Jump to content

Windsor/Detroit bridge is a go!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then it would not be wise to seek that country's counsel on such matters. Canada can build the bridge and stop halfway across the Detroit River just to prove it can do it all by itself.

Um...we are talking about this....."creating bomb threats to get more spending on security '

We learn from the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

There was a funny segment on the January 9 episode of The Daily Show about Manny Maroon's efforts to stop the new bridge. The segment interviewed 3 Detroit residents-- a housewife, a Tea Partier, and Malik Shabbazz of the New Black Panthers. All are against the bridge. The Tea Party guy is convinced that the bridge is a "Trojan Horse" that will bring Chinese steel and "Chinamen" to Detroit; the housewife and Mr Shabbazz are convinced that despite the claims that the Canadians are paying for the bridge, Michigan will actually end up getting swindled.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently their opinions are valid by virtue of them simply having those opinions. This seems to be what our culture nowadays holds to be true. Even though anyone with two braincells to rub together to form any kind of critical thought would laugh at these idiots' completely unfounded conspiracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently their opinions are valid by virtue of them simply having those opinions. This seems to be what our culture nowadays holds to be true. Even though anyone with two braincells to rub together to form any kind of critical thought would laugh at these idiots' completely unfounded conspiracies.

As I understand it, Mr Moroun (not Maroon as I'd spelled it earlier...) has spent a fortune on advertising trying to convince Michigan residents that the bridge will be a boondoggle. The people who voted for Prop 6 obviously didn't trust the politicians who said it wouldn't cost Michigan anything. Can you blame them? It appears they thought the "Yes to Prop 6" committee was a group of concerned citizens rather than a billionaire trying to protect his monopoly. I don't think it's evidence of stupidity per se, I think it's an example of how political advertising works.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
As I understand it, Mr Moroun (not Maroon as I'd spelled it earlier...) has spent a fortune on advertising trying to convince Michigan residents that the bridge will be a boondoggle. The people who voted for Prop 6 obviously didn't trust the politicians who said it wouldn't cost Michigan anything. Can you blame them? It appears they thought the "Yes to Prop 6" committee was a group of concerned citizens rather than a billionaire trying to protect his monopoly. I don't think it's evidence of stupidity per se, I think it's an example of how political advertising works.

Proposal 6, which was rejected by the voters, sought to amend the state constitution to require a public vote regarding any international bridges or tunnels. That means it wasn't a vote on whether or not to build this bridge - simply a vote of whether or not to put such projects to the people. It was about whether or not Michiganders should have the say regarding such projects - not about whether or not they trusted politicians (or, in this instance, Canada, too) regarding this one bridge. They could have voted for proposal 6 - and then voted for the new bridge had the proposal passed; a vote for the proposal wasn't a vote against this bridge.

The three people that Jon Stewart found to poke fun at out of millions of people don't represent Michiganders, or what they think, but I don't think your presenting it as if it somehow does is evidence of stupidity per se, but evidence of a lack of knowledge regarding the issue/proposal. wink.png

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposal 6, which was rejected by the voters, sought to amend the state constitution to require a public vote regarding any international bridges or tunnels. That means it wasn't a vote on whether or not to build this bridge - simply a vote of whether or not to put such projects to the people. It was about whether or not Michiganders should have the say regarding such projects - not about whether or not they trusted politicians (or, in this instance, Canada, too) regarding this one bridge. They could have voted for proposal 6 - and then voted for the new bridge had the proposal passed; a vote for the proposal wasn't a vote against this bridge.

The three people that Jon Stewart found to poke fun at out of millions of people don't represent Michiganders, or what they think, but I don't think your presenting it as if it somehow does is evidence of stupidity per se, but evidence of a lack of knowledge regarding the issue/proposal. wink.png

While Proposal 6 would, as you say, have given the citizens a veto over international bridges and tunnels, it's clear what was going on. Mr Moroun spent $33 million out of his own pocket to boost Prop 6 and the thinking is obvious. "If I spend $33 million now to pass Prop 6, I can spend another $33 million later and get the bridge vetoed." The nature of the advertising employed-- personal attacks on the governor, flyers reading "More of your money for Detroit?" and similar things portraying the bridge project as a taxpayer gift to poor Detroit neighborhoods. So while the proposal may have been to "let the people decide", it's clear what was really being sold to the voters.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

While Proposal 6 would, as you say, have given the citizens a veto over international bridges and tunnels, it's clear what was going on. Mr Moroun spent $33 million out of his own pocket to boost Prop 6 and the thinking is obvious. "If I spend $33 million now to pass Prop 6, I can spend another $33 million later and get the bridge vetoed."

Sure, that was his thinking, his hope.

The nature of the advertising employed-- personal attacks on the governor, flyers reading "More of your money for Detroit?" and similar things portraying the bridge project as a taxpayer gift to poor Detroit neighborhoods. So while the proposal may have been to "let the people decide", it's clear what was really being sold to the voters.

Regardless of what was being sold to the voters, it doesn't mean those who voted for the proposal bought it. As I said, one could easily feel that the voters should have as much of a say as politicians, and that includes Canadian politicians, thus voting yes for the proposal - and then voting yes for the bridge, once it came to a vote. Again. This proposal was not about whether or not to build this bridge, but whether or not Michiganders should have a vote in any/all future bridges/tunnels between Michigan and Canada.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, Mr Moroun (not Maroon as I'd spelled it earlier...) has spent a fortune on advertising trying to convince Michigan residents that the bridge will be a boondoggle. The people who voted for Prop 6 obviously didn't trust the politicians who said it wouldn't cost Michigan anything. Can you blame them? It appears they thought the "Yes to Prop 6" committee was a group of concerned citizens rather than a billionaire trying to protect his monopoly. I don't think it's evidence of stupidity per se, I think it's an example of how political advertising works.

-k

I was born and raised in Windsor. Trust me. Anyone that buys into Maroun's nonsense is a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

There is a small tunnel connecting the two cities, as well as a rail connection. Neither can handle much capacity.

There is just one other bridge, the Ambassador bridge, connecting the two. A full 1% of the US GDP crosses this bridge, and if it were taken out of commission, it would do serious damage to both our economies. A single terrorist attack could destroy the bridge, and THAT is why we need a second one.

Oh I thought it was because it was privately owned (by an American) and making billions for the owner, and that they had their own bridge security rather than federal agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I thought it was because it was privately owned (by an American) and making billions for the owner, and that they had their own bridge security rather than federal agents.

They don't have their own bridge security, but the rest of what you said is true. The Department of Homeland Security took over customs for awhile. I'm not sure if they're still there at the Ambassador Bridge because I haven't lived there in years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't have their own bridge security, but the rest of what you said is true. The Department of Homeland Security took over customs for awhile. I'm not sure if they're still there at the Ambassador Bridge because I haven't lived there in years.

When did that happen

circa 2007 "The Ambassador Bridge now hires off duty Windsor Police officers and has a permanent armed, private security force which patrols the bridge 24 hours every day.

"The agency that oversees the Ambassador Bridge is spending an unsustainable $50,000 a week on private security."

Circa 2012 "In the first two threats, the tunnel and bridge were closed for as long as five hours, causing massive traffic backups while they, along with FBI agents, U.S. Customs officers and private security guards,"

Where is your evidence there is not private security, it seems you are just spouting nonsense on a poorly researched topic. Do send info on when private security ended on the bridge?

Edited by shortlived
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, as I said, I haven't lived there in years, so it seems they've started hiring private security in the last 5 years. They didn't have this before, as far as I know. And if they did, it had nothing to do with commuters crossing the bridge. Customs handles all of that. Shortly after 9/11 they would hire off-duty Windsor Police officers to park below the bridge to make sure no one would try to climb the footings or do anything stupid. But again, this has nothing to do with people travelling.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to know where the feds are getting all this money to build it. Cost right now are around 500 million but it won't be surprising if it goes a billion.Since the Tories have trouble with bids, like the F-35, I sure it will go way over. I suppose all the surplus from the EI would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Yes, I saw that on the news, US news, and the plan is to start in 2015 to build it and Canada is paying the full 2 Billion and the bridge is suppose to be done in 2020 and Canada is supposedly get its money back over time through tolls. I think its going to be many many years before that bridge is actually paid for and that not counting the borrowed money and the interest on that. I think, other than the US truckers coming over, I think it will get paid by Canadians going over more than America coming here, so American wins over another one , given by the Harper government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

.... I think it will get paid by Canadians going over more than America coming here, so American wins over another one , given by the Harper government.

If more Canadians than Americans are using it, how does America "win?" Wouldn't the "Canadians going over more" be the winners, since they are the ones using the bridge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US wins financially because the government isn't paying a dime but it gets to use it, while, if Canadians are using the bridge more than Americans, the Canadians are paying it through taxes and interest on that money, which the Canadian government doesn't have and therefore has to borrow or print more money. So, through paying the tolls to use the bridge and them having to pay through taxes, the Canadians gets hit twice and really paying for the bridge. I don't blame the US for agreeing to this, who wouldn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

The US wins financially because the government isn't paying a dime but it gets to use it, while, if Canadians are using the bridge more than Americans, the Canadians are paying it through taxes and interest on that money, which the Canadian government doesn't have and therefore has to borrow or print more money. So, through paying the tolls to use the bridge and them having to pay through taxes, the Canadians gets hit twice and really paying for the bridge. I don't blame the US for agreeing to this, who wouldn't?

But ... if Canadians are using the bridge more than Americans, that means Canadians are the ones benefiting from it more. How do I "win" because more Canadians will use a bridge than Americans?

Furthermore, what Canada is paying for will be paid back through tolls. Canadians always had to pay to cross into the U.S., so they are not "getting hit twice." They are paying to use the bridge, same as they always had to pay to use the Ambassador Bridge. When they paid that toll, it went into the pocket of the owner of the bridge. Now it will go to the Canadian government - paying Canada back for the bridge that Canada wanted - and "more Canadians than Americans" will be benefiting from by using it more frequently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...