12 ms·

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 includi

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.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        What's pretty wild is that even though you can later uncover the corruption the deals are allowed to stand. When in fact all of the participants should end up in jail with their assets forfeited.
        cmrdporcupine 3y ago
- rapnie 3y ago
  I don't know the extent of this practice, and maybe someone from Italy can provide more info, but last summer there was a news item on Dutch TV how residents in a south-Italian town on the coast could only afford to seek solace from the heat wave by swimming in the polluted harbour area, because all of the beaches were privately-owned and charging beyond their means. And it was suggested in the news item that that holds true for large chunks of the Italian coastline.
  - giansegato 3y ago
    that's correct. most beaches in Italy are privately held, with decades-long contracts it's a huge scandal and yet very hard to solve because of the same dynamics of the bridge above: special interests, and hideous lobbying
    - Teever 3y ago
      I think a vicious PR campaign against the people doing the lobbying and the people being lobbied is a good first step in situations like this. THe public should know the names and faces of the people involved and they should associate negative and petty emotions with them. Most Canadians hve no clue about this bridge or the people like Moroun and his lawyers who are involved. These should be names that people spit on the ground when heard, there should be political cartoons and memes that satirize their faces everywhere. There should be boycotts against his businesses and the businesses of his lawyers and accountants.
- jorvi 3y ago
  > 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. Uhm, what? Toll roads are about as fair as it gets. The alternative is spreading the cost over all (national) drivers. I hate toll roads too when I encounter them, but making non-users pick up the tab for users is the actual highway robbery.
  - vetinari 3y ago
    There is also a middle ground: vignettes. Basically, only a car with a valid vignette can get on such a road, but unlike tolls, the fee is not per-trip, but valid for some time period (week, two, month, year). So in the result, only those who use (or intend to use) the toll road pay, but without the toll booths that slow everything down. The price also happens to be more reasonable.
    - hgomersall 3y ago
      I don't think toll booths are necessary anymore. Certainly the Dartford crossing doesn't use them.
  - taway_6PplYu5 3y ago
    How do you define "users"? Say something you ordered or bought in a store was shipped along that road, did you "use" it? If one of the employees of that company had to use that road to get to work, did you "use" it? one of their family members, without whose job they wouldn't have theirs? Should the owner of a toll road have to pay money back to subsidize the costs of the roads which give access to their toll road? Vehicles need to be able to get on/off the road before tolls can be collected. Or, if we apply your logic, then it is impossible for people to live in rural areas, because the cost of the roads is more than the local economy can bear. Road networks are an infrastructure investment. Since they are networks, the value comes from the entire network. What is the value of a road with no on or off ramps? Because the value is so diffisive over both space and time, the only effective way to account for and recoup the cost is through a mechanism that can take a share of the economic growth resulting from the network. i.e. taxes.
- LeifCarrotson 3y ago
  > The idea that a private individual, no matter how wealthy is able to literally exact a toll on society is ridiculous. How else do you think that individuals are able to become billionaires? They're not ten thousand times smarter or stronger or harder-working than the rest of us. Bezos is worth $180B because he's paying his warehouse drones $13.60 an hour while they run from shelf to shelf and pee in bottles, contributing value to society far in excess of the pay they're receiving. The difference is pocketed by Jeff.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Everyone else is also paying their warehouse drones $13.60 per hour and have. been doing that for decades before Amazon, and none of them are billionaires.
    - nerdbert 3y ago
      Bezos optimized the peeing-in-bottles aspect.
- taway_6PplYu5 3y ago
  > The idea that a private individual, no matter how wealthy is able to literally exact a toll on society is ridiculous. Key recent articles on how the US government is dependent on Elon Musk; how Ukraine depends on Starlink for communications, and how Elon is talking DIRECTLY AND IN PERSON to Putin, while watching Ukrainian troop movements live by monitoring Starlink usage. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-shadow-rule https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-sha... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/elon-musk-putin-colin-kahl-pentagon-ukraine-starlink-b2397109.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/elon-musk-pu... Elon Musk is “wired for war.” At least, that’s what Musk has told Walter Isaacson, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/09/elon-musk-walter-isaacson-biography/675277/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/09/elon-...
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    You're frankly spreading nonsense...Starlink remained active in Ukraine at all times. Musk only refused to activate it in Crimea, where it was never activated before because of sanctions [1]. After that, the U.S. military signed a formal contract and now decides whether to activate it or not. Musk admitted to talking to Putin a few times. But you've somehow cooked up a conspiracy of him actively monitoring Ukrainian troop movements and feeding the info back to Putin...seriously? 1- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66752264 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66752264
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      Has he admitted to talking to Putin?
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    Directly and in person?
- gnfargbl 3y ago
  I really struggle to understand the mindset of people like Manuel. He was already obscenely rich, to the level where gaining additional resources must have been useless to him. He had surely already discharged any responsibility he might have to provide for his future descendants. What did he gain by attempting to protect his investment in this way? He made the world a bit worse, and in doing so gained... absolutely nothing of any practical utility. Why bother?
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    > He was already obscenely rich, to the level where gaining additional resources must have been useless to him. You could have said the same thing when he was worth $50 million instead of a billionaire. For people like that, the mindset is endless growth at all costs...that's why they still turn up to work despite having money to live like kings for multiple lifetimes.
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      $50 million is enough for you and maybe a few descendants to live comfortably for the rest of your lives, but certainly not an amount of money where you'll be able to do anything you want for perpetuity. You probably won't even be able to buy a superyacht comfortably, and a megayacht is absolutely out of your reach. For that you need to be a billionaire
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    I’m not being hyperbolic here, in my experience with the super rich there area few common things: 1. They don’t have to do anything they don’t want to so generally have a relative lack of empathy 2. just a few notches above average intelligence but are rarely “genius” 3. They live in mental/emotional bubbles and almost never spend time with “regular” people doing things like shopping, cooking, sitting in traffic or using the infrastructure that unwashed use That means they can think far enough in the future about “macro“ trends (which don’t really exist), while also fucking over everybody in the process because they don’t have to even experience any of the “externalities” that their actions take. They see themselves as kings and better educated, more traveled, more cosmopolitan etc… so it’s purely ego
- mistermo 3y ago
  In France those are built by the government, then loaned to their friends...
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?

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.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        What's pretty wild is that even though you can later uncover the corruption the deals are allowed to stand. When in fact all of the participants should end up in jail with their assets forfeited.
        cmrdporcupine 3y ago
rapnie 3y ago
I don't know the extent of this practice, and maybe someone from Italy can provide more info, but last summer there was a news item on Dutch TV how residents in a south-Italian town on the coast could only afford to seek solace from the heat wave by swimming in the polluted harbour area, because all of the beaches were privately-owned and charging beyond their means. And it was suggested in the news item that that holds true for large chunks of the Italian coastline.
- giansegato 3y ago
  that's correct. most beaches in Italy are privately held, with decades-long contracts it's a huge scandal and yet very hard to solve because of the same dynamics of the bridge above: special interests, and hideous lobbying
  - Teever 3y ago
    I think a vicious PR campaign against the people doing the lobbying and the people being lobbied is a good first step in situations like this. THe public should know the names and faces of the people involved and they should associate negative and petty emotions with them. Most Canadians hve no clue about this bridge or the people like Moroun and his lawyers who are involved. These should be names that people spit on the ground when heard, there should be political cartoons and memes that satirize their faces everywhere. There should be boycotts against his businesses and the businesses of his lawyers and accountants.
jorvi 3y ago
> 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. Uhm, what? Toll roads are about as fair as it gets. The alternative is spreading the cost over all (national) drivers. I hate toll roads too when I encounter them, but making non-users pick up the tab for users is the actual highway robbery.
- vetinari 3y ago
  There is also a middle ground: vignettes. Basically, only a car with a valid vignette can get on such a road, but unlike tolls, the fee is not per-trip, but valid for some time period (week, two, month, year). So in the result, only those who use (or intend to use) the toll road pay, but without the toll booths that slow everything down. The price also happens to be more reasonable.
  - hgomersall 3y ago
    I don't think toll booths are necessary anymore. Certainly the Dartford crossing doesn't use them.
- taway_6PplYu5 3y ago
  How do you define "users"? Say something you ordered or bought in a store was shipped along that road, did you "use" it? If one of the employees of that company had to use that road to get to work, did you "use" it? one of their family members, without whose job they wouldn't have theirs? Should the owner of a toll road have to pay money back to subsidize the costs of the roads which give access to their toll road? Vehicles need to be able to get on/off the road before tolls can be collected. Or, if we apply your logic, then it is impossible for people to live in rural areas, because the cost of the roads is more than the local economy can bear. Road networks are an infrastructure investment. Since they are networks, the value comes from the entire network. What is the value of a road with no on or off ramps? Because the value is so diffisive over both space and time, the only effective way to account for and recoup the cost is through a mechanism that can take a share of the economic growth resulting from the network. i.e. taxes.
LeifCarrotson 3y ago
> The idea that a private individual, no matter how wealthy is able to literally exact a toll on society is ridiculous. How else do you think that individuals are able to become billionaires? They're not ten thousand times smarter or stronger or harder-working than the rest of us. Bezos is worth $180B because he's paying his warehouse drones $13.60 an hour while they run from shelf to shelf and pee in bottles, contributing value to society far in excess of the pay they're receiving. The difference is pocketed by Jeff.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Everyone else is also paying their warehouse drones $13.60 per hour and have. been doing that for decades before Amazon, and none of them are billionaires.
  - nerdbert 3y ago
    Bezos optimized the peeing-in-bottles aspect.
taway_6PplYu5 3y ago
> The idea that a private individual, no matter how wealthy is able to literally exact a toll on society is ridiculous. Key recent articles on how the US government is dependent on Elon Musk; how Ukraine depends on Starlink for communications, and how Elon is talking DIRECTLY AND IN PERSON to Putin, while watching Ukrainian troop movements live by monitoring Starlink usage. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-shadow-rule https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-sha... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/elon-musk-putin-colin-kahl-pentagon-ukraine-starlink-b2397109.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/elon-musk-pu... Elon Musk is “wired for war.” At least, that’s what Musk has told Walter Isaacson, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/09/elon-musk-walter-isaacson-biography/675277/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/09/elon-...
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  You're frankly spreading nonsense...Starlink remained active in Ukraine at all times. Musk only refused to activate it in Crimea, where it was never activated before because of sanctions [1]. After that, the U.S. military signed a formal contract and now decides whether to activate it or not. Musk admitted to talking to Putin a few times. But you've somehow cooked up a conspiracy of him actively monitoring Ukrainian troop movements and feeding the info back to Putin...seriously? 1- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66752264 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66752264
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    Has he admitted to talking to Putin?
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  Directly and in person?
gnfargbl 3y ago
I really struggle to understand the mindset of people like Manuel. He was already obscenely rich, to the level where gaining additional resources must have been useless to him. He had surely already discharged any responsibility he might have to provide for his future descendants. What did he gain by attempting to protect his investment in this way? He made the world a bit worse, and in doing so gained... absolutely nothing of any practical utility. Why bother?
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  > He was already obscenely rich, to the level where gaining additional resources must have been useless to him. You could have said the same thing when he was worth $50 million instead of a billionaire. For people like that, the mindset is endless growth at all costs...that's why they still turn up to work despite having money to live like kings for multiple lifetimes.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    $50 million is enough for you and maybe a few descendants to live comfortably for the rest of your lives, but certainly not an amount of money where you'll be able to do anything you want for perpetuity. You probably won't even be able to buy a superyacht comfortably, and a megayacht is absolutely out of your reach. For that you need to be a billionaire
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I’m not being hyperbolic here, in my experience with the super rich there area few common things: 1. They don’t have to do anything they don’t want to so generally have a relative lack of empathy 2. just a few notches above average intelligence but are rarely “genius” 3. They live in mental/emotional bubbles and almost never spend time with “regular” people doing things like shopping, cooking, sitting in traffic or using the infrastructure that unwashed use That means they can think far enough in the future about “macro“ trends (which don’t really exist), while also fucking over everybody in the process because they don’t have to even experience any of the “externalities” that their actions take. They see themselves as kings and better educated, more traveled, more cosmopolitan etc… so it’s purely ego
mistermo 3y ago
In France those are built by the government, then loaned to their friends...

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?