4 ms·

I live in Detroit. While this is currently true, the publicly owned Gordie Howe International Bridge should open in 2025: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordie

by cebert 3y ago

I live in Detroit. While this is currently true, the publicly owned Gordie Howe International Bridge should open in 2025: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordie_Howe_International_Bridge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordie_Howe_International_Br....

theluketaylor 3y ago
It was fought tooth and nail by Moroun every step of the way, which is one of the reasons the Canadian federal government is paying for the whole bridge including the changes to I-75. Moroun got several US funding bills killed and nearly succeeded in preventing the Canadian government from picking up the tab. I've never seen a stronger case for ensuring public ownership of key infrastructure in all cases, otherwise you can end up in a situation where two giant economies are held hostage by one person. It's also a cautionary tale on the dangers of special interests and lobbying being able to stifle action so clearly in the public interest.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Yes, this is exactly on point. Moroun clearly tried to not only protect his investment but did so by disadvantaging the general public. "Manuel Moroun, owner of the Ambassador Bridge until his death in 2020, spoke out against this proposal. He sued the governments of Canada and Michigan to stop its construction, and released a proposal to build a second span of the Ambassador Bridge (which he would own) instead.[38] Critics suggest that Moroun's opposition was fueled by the prospect of lost profits from duty-free gasoline sales, which are exempt from about 60 cents per gallon in taxes even though the pump price to consumers is only a few cents lower.[11] On May 5, 2011, a judge dismissed the case, citing a lack of reasoning for it to proceed.[39] Moroun and his Detroit International Bridge Company contended that the new bridge would affect its proposal for a second span which would be built next to the Ambassador Bridge. " The idea that a private individual, no matter how wealthy is able to literally exact a toll on society is ridiculous. In Europe we also still have a few toll bridges and tunnels, as well as many toll roads (for instance: in Poland and France). Most of these, but not all, are in the hands of various governments. I can't wait until this particular form of highway robbery disappears. Oh, and Germany re-enacted something similar but only for tourists. They first got slapped down in court then reduced the German road tax to be able to apply the tax on 'everybody' but in practice that means that it is just a levy on foreign traffic.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It's really only because "we don't care enough" - when the rubber hits the road (literally) things like that get steamrolled and nationalized quite quickly. But we're "so rich" that a few billionaire parasites doesn't amount to much, and so we let the legal fiction continue.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    Meanwhile, in an effort to control traffic congestion, certain US states are building privately owned toll roads, which siphon away maintenance taxes that could benefit local road repair.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      We've had this in Ontario for over a couple decades in the form of the 407, which has eye watering tolls that I don't think any Americans can understand (certainly Google maps doesn't, as it suggests navigation routes on it just to save 2 or 3 minutes, but which cost $40, $50 CAD). It's owned by Spanish consortium, and was sold by a previous conservative gov't for a fraction of what it's made in profit, since.
      - btbuildem 3y ago
        It boggles the mind that the crooks that sold it walk free today.
        cmrdporcupine 3y ago
        The current premier's dad was in that gov't. Ontario don't care, it seems. Canadians just bend over and take it. Around here (Flamborough, outside of Hamilton/Burlington) there's a whole layer of people who rant and rant and rant about being amalgamated into Hamilton. Except those same people who rant about it, are almost all conservative voters. And it was the conservatives under Harris who forced that amalgamation. It boggles the mind, the short memory people have.
- abduhl 3y ago
  Note that the new bridge is a Public-Private Partnership (P3) job. It's basically owned by the private companies that are building the bridge for a number of years and the toll revenue goes to them. After the set amount of years, it is transferred back to the government.
  - theluketaylor 3y ago
    The delivery and operation is P3, but the ownership remains firmly public. It will belong to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority which is a Canadian Crown corporation controlled by Parliament. The consortium will get funding from the tolls, but that is specifically for running the operations and maintenance.
    - abduhl 3y ago
      A bridge that is operated and maintained by a private party for 30+ years and whose tolls also go to that private party is, for all intents and purposes, owned by that private party for those 3+ decades. WDBA's ownership and oversight is a legal fiction - they have no way to displace the private company without compensating them absent gross mismanagement by the private company, and even that would be stalled in court.
      - theluketaylor 3y ago
        30 years on a design lifespan of 100+ years. If it were a 99 year lease on like the disaster that is the 407 I'd agree with you, but in this case the contract is well short of lifespan.
        abduhl 3y ago
        A rich and famous man at a fancy dinner party says to a young woman seated next to him, “Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?” “You know," she giggles, "I think I would.” “Would you sleep with me for 50 dollars?" "Really, what kind of a woman do think I am?" “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling about the price.”
- PaywallBuster 3y ago
  Looking at the wiki, looks like the government failed to start a bridge or tunnel for over 100 years so is it wrong that an individual risked millions of his own money for a "public service" ? > ... construction of a tunnel under the river ... Construction started in 1871 and continued until ventilating equipment failed the next year; work was soon abandoned
  - arp242 3y ago
    > so is it wrong that an individual risked millions of his own money for a "public service" ? No, nothing wrong with that. The problem is when that person tries to stop any "competition" (e.g. a new bridge). Infrastructure like roads and bridges aren't "just" a business, they're needed for basic economics and trade to function. "We invested in this bridge a 100 years ago so now no one can build a new bridge in the general area until the end of times" is nothing short of delusional. When people complain about "capitalism" what they usually mean isn't the basic concept, but this kind of hyper-narcissistic money-grabbing wankery.
    - PaywallBuster 3y ago
      nothing wrong with protecting one's investments its kind of the government's fault for having many ways it can be "corrupted" or that politics are inefficient and too slow to move (having a new bridge approved and built) Canada managed to go through with it
- ta988 3y ago
  The new feodalism. We let space,transport housing, land and more in the hands of the lords. And they are building their bunkers and moats and private armies.
- mcguirep 3y ago
  The Canadian government is paying for it in the sense that they're advancing the US federal government and Michigan the money that will be collected from tolls for using the new bridge. Canada will be paid back, as everyone agreed in the first place. Whatever I think of Moroun, he had very little to do with the necessity of doing that when this bridge was being proposed and planned in the mid 2010s, as Michigan had serious budget problems from the 2008 Great Recession.
- adolph 3y ago
  I've never seen a stronger case for ensuring public ownership of key infrastructure in all cases, otherwise you can end up in a situation where two giant economies are held hostage by one person. This doesn’t make sense to me. Presumably some entity more specific than the “public” would be responsible for such a work. It would still require a toll in order to exist in a revenue positive way. It would need to be revenue positive in order to build a future replacement. What difference does it make if the entity is controlled by something called an “agency” or by a “company?” Are the various entities chartered by government somehow immune to turf battles and protection of proprietary interests?
  - adolph 3y ago
    Since people don’t like the above question here is another: Should Canada pay for more of a publicly owned bridge than the US since the trade traversing the bridge represents more of that country’s total trade?
ape4 3y ago
In case you aren't a hockey fan - naming the bridge after Gordie Howe is perfect. Besides being a great player with nickname "Mr Hockey" he was born in Canada but played most of his career just over the bridge in Detroit. And he was strong like bridge.
gspencley 3y ago
I live on the other side of the river in Windsor. I came here to say exactly that. I don't know how it is in Detroit but on this side Manuel Moroun is (was) reviled because he bought up a lot of residential property near the bridge, presumably for planned expansions (I don't know the details) which never happened so all of those houses are just boarded up and rotting. Crime and decay in that area is very high and this is surrounding a major port of entry into Canada. Not only is it so wasteful and destructive, but it's also not a great way to welcome people to our country. From what I gather, Manuel was kind of a "fuck you I'll do what I want" personality and never really wanted to work with municipalities to find mutually beneficial solutions. So the planned replacement has been in the works for quite a long time and is planned to complete and open soon.

by cebert 3y ago

theluketaylor 3y ago

It was fought tooth and nail by Moroun every step of the way, which is one of the reasons the Canadian federal government is paying for the whole bridge including the changes to I-75. Moroun got several US funding bills killed and nearly succeeded in preventing the Canadian government from picking up the tab. I've never seen a stronger case for ensuring public ownership of key infrastructure in all cases, otherwise you can end up in a situation where two giant economies are held hostage by one person. It's also a cautionary tale on the dangers of special interests and lobbying being able to stifle action so clearly in the public interest.

jacquesm 3y ago
Yes, this is exactly on point. Moroun clearly tried to not only protect his investment but did so by disadvantaging the general public. "Manuel Moroun, owner of the Ambassador Bridge until his death in 2020, spoke out against this proposal. He sued the governments of Canada and Michigan to stop its construction, and released a proposal to build a second span of the Ambassador Bridge (which he would own) instead.[38] Critics suggest that Moroun's opposition was fueled by the prospect of lost profits from duty-free gasoline sales, which are exempt from about 60 cents per gallon in taxes even though the pump price to consumers is only a few cents lower.[11] On May 5, 2011, a judge dismissed the case, citing a lack of reasoning for it to proceed.[39] Moroun and his Detroit International Bridge Company contended that the new bridge would affect its proposal for a second span which would be built next to the Ambassador Bridge. " The idea that a private individual, no matter how wealthy is able to literally exact a toll on society is ridiculous. In Europe we also still have a few toll bridges and tunnels, as well as many toll roads (for instance: in Poland and France). Most of these, but not all, are in the hands of various governments. I can't wait until this particular form of highway robbery disappears. Oh, and Germany re-enacted something similar but only for tourists. They first got slapped down in court then reduced the German road tax to be able to apply the tax on 'everybody' but in practice that means that it is just a levy on foreign traffic.
- bombcar 3y ago
  It's really only because "we don't care enough" - when the rubber hits the road (literally) things like that get steamrolled and nationalized quite quickly. But we're "so rich" that a few billionaire parasites doesn't amount to much, and so we let the legal fiction continue.
- tomrod 3y ago
  Meanwhile, in an effort to control traffic congestion, certain US states are building privately owned toll roads, which siphon away maintenance taxes that could benefit local road repair.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    We've had this in Ontario for over a couple decades in the form of the 407, which has eye watering tolls that I don't think any Americans can understand (certainly Google maps doesn't, as it suggests navigation routes on it just to save 2 or 3 minutes, but which cost $40, $50 CAD). It's owned by Spanish consortium, and was sold by a previous conservative gov't for a fraction of what it's made in profit, since.
    - btbuildem 3y ago
      It boggles the mind that the crooks that sold it walk free today.
      - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
        The current premier's dad was in that gov't. Ontario don't care, it seems. Canadians just bend over and take it. Around here (Flamborough, outside of Hamilton/Burlington) there's a whole layer of people who rant and rant and rant about being amalgamated into Hamilton. Except those same people who rant about it, are almost all conservative voters. And it was the conservatives under Harris who forced that amalgamation. It boggles the mind, the short memory people have.
abduhl 3y ago
Note that the new bridge is a Public-Private Partnership (P3) job. It's basically owned by the private companies that are building the bridge for a number of years and the toll revenue goes to them. After the set amount of years, it is transferred back to the government.
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  The delivery and operation is P3, but the ownership remains firmly public. It will belong to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority which is a Canadian Crown corporation controlled by Parliament. The consortium will get funding from the tolls, but that is specifically for running the operations and maintenance.
  - abduhl 3y ago
    A bridge that is operated and maintained by a private party for 30+ years and whose tolls also go to that private party is, for all intents and purposes, owned by that private party for those 3+ decades. WDBA's ownership and oversight is a legal fiction - they have no way to displace the private company without compensating them absent gross mismanagement by the private company, and even that would be stalled in court.
    - theluketaylor 3y ago
      30 years on a design lifespan of 100+ years. If it were a 99 year lease on like the disaster that is the 407 I'd agree with you, but in this case the contract is well short of lifespan.
      - abduhl 3y ago
        A rich and famous man at a fancy dinner party says to a young woman seated next to him, “Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?” “You know," she giggles, "I think I would.” “Would you sleep with me for 50 dollars?" "Really, what kind of a woman do think I am?" “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling about the price.”
PaywallBuster 3y ago
Looking at the wiki, looks like the government failed to start a bridge or tunnel for over 100 years so is it wrong that an individual risked millions of his own money for a "public service" ? > ... construction of a tunnel under the river ... Construction started in 1871 and continued until ventilating equipment failed the next year; work was soon abandoned
- arp242 3y ago
  > so is it wrong that an individual risked millions of his own money for a "public service" ? No, nothing wrong with that. The problem is when that person tries to stop any "competition" (e.g. a new bridge). Infrastructure like roads and bridges aren't "just" a business, they're needed for basic economics and trade to function. "We invested in this bridge a 100 years ago so now no one can build a new bridge in the general area until the end of times" is nothing short of delusional. When people complain about "capitalism" what they usually mean isn't the basic concept, but this kind of hyper-narcissistic money-grabbing wankery.
  - PaywallBuster 3y ago
    nothing wrong with protecting one's investments its kind of the government's fault for having many ways it can be "corrupted" or that politics are inefficient and too slow to move (having a new bridge approved and built) Canada managed to go through with it
ta988 3y ago
The new feodalism. We let space,transport housing, land and more in the hands of the lords. And they are building their bunkers and moats and private armies.
mcguirep 3y ago
The Canadian government is paying for it in the sense that they're advancing the US federal government and Michigan the money that will be collected from tolls for using the new bridge. Canada will be paid back, as everyone agreed in the first place. Whatever I think of Moroun, he had very little to do with the necessity of doing that when this bridge was being proposed and planned in the mid 2010s, as Michigan had serious budget problems from the 2008 Great Recession.
adolph 3y ago
I've never seen a stronger case for ensuring public ownership of key infrastructure in all cases, otherwise you can end up in a situation where two giant economies are held hostage by one person. This doesn’t make sense to me. Presumably some entity more specific than the “public” would be responsible for such a work. It would still require a toll in order to exist in a revenue positive way. It would need to be revenue positive in order to build a future replacement. What difference does it make if the entity is controlled by something called an “agency” or by a “company?” Are the various entities chartered by government somehow immune to turf battles and protection of proprietary interests?
- adolph 3y ago
  Since people don’t like the above question here is another: Should Canada pay for more of a publicly owned bridge than the US since the trade traversing the bridge represents more of that country’s total trade?

ape4 3y ago

In case you aren't a hockey fan - naming the bridge after Gordie Howe is perfect. Besides being a great player with nickname "Mr Hockey" he was born in Canada but played most of his career just over the bridge in Detroit. And he was strong like bridge.

gspencley 3y ago

I live on the other side of the river in Windsor. I came here to say exactly that. I don't know how it is in Detroit but on this side Manuel Moroun is (was) reviled because he bought up a lot of residential property near the bridge, presumably for planned expansions (I don't know the details) which never happened so all of those houses are just boarded up and rotting. Crime and decay in that area is very high and this is surrounding a major port of entry into Canada. Not only is it so wasteful and destructive, but it's also not a great way to welcome people to our country. From what I gather, Manuel was kind of a "fuck you I'll do what I want" personality and never really wanted to work with municipalities to find mutually beneficial solutions. So the planned replacement has been in the works for quite a long time and is planned to complete and open soon.