4 ms·

Billionaire wants Michigan to reject free bridge to Canada & use his bridge

58 points by slaven 14y ago

alanpca 14y ago
I live in Windsor, so it's pretty cool to see this make HN. I don't know what will happen if they do strike this down, because we've already been working heavily on the infrastructure for this for a year. The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again. Edit: especially an international crossing that accounts for 25% of US-CAD trade.
- jkubicek 14y ago
  Does Mr. Moroun have any arguments against the bridge other than the (offensively effective), "Your grandchildren are going to pay for it?"
  - miahi 14y ago
    "... and not to my grandchildren!"
- chrischen 14y ago
  There's also a tunnel though. Who owns that?
  - aculver 14y ago
    "The tunnel is currently owned by Detroit–Windsor Tunnel LLC, which is a joint-venture between the City of Windsor and the City of Detroit, with each owning 50%." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit–Windsor_Tunnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit–Windsor_Tunnel Trucks can't go through the tunnel.
- onetwothreefour 14y ago
  Free markets at work! ;)
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  I've heard that the owner of the current bridge wants to build another one right next to it himself, but that Canada has blocked him. Is that a factor in his opposition to the Canadian funded bridge?
- alexsb92 14y ago
  When this came up on Reddit earlier today, I read that if the vote passes through and they need a majority people to vote for it, but that doesn't happen, they will make the project a federal one instead of state, so no state money would be used for this, and nobody would be able to do anything against it.
- walkon 14y ago
  > The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again. Why laughable? If the owner of the bridge does not provide good enough value and operational efficiency, then competing bridges will be received with favor instead of skepticism. If the government owns the bridge/infrastructure and does not provide acceptable value or efficiencies, it would likely be even harder to create an alternative.
  - bluedanieru 14y ago
    I just love having fifteen fucking bridges to the same fucking place.
  - kristopolous 14y ago
    If I owned the only bridge in town, I'd be giving lots of money to the people that had the power to authorize new bridges; they may even be personal friends or current employees of mine (who better to call the shots on the bridge than someone who has already built one). I'd also sign near perpetuity contracts with all the shipping firms offering them lower rates for exclusivity of my bridge. I'd push for tougher building and environmental standards so that any would-be competitor would have a larger barrier to entry and have to go through a longer approval and vetting process than I ever did. My bridge would be the one with the proximity of gas stations, factories and major roads simply because it was there first. Other bridges then wouldn't be built not because I'm offering a better service, not because the patrons are charged fair tolls, and not because the roads are clean and well maintained. No. Other bridges wouldn't be built because my friends wouldn't approve them; they would be further away from the major roads, they would have to go out and pitch to each shipping client, and face a substantially higher cost of constructions. Additionally, they would have to deal with the arguments "We already have a bridge" and all the NIMBY lawsuits that comes with it. Hell, I'd even pay for their lawyers. I'd focus on maximizing profit and making sure I remain the only game in town. When someone has the capital and motivation to effectively stop the competition from ever forming it's in their interest to do everything they can to pre-emptively do so from the start. Heck, it's probably even outlined in the initial business proposal given that addressing potential competition is such standard practice.
krichman 14y ago
Why on Earth was "greedy" in quotes in the title?
- chad_oliver 14y ago
  To avoid libel lawsuits.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  It's quoting the Canadian general counsel.
- Cogito 14y ago
  Could be a selective grab of one of Mr. Norton's quotes in the article: “The Morouns are greedy. They are manipulative. They are cynical.”
aculver 14y ago
So, this is the first I've heard of this. Are there any interesting economic details as to why the Canadians are willing to pay for the whole thing? Growing up in Hamilton, having family in Windsor, and frequently visiting the Detroit area, it was clear that the U.S. bound truck traffic heading over the Ambassador produced totally insane backups. (Similar backups regularly exist for the Blue Water Bridge a little further north in Sarnia.)
- dchichkov 14y ago
  I'd guess Canadians are interested in collecting tolls :)
- bbaker 14y ago
  The Canadian auto industry (as well as the American one) feels that the friction caused by the current congestion is slowing down their industry enough that it's worthwhile, even to pay for it in full. The gov't feels the same way. At this point, parts make many crossings as they're built into finished cars - the industry in Ontario and Michigan is completely intertwined.
the_real_plyawn 14y ago
Canada's not only paying for Michigan's $550 Million share, but also financing them and collecting back via tolls. The bridge will connect directly into motorways (the current bridge dumps you downtown) check out http://www.economist.com/node/21563756 http://www.economist.com/node/21563756
dpatru 14y ago
A common question for anarchists (people who argue that government is unnecessary) is "Who will pay for the roads?" Here we have an entrepreneur who has paid for a bridge, and the government is trying to compete with him. Government should not be in competition with business because it's based on coercion and it's inefficient. Coercion should be used only as a last resort.
- forensic 14y ago
  Because when billionaires own everything they won't be able to coerce us? Government is the ONLY entity capable of checking the power of the private oligarchs who control the majority of the world's wealth. Do anarchists have a solution for the straightforward fact that "free markets" lead to massive concentration of power in the hands of a few unaccountable billionaires?
  - jamesbritt 14y ago
    The wealthy seem to extert power by buying off governments. Reduce the power of gevernment and there'll be less for the wealthy to buy.
    - intended 14y ago
      Right, because power structures don't arise naturally from the topography of human social relationships, but from the erection of organized government. The rule that wealthy will buy of govt is not a rule. Its just an observation that is pertinent today because they adapted to the legislative system, and the legislative system didn't evolve fast enough to get away from them. The corruption and overtake of the US government is many years in the making. It isn't complete, and it is repairable and it has historical been able to achieve a stable healthy dynamic equilibrium.
    - ubernostrum 14y ago
      "Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man."

58 points by slaven 14y ago

I live in Windsor, so it's pretty cool to see this make HN. I don't know what will happen if they do strike this down, because we've already been working heavily on the infrastructure for this for a year. The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again. Edit: especially an international crossing that accounts for 25% of US-CAD trade.

jkubicek 14y ago
Does Mr. Moroun have any arguments against the bridge other than the (offensively effective), "Your grandchildren are going to pay for it?"
- miahi 14y ago
  "... and not to my grandchildren!"
chrischen 14y ago
There's also a tunnel though. Who owns that?
- aculver 14y ago
  "The tunnel is currently owned by Detroit–Windsor Tunnel LLC, which is a joint-venture between the City of Windsor and the City of Detroit, with each owning 50%." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit–Windsor_Tunnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit–Windsor_Tunnel Trucks can't go through the tunnel.
onetwothreefour 14y ago
Free markets at work! ;)
waterlesscloud 14y ago
I've heard that the owner of the current bridge wants to build another one right next to it himself, but that Canada has blocked him. Is that a factor in his opposition to the Canadian funded bridge?
alexsb92 14y ago
When this came up on Reddit earlier today, I read that if the vote passes through and they need a majority people to vote for it, but that doesn't happen, they will make the project a federal one instead of state, so no state money would be used for this, and nobody would be able to do anything against it.
walkon 14y ago
> The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again. Why laughable? If the owner of the bridge does not provide good enough value and operational efficiency, then competing bridges will be received with favor instead of skepticism. If the government owns the bridge/infrastructure and does not provide acceptable value or efficiencies, it would likely be even harder to create an alternative.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  I just love having fifteen fucking bridges to the same fucking place.
- kristopolous 14y ago
  If I owned the only bridge in town, I'd be giving lots of money to the people that had the power to authorize new bridges; they may even be personal friends or current employees of mine (who better to call the shots on the bridge than someone who has already built one). I'd also sign near perpetuity contracts with all the shipping firms offering them lower rates for exclusivity of my bridge. I'd push for tougher building and environmental standards so that any would-be competitor would have a larger barrier to entry and have to go through a longer approval and vetting process than I ever did. My bridge would be the one with the proximity of gas stations, factories and major roads simply because it was there first. Other bridges then wouldn't be built not because I'm offering a better service, not because the patrons are charged fair tolls, and not because the roads are clean and well maintained. No. Other bridges wouldn't be built because my friends wouldn't approve them; they would be further away from the major roads, they would have to go out and pitch to each shipping client, and face a substantially higher cost of constructions. Additionally, they would have to deal with the arguments "We already have a bridge" and all the NIMBY lawsuits that comes with it. Hell, I'd even pay for their lawyers. I'd focus on maximizing profit and making sure I remain the only game in town. When someone has the capital and motivation to effectively stop the competition from ever forming it's in their interest to do everything they can to pre-emptively do so from the start. Heck, it's probably even outlined in the initial business proposal given that addressing potential competition is such standard practice.

krichman 14y ago

Why on Earth was "greedy" in quotes in the title?

chad_oliver 14y ago
To avoid libel lawsuits.
anigbrowl 14y ago
It's quoting the Canadian general counsel.
Cogito 14y ago
Could be a selective grab of one of Mr. Norton's quotes in the article: “The Morouns are greedy. They are manipulative. They are cynical.”

aculver 14y ago

So, this is the first I've heard of this. Are there any interesting economic details as to why the Canadians are willing to pay for the whole thing? Growing up in Hamilton, having family in Windsor, and frequently visiting the Detroit area, it was clear that the U.S. bound truck traffic heading over the Ambassador produced totally insane backups. (Similar backups regularly exist for the Blue Water Bridge a little further north in Sarnia.)

dchichkov 14y ago
I'd guess Canadians are interested in collecting tolls :)
bbaker 14y ago
The Canadian auto industry (as well as the American one) feels that the friction caused by the current congestion is slowing down their industry enough that it's worthwhile, even to pay for it in full. The gov't feels the same way. At this point, parts make many crossings as they're built into finished cars - the industry in Ontario and Michigan is completely intertwined.

the_real_plyawn 14y ago

Canada's not only paying for Michigan's $550 Million share, but also financing them and collecting back via tolls. The bridge will connect directly into motorways (the current bridge dumps you downtown) check out http://www.economist.com/node/21563756 http://www.economist.com/node/21563756

dpatru 14y ago

A common question for anarchists (people who argue that government is unnecessary) is "Who will pay for the roads?" Here we have an entrepreneur who has paid for a bridge, and the government is trying to compete with him. Government should not be in competition with business because it's based on coercion and it's inefficient. Coercion should be used only as a last resort.

forensic 14y ago
Because when billionaires own everything they won't be able to coerce us? Government is the ONLY entity capable of checking the power of the private oligarchs who control the majority of the world's wealth. Do anarchists have a solution for the straightforward fact that "free markets" lead to massive concentration of power in the hands of a few unaccountable billionaires?
- jamesbritt 14y ago
  The wealthy seem to extert power by buying off governments. Reduce the power of gevernment and there'll be less for the wealthy to buy.
  - intended 14y ago
    Right, because power structures don't arise naturally from the topography of human social relationships, but from the erection of organized government. The rule that wealthy will buy of govt is not a rule. Its just an observation that is pertinent today because they adapted to the legislative system, and the legislative system didn't evolve fast enough to get away from them. The corruption and overtake of the US government is many years in the making. It isn't complete, and it is repairable and it has historical been able to achieve a stable healthy dynamic equilibrium.
  - ubernostrum 14y ago
    "Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man."