Kirk Steudle, the director of the Michigan Department of Transportation, isn’t a politician. He‘s a engineer and a career political servant who has been with MDOT since 1987. He isn’t in the business of courting controversy; he just calls them as he sees them, whether the politicians like it or not.
This week, he told the legislature it was significantly underfunding our highway system, and, as a result, we can expect to see our roads swiftly deteriorate. And last week, he asked the lawmakers to do something that was very unpopular with the Ambassador Bridge Company.
MDOT wants the legislature to approve financing for the opening phase of the proposed internationally-owned Detroit River International Crossing bridge between the United States and Canada. MDOT’s director says extra capacity is needed, and that the way to go is with a modern bridge, built with both public and private funds, but jointly managed and inspected by both nations. Governor Jennifer Granholm supports the DRIC bridge. So do the governments of Windsor, Ontario and Canada, and most Michigan business interests.
But one man doesn‘t support it: Manuel J. “Matty” Moroun, the sole owner of the Ambassador Bridge. He wants to do everything he can to stop the DRIC bridge from being built. Instead, he wants to build a second span next to his old bridge, which was built in 1929 and has serious signs of wear. Environmentalists think putting two bridges in the same place would be a poor idea, and it makes little sense from the standpoint of traffic patterns.
The government of Canada is refusing to give him the necessary permits. But he isn’t giving up. Right now, he is focused on preventing the other bridge from happening. Moroun has never been shy about spreading campaign donations around, and he has his champions in the Michigan Legislature -- principally, State Sen. Alan Cropsey, who argues that Michigan doesn’t have the money to spend on a bridge, and this should be left to the private sector.
That argument might have some merit, except for two important considerations. This isn’t merely about a bridge, but the United States and Canada’s most important international crossing. More than a hundred billion dollars in trade flows across the river every year. To allow one private citizen to have complete control over that makes no sense.
For years, Mr. Moroun refused to allow either nation to thoroughly inspect his bridge. The Ambassador is also old, and has many well-documented security concerns.
Additionally, Matty Moroun has been anything but a poster child for good citizenship. Last week, a Wayne County Circuit Court judge ruled that he had illegally constructed a duty-free store and gasoline pumps on property owned by the City of Detroit -- and ordered him to tear them down. The U.S. government is suing his company for improperly referring to itself as a “federal instrumentality.”
And late last year, another Wayne County judge found that Moroun had illegally occupied part of the City of Detroit’s Riverside Park and ordered his company to leave. Yet the Ambassador Bridge Company hasn’t left the park, and is now belatedly appealing.
If our lawmakers exercise even the smallest amount of common sense, and have even the slightest desire to protect Michigan’s most important trading connection, doing the right thing about building a new bridge should be crystal clear.
Gee Jack, why doesn't Mr. Steudle take Moroun up on his $400M toll credits to get $1.6B in federal matching grants for Michigan roads and bridges.
Actually Jack, the Ambassador Bridge's project is the Governor's #1 priority but for Canada.
Seriously, you cannot be supporting P3 rip-offs of taxpayers! Oh my.
Here are the facts Jack.
The Governments could have bought the Bridge from Buffett for $30M plus a dollar, but did not.
The Governments did not build up the business to make it the #1 border crossing in North America. Moroun did.
The Governments twinned the Blue Water Bridge and kept tolls low there for years to take business away from him but screwed up the plaza design so that MDOT has to spend a half billion dollars to fix it. (They just raised their tolls too by the way) Instead, Moroun takes business from them because he does not have the truck line-ups they do.
He and MDOT formed a "true" public/private partnership to build the Ambassador Gateway project which was designed to accommodate a second bridge. Moroun has spent $500M of his money so far on doing what all the Governments expected him to do since the 1990's: build his bridge.
Now the Governments want to change the rules mid-stream and want to terrorize him so that he will sell out cheaply.
Jack, I wonder if you would turn the other cheek and knuckle under. Clearly he won't!
Posted by: JoeBlog | February 18, 2010 at 08:42 PM
JoeBlog,
'Why doesn't Mr. Steudle take Moroun up on his $400M toll credits to get $1.6B in federal matching grants for Michigan roads and bridges?'
That won't solve the underlying problem, just be a short term gain for Michigan and a long-term gain for Moroun.
"He said it also was unlikely that MDOT would take Moroun up on his offer for two reasons: His requirement that MDOT drop out of the DRIC project and the reluctance of Moroun to open his books to the federal government.
From The Detroit News:
"(Shreck) said it also was unlikely that MDOT would take Moroun up on his offer for two reasons: His requirement that MDOT drop out of the DRIC project and the reluctance of Moroun to open his books to the federal government."
http://tinyurl.com/yj3d7fb
'The Governments could have bought the Bridge from Buffett for $30M plus a dollar, but did not.
The Governments did not build up the business to make it the #1 border crossing in North America. Moroun did.'
It was a different world back then, and different people were in charge. These statements are straw men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) and you should be ashamed of yourself.
'Moroun has spent $500M of his money so far on doing what all the Governments expected him to do since the 1990's: build his bridge.'
Considering the Ambassador Bridge makes at least $60M a year, that's not very surprising. It also has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever, unless you really want to get into a discussion on maintenance.
Oh, wait, we can't, because that data isn't public knowledge.
'Now the Governments want to change the rules mid-stream and want to terrorize him so that he will sell out cheaply.'
This statement is what makes me think you're just a shill. Boo-hoo, Moroun is being terrorized? 'Matty' is the Lex Luthor wanna-be in this situation.
He's gone after Representative Tlaib via Mongo & Associates.
He's fenced off publicly owned land, citing weak security concerns.
He's so bad that his -sisters- took him to court.
"We receive no remuneration from Centra at all, while my brother takes millions out of the corporation our father founded and built for all of his children and grandchildren," - Court Statement of Victoria Baks
Such a shame, too. History is not going to treat Matty very well.
Posted by: David Sahlin | February 18, 2010 at 10:11 PM
MDOT needs money now. Even the Governor in her SOS speech wants the toll credits. Do you honestly expect anyone to finance a competitor?
Same world chum. Canada has beeen trying for almost 50 years to take over the Ambassador Bridge, long before Moroun owned it.
Actually, his spending of $500M has everything to do with it! He had the support of Governments to move forward, spent his money and now the Governments say NO! Maybe that is fair in your world but not in mine.
His bridge condition is public knowledge. The Tunnel's, as an example, is not and it is about the same age as the Bridge. Why aren't you and Congressman Dingell upset about that and demanding immediate disclosure for the safety of the public?
There is an effort being made to take away his business using the power of the State eg IBTA was enacted specifically against him. It would not matter who the owner of the Bridge was, the effort would be the same. That does bother me.
Please excuse if I do not reply to the ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: JoeBlog | February 18, 2010 at 10:40 PM
Jack, you better make a clarification ASAP.
I assume that it is was merely sloppy writing but you have suggested that Senator Cropsey took money from Moroun and that is why he is opposing DRIC.
As you well know he opposes it calling it a "boondoggle."
Perhaps you should write what you did in the Toledo Blade
"What motivates the other enemy of a new bridge is more baffling, however. He is Michigan Senate Majority Leader Alan Cropsey (R., DeWitt) whose Lansing-area district is far removed from the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit River.
Mr. Moroun has been known to donate heavily to the campaigns of politicians he wants to influence. But it isn't clear that he has been a big donor to Mr. Cropsey, who, because of term limits, must leave the Senate at the end of this year."
Posted by: Clarification needed | February 19, 2010 at 08:05 AM