the busiest international border crossing in North America in terms of trade volume: more than 25 percent of all merchandise trade between the United States and Canada crosses the bridge."

"25% of all the merchandise trade between the United States and Canada"? Sounds pretty important to both countries, I would think. How much is that trade, anyway? Here's an American link:

http://www.buyusa.gov/canada/en/traderelationsusacanada.html

"Canada-U.S. Trade Relationship

The relationship between the United States and Canada is the closest and most extensive in the world. It is reflected in the staggering volume of bilateral trade--the equivalent of $1.5 billion a day in goods--as well as in people-to-people contact. About 300,000 people cross the shared border every day."

$1.5 BILLION A DAY! So 25% of that would be $375 MILLION EACH DAY over the Detroit bridge! Surely any delays from using a bridge built IN 1929 must hurt that trade!

I should think it obvious as 1+1=2 that a second bridge would be well worth it to both countries. It's probably the State of Michigan's financies that prevented it from happening years ago.

[dizzy]

The hyper-technical discussion about the nature of the loan aside, yes canada wants this bridge more. Greater access for the passage of trucks into the michigan means a greater flow of dollars into ontario. Canada has the financial capacity to facilitate this project and the strain of higher than average unemployment in the southwest ontario regions that surround it.