Ambassador Bridge owner Moroun's son: Taxpayers would be 'annihilated' by Rick Snyder's bridge
The debate over a legislative proposal that would authorize a public-private partnership to build a new bridge spanning the Detroit River is defined by misinformation.
Both sides agree on that.
Which side is perpetuating the misinformation? That's where the disagreement starts — and it's a bitter one.
Matthew Moroun, vice chairman of the company that owns the Ambassador Bridge
Fox 2 photo via MLive.com
Under the deal — which is supported by most major Michigan businesses and several unions — Canada's portion would be repaid using toll money, supporters say.
Supporters, including all the major auto companies, say the bridge is necessary to handle projections of increased truck traffic that, in turn, support thousands of jobs in the Ann Arbor region and the rest of southeast Michigan.
But the family that operates the existing private crossing over the river, the Detroit International Bridge Co.'s Ambassador Bridge, has waged a TV advertising campaign asserting that a new bridge would lose billions for the state.
And Matthew Moroun, vice chairman of the bridge company owned by his father, Manuel "Matty" Moroun, told AnnArbor.com in an interview that a public-private bridge would "annihilate" taxpayers.
Snyder and State Sen. Randy Richardville, who last week introduced a bill that would authorize a public-private partnership to build and operate the bridge, have said the bill won't allow state funds to be spent.
But Matthew Moroun said that's not possible — and, so far, Republicans in the Michigan Legislature have blocked the public-private bridge, saying they're concerned about its financial viability and about introducing competition for an existing privately owned bridge.
"A private investor is only interested in investing money if they have a chance to succeed, and the numbers don’t allow a private sector company to invest money in this project and have a chance of succeeding without government subsidy or guarantee," he said.
Matthew Moroun spoke Thursday with AnnArbor.com's Nathan Bomey. Excerpts from that conversation:
AnnArbor.com: Are you concerned that the Canadians’ offer to Michigan is going to convince the legislative Republicans to approve the public-private partnership?
Matthew Moroun: No.
AnnArbor.com: Why?
Matthew Moroun: While $550 million is definitely a lot of money, it’s not enough to build a $2 billion bridge. The Canadians want to get paid back someday, somehow, and it’s pretty clear that the tolls on the bridge aren’t enough to pay for the remaining portion of the bridge, let alone pay back the Canadians.
So, what’s another $500 million in debt? A lot of people are against adding a government debt right now.
Lansing lawmakers are debating the prospect of a second bridge spanning the Detroit River and connecting the Motor City with Windsor. The Ambassador Bridge, which currently crosses the river, is seen above.
Photo courtesy of VideoVik via Flickr
AnnArbor.com: Snyder and Richardville say that the new legislation would prevent the state from using state dollars. Is that your read of it?
Moroun: The business economics are against them despite what they put in the legislation. And a careful reading of the bill discusses that there will still be availability payments, which are government subsidies.
So technically the bill still allows for Michigan taxpayer money to be involved, and business economics scream that there’s no way possible for it not to be involved.
AnnArbor.com: But how can a bridge that’s built and operated by a private company end up costing the state dollars? Supporters of the public-private bridge say that if the private company goes over budget, it’s their problem.
Moroun: Sure it’s their problem. But a private investor is only interested in investing money if they have a chance to succeed, and the numbers don’t allow a private sector company to invest money in this project and have a chance of succeeding without government subsidy or guarantee.
AnnArbor.com: Tell me about your plan and why your bridge proposal is the way the state should go.
Moroun: First of all, the Ambassador Bridge was built without any government sponsorship resources or taxpayer money and we did that in the 1920s. If we could do that in the ‘20s, why has our country regressed — and I don’t believe it has — to the point where we can’t do that again? We obviously can.
Gov. Rick Snyder — speaking to reporters at a press conference last week on the porch of Mackinac Island's Grand Hotel at the Detroit Regional Chamber's Mackinac Policy Conference — holds up a copy of Lawrence Rubin's "Bridging the Straits: The Story of Mighty Mac." The book tells the story of how Mackinac Bridge opponents said it would destroy jobs and lose money, which, Snyder said, parallels the claims of opponents of a new bridge crossing the Detroit River.
Nathan Bomey | AnnArbor.com
We’ve done the preparation over the last decade. We’ve got the plans. We are ready to go. There’s more red tape to cut, which is OK, because the truth is traffic is down this year over last year anyway, so it wouldn’t be bad, while we’re cutting through the red tape, to get that traffic increased a little bit while we’re doing it. And I don’t know that it would, but that would be the hope.
It wouldn’t be a government-sponsored enterprise. It would be a pure private sector enterprise, and since we’ve already spent so much money on preparation, land acquisition, plazas, etc., the price tag drops from $2 billion to somewhere between $400 and $500 million.
Now, we can take the maintenance expense that we currently plow into our existing bridge to keep it in good shape and put it into a new span that is built at a shorter distance across the river, isn’t built at a diagonal and is only the span.
So it makes sense. That would happen in a few years. I see getting through the red tape as being another year or so. And getting through the design plans and so on as a little bit more time.
But hopefully during that time, traffic increases. I don’t know if it will. And of course, if traffic was to drop all the more, then that would even give us pause on a much more economical and reasonable plan.
AnnArbor.com: Do you agree with the projections on increased trucking traffic that the government has issued?
Moroun: No. And nobody does. They’re not even close. MDOT came out with traffic projections in 2003. They projected what traffic would be at the Ambassador Bridge over the next 30 years. In 2004 they were wrong, in 2005 they were wrong, ’06, ’07, ’08, ’09 and ’10 they were wrong.
And they weren’t wrong by a few thousand vehicles. They were wrong by millions of vehicles.
AnnArbor.com: Canada has essentially refused to agree to allow your bridge to lead to the part in Windsor that it would lead.
Moroun: Not true.
AnnArbor.com: Do you think you can convince them to change their mind or what’s the situation?
Moroun: The situation is this: it’s not really a deal where we have to convince Canada. Just like any other major project, you must do the proper environmental analysis. To the extent that there’s problems with your project that would impact the environment, you have to properly change your project and or mitigate those problems. We have done so and we’ve filed all that paperwork with the government of Canada and we’ve most recently updated it just a few months ago with further environmental analyses, including noise vibration, and a few other things.
Canada is still a democracy, a country of 31 million people. I don’t think they’re a kangaroo court. There’s no situation where they could say, ‘Even though you’ve mitigated all the environmental factors we still aren’t going to let you do it.’
That’s not legal or proper, and they’ve never said that that would be the case.
AnnArbor.com: I spoke with Roy Norton, Canada’s consul general, and he said that if Michigan refuses to approve this public-private partnership, Canada could go to the U.S. Congress and ask Congress to step in. Are you afraid that that could happen?
Moroun: If he wants to see Congress, that’s fine with me. I think he’ll see some pretty strong support and recent and past actions for the Ambassador Bridge.
AnnArbor.com: Why do you think Snyder is opposing you?
Moroun: I really don’t know. I would say that I know of the governor, I’ve met with him a few times, but I wasn’t his friend or something like that.
Everything that I read about him, this is kind of contrary to what he’s said. I’ve heard him pretty loud and clear that he wants to support private sector businesses in the state of Michigan and have government help them and give them a chance to grow and foster and expand in the future.
That’s all we’re trying to do. We aren’t asking from anything from the government but for them to kindly stay out of our way or give us some support.
If he spent half as much time supporting us and helping us cut some of the read tape in Canada and elsewhere, we’d probably be building the second span of the bridge by now, versus working on the government bridge.
AnnArbor.com: There’s been a lot of accusations about the tactics that your company has employed and that your supporters have employed. The latest is that there are people scaring Detroiters into thinking their houses are going to be taken by this bridge.
Moroun: Yeah I heard about that.
AnnArbor.com: Is it true?
Moroun: Well, what’s true is that yeah it did happen. But we didn’t have anything to do with that. We did not ask anyone to do that. We did not indirectly ask anyone to do that. We did not know about it. We wouldn’t condone it, we don’t condone it and I don’t want to be associated with that at all because it’s wrong.
AnnArbor.com: You’ve donated to many different political figures.
Moroun: Absolutely.
AnnArbor.com: Can you describe what your giving strategy is?
Moroun: First of all, our only business is not the Ambassador Bridge. Before we owned the Ambassador Bridge, we’ve been in the transportation business. We’ve got operations all over the state and throughout most of the country,
We’ve contributed quite a bit in political circles before we were in a fight with the government bridge. We’ve continued to do more while we’re in the fight with the government bridge, and we will do so after the fight is over.
If we contribute to a politician that we see as being business orientated and good for our state and our employees and our operations, we’re going to contribute.
AnnArbor.com: Why didn’t you contribute to Snyder during the election last year?
Moroun: I couldn’t really tell you. I don’t know if it had something to do with the fact that most of the money he spent was his own. I don’t know. I know we contributed to just about every other gubernatorial candidate.
AnnArbor.com: Have you seen this new website that attacks your father and his business interests?
Moroun: I have not logged onto that website, but I know that it’s wrong in many respects. As a matter of fact, a person that handles real estate for our company said that it’s got pictures of properties that aren’t even ours.
If you were to actually look at it — as opposed to, like some of the folks, just slander us for owning the properties — you’d find that no one has demolished more houses in the city or more commercial buildings in the city than us, other than the city itself or the county. So, while we’re a large owner, we’ve also taken a lot of stuff down and busted up a lot of blight.
AnnArbor.com: At the Mackinac Policy Conference, Snyder compared the public-private bridge to the Mackinac Bridge and said that if the Mackinac Bridge worked, why can’t this work? How do you feel about that comparison?
Moroun: I didn’t think there was anything private at all about the Mackinac Bridge. Is there?
AnnArbor.com: Not that I know of, but I think he’s saying the government got involved in that bridge and it was successful.
Moroun: Oh. Let me explain a few things on that. One is the Mackinac Bridge is an awesome looking bridge and it is a very important to our state.
However, if you were looking at the Mackinac Bridge from a purely financial standpoint, the Mackinac Bridge has been built out by the state of Michigan at least twice and could not function on its own without state subsidies in those instances and maybe others in the future.
Here in Detroit, there’s really only one question: Are the taxpayers going to get annihilated if the government builds a $2 billion bridge even if we take a $550 million loan from Canada? And the answer is yes, because the math doesn’t work.
AnnArbor.com: As the Canadians change their trade routes, isn’t that going to drive more traffic to our span?
Moroun: What do you mean, ‘as the Canadians change their trade routes?’ The trade route is the 401 corridor from Toronto to Windsor.
AnnArbor.com: As I understand it, from the Eastern Coast to the Western Coast of Canada, they’re going to be encouraging more trade to come down to this international boundary.
Moroun: Yeah, OK, let’s talk about that. That’s a big statement that I’ve heard before. Here’s the situation, you’ve got two main ports in Canada that they’re trying to expand. One is Prince Rupert on the West Coast. The other one is the Port of Halifax on the East Coast. Halifax and Prince Rupert are so far away from Detroit.
It would be insane to put any of that traffic on a rubber-wheeled vehicle. Prince Rupert and Halifax are there for the Canadian railroads, Canadian National and CP. And those Canadian railroads have connections for any international traffic coming into the United States in multiple places, not just Detroit.
We will not see that traffic on rubber coming across the Ambassador Bridge with a container on a chassis. You just won’t see it because distances over 750 miles are basically not economical to be used for truck.
AnnArbor.com: Anything else you want to add?
Moroun: The only reason to have a bridge is to move traffic across the river. The major factors that impact traffic, its growth or decline on the border are the same ones you talk about all the time, and it’s number of manufacturing jobs and population.
And as you know, even though we’re coming back some, we still have a million manufacturing jobs just to get back to where we were. As you know we’ve got to arrest our population decline before we can talk about growing it. Those are the factors that affect traffic.
Without having traffic, they’ve been forced to come up with a whole bunch of reasons why they need another bridge despite the facts of traffic.
And unfortunately it’s been kinds of fill-in-the-blank reasons as to why they need another bridge, whether it’s demonization of my family, to someone’s going to blow up the Ambassador Bridge, to we need it to balance the budget, to it’s going to create 10,000 jobs — which is patently false — and all other kinds of reasons to build the bridge.
That’s what we’re facing, and I’m sure there’s going to be other reasons to build one between now and the end of this fight.
Contact AnnArbor.com's Nathan Bomey at (734) 623-2587 or nathanbomey@annarbor.com. You can also follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's newsletters.
Comments
Roncanada
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 4:15 p.m.
Let's see: no traffic on bridge warrants a new span built by the government. But if the government doesn't build it, the Marouns will build it as a favor to Michigan and Ontario. The Morons belong in jail with their CEO. Michigan legislators who oppose the new government span should do so only if they can show they have not been paid off, or join the rest of the sorry bunch in jail.
Booradley
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 11:40 a.m.
My concern is that a new bridge will turn into the Big Dig in Massachusetts that cost tax payers millions more and a few years later because of a design flaw even killed a woman while driving through. If traffic flow is down then why do we need a new bridge. Also, if the companies go broke before the bridge is finished Michigan tax payers will be stuck with the tab and a bridge to no where. No bridge. Not in today's economy.
1bit
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.
The purpose of the bridge is precisely to help the economy. The Big Dig is an interesting story in poor planning, fraud, and unexpected problems. However, it is a relatively poor analogy to the proposed bridge.
Cendra Lynn
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 4:15 a.m.
The Maroun's have been causing problems with traffic across the bridge for as long as they've owned it. If they decide to close off a lane, no one can say them nay. The new bridge has been proposed for many years and even environmentalists find it acceptable. We, the governments of our countries, need to be able to control the largest point of commercial exchange between the US and Canada. The Marouns' credibility vanished decades ago. If they were cooperative people, we wouldn't have to build around them. I find most of what is quoted to be laughable. a2grateful has it right. I can only add that the Marouns are well-named.
Domey
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 11:34 p.m.
I'd rather see a new bridge over State Street. Know what I mean?
st.julian
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:29 p.m.
Gee, hard to believe that the son would think it should be only be built by private enterprise. I suppose the private enterpise is the current one who doesn't comply with either building or zoning regualtions and doesn't obey court orders. And, if the tax payers will loose money why Moorney would they build the bridge for "goodwill".
zip the cat
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.
ANY individual who has the resources to spend all the money they spend on t.v. ads must be sweating the outcome of what will happen when the new bridge is built. The more they complain. The better I like snyders plan
Roadman
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.
When I think of Manuel "Matty" Maroun, I wonder when Hollywood will put his life story on the silver screen. I think of him as a local "Citizen Kane" who exerts tremendous influence over this state's affairs with his businesses and dozens and dozens of hefty campaign contributions which bring smiles to Michigan legislators.
RTFM
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
Michigan should just take the $550 million from Canada and give them Detroit.
John B.
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
Is this the first time that Snyder has said no to the Koch brothers? Sounds like it. I applaud him for it (and that is about the first time I've ever agreed with him on anything).
John B.
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:33 p.m.
I just call 'em like I see 'em....
Basic Bob
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7:04 p.m.
Cute, but Snyder is hardly a tea party guy. The state is broke, and unfortunately in the short term his solution is similar to the tea party approach. IMO, he's showing his desire to do what is right for Michigan. Maroun is not a tea party guy either, but he has enough money to effectively take over the Michigan AFP to support his lucrative bridge monopoly. And the hard line tea party guys believe his load of hooey because it sounds good to them, and loads up their bank accounts to give them some clout on things they really believe in.
Mr. Tibbs
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
I have this great bridge I would like to sell anyone who is interested.... look when are you going to understand it isn't democrat verses republican. it is US against them. republican or democrat two sides of the same filthy coin. it doesn't matter who wins politically, we the people still loose. we have two ways to get to Canada a tunnel and a bridge. so "we" need another?
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:55 p.m.
The tunnel can not handle trucks and is in the middle of TWo downtown areas. Not a good recipe for international trade.
nittanylion
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:33 p.m.
You've given the Moroun's way too much credibility by publishing their twisted facts and out right lies. Enough. Now let's see an article that accurately describes the pro side of this argument. Sounds to me that the only people opposed to the new bridge are the millionaires that own the existing bridge and it the businesses on it's accesses. Sounds like a pretty small, but very loud and very rich, tiny minority. Let's see the opposite argument presented without the bias of the Moroun propaganda machine.
John B.
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:14 p.m.
I'm re-posting johnnyA2's 1:11 PM response to Ponycar FYI: So much misinformation in this (Ponycar's) post: 1."The second span of the Ambassador bridge is clearly cheaper to build than any public bridge" Why hasn't it been built yet? They do not have property secured to build it yet. This is a total lie, and never factors in that the CURRENT bridge is in a stupid place for transportation purposes. It feed to downtown Windsor instead of to a highway. 2. "Do you people all HATE private business?" Only ones that run a monopoly and do not follow the rules and verdicts handed down by courts of law. <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20110608/BUSINESS06/110608021/Court-threatens-action-Ambassador-Bridge-dispute" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20110608/BUSINESS06/110608021/Court-threatens-action-Ambassador-Bridge-dispute</a> 3. " Neither does the condition of the Michigan Central Depot. I'm guessing that ANYONE who bought that building would have it in the same current condition" AHHH, but they did not, Moroun and his lying family are the ones who PROMISED to do something that they never did. They have not fulfilled their commitment to the property. Go ahead and let property you own get to be a safety hazard and tell me what any other developer would be forced to do. Just because he could not make a buck on it, does not mean he can leave it to collapse and rot. 4. " the equivalent of the State of Michigan opening a tax subsidized restaurant next to their successful restaurant" No, they are a MONOPOLISTIC endeavor facing competition. Moroun also owns the only DUTY FREE (read tax free) shop that crosses the border. He also owns the only trucking route from Detroit into Canada while he is a trucking company owner. From a pure anti-trust stand point that is unacceptable to any sane person. 4. Canada has been CLEAR on their side. They want the second span where they have proposed it. They will never be required to listen to Moroun and his group of criminals. Factually, this is an INTERNATIONAL crossing, and the Canadians can pull their ace in the hole and make t
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.
Why should taxpayers spend billions to support private for-profit businesses with bridge subsidies? If there is a business case to be made for a second bridge, let business pay for it.
Basic Bob
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.
Think of it as a loan, since It is a TOLL bridge. As opposed to all the trucks traveling down I-94 from Chicago to Detroit for free.
debling
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 5:13 p.m.
Asking a business owner why he opposes competition to his monopoly is like asking the royal family if they think it is a good idea to step down and hand over power. Clearly, any international bridge should we owned by the state and run as a non profit. Private enterprise has no business profit off of a captive audience without choices. By the way, I would have liked the interviewer to have asked how much money the Maroun family makes off the bridge every year.
Dog Guy
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.
Perhaps if the Marouns ran the Rio Grande crossings illegal traffic would lessen.
Top Cat
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 5:04 p.m.
In The Wizard of Oz, Glinda the Good Witch of the North said, "It's always best to start at the beginning". The more I read on this topic, I still don't see a clear answer or consensus on the question, "Do we really need a second bridge?"
Dog Guy
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 7:16 p.m.
Glinda's evil eastern sister, Dingdong, was annihilated by a flying house because there was no Oz-Kansas bridge. Most importantly, would either proposed new bridge go north to Canada and rectify the current ridiculous situation?
Ponycar
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
I hear a lot of jealousy and envy spewing from the majority of comments here. Do you people all HATE private business? Jeeze! Just beacuse the Marouns are trying to make a buck does not make them evil. Neither does the condition of the Michigan Central Depot. I'm guessing that ANYONE who bought that building would have it in the same current condition. They've tried coming up with development plans for it. None have worked so far. So GET OFF THEIR CASE about that. Don't you think they would love to have made that money making building at some point if possible? Right now it's just a huge tax expense to them. Now they are facing the equivalent of the State of Michigan opening a tax subsidized restaurant next to their successful restaurant...how would you feel? A public bridge would take traffic from the Ambassador, possibly crippling it economically. Wouldn't you fight that in their shoes? The second span of the Ambassador bridge is clearly cheaper to build than any public bridge (it's shorter, already has terminals built and the property acquisiton costs are paid) so it can be profitable sooner than any government bridge. And it would be run by an experienced company. Have the Marouns done such a bad job with the Ambassador? All I know is that I can get back and forth to Canada fairly cheaply and easily and the bridge is safe. What more do you want? What are the numbers? Why haven't we heard from the State how much the bridge will cost and how much it's expected to bring in? Better yet, how about an independant evaluation of those numbers? I want facts on this project, not blather! I also want to know the issues from the Canadian side. I believe their main problem with a second Ambassador span is the additional traffic it would cause. Is there ANY way to mitigate that? Increase road size in Windsor or something? What are they saying in the Windsor Star?
Basic Bob
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:12 p.m.
"I also want to know the issues from the Canadian side. I believe their main problem with a second Ambassador span is the additional traffic it would cause. Is there ANY way to mitigate that? Increase road size in Windsor or something? What are they saying in the Windsor Star?" GIYF - Google is your friend Increasing the traffic on Huron Church Road is not a viable option. That is why the Windsor Essex Parkway is being built. <a href="http://www.weparkway.ca/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.weparkway.ca/</a>
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 5:11 p.m.
So much misinformation in this post 1."The second span of the Ambassador bridge is clearly cheaper to build than any public bridge" Why hasn't it been built yet? They do not have property secured to build it yet. This is a total lie, and never factors in that the CURRENT bridge is in a stupid place for transportation purposes. It feed to downtown Windsor instead of to a highway 2. "Do you people all HATE private business?" Only ones that run a monopoly and do not follow the rules and verdicts handed down by courts of law. <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20110608/BUSINESS06/110608021/Court-threatens-action-Ambassador-Bridge-dispute" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20110608/BUSINESS06/110608021/Court-threatens-action-Ambassador-Bridge-dispute</a> 3. " Neither does the condition of the Michigan Central Depot. I'm guessing that ANYONE who bought that building would have it in the same current condition" AHHH, but they did not, Moroun and his lying family are the ones who PROMISED to do something that they never did. They have not fulfilled their commitment to the property. Go ahead and let property you own get to be a safety hazard and tell me what any other developer would be forced to do. Just because he could not make a buck on it, does not mean he can leave it to collapse and rot. 4. " the equivalent of the State of Michigan opening a tax subsidized restaurant next to their successful restaurant" No, they are a MONOPOLISTIC endeavor facing competition. Moroun also owns the only DUTY FREE (read tax free) shop that crosses the border. He also owns the only trucking route from Detroit into Canada while he is a trucking company owner. From a pure anti-trust stand point that is unacceptable to any sane person. 4. Canada has been CLEAR on their side. They want the second span where they have proposed it. They will never be required to listen to Moroun and his group of criminals. Factually, this is an INTERNATIONAL crossing, and the Canadians can pull their ace in the hole and make this a federal issue.
Chase Ingersoll
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:28 p.m.
The big three, manufacturers in general, retailers and trucking companies would happily ante up to buy stock in a company that would construct and manage a bridge built to their specifications, rather than having to pay Maroun's monopolist rates, poor level of service, and having to drive through 18 stoplights to get through Windsor. The City of Windsor does not want 40-80k pound trucks going through the middle of their commercial and residential district. Canada/Ontario constructed an expressway for such traffic, 1.5 miles to the south that is waiting to be connected. Also: in that this is an international crossing, it really should be part of the US Federal Interstate Highway system and Canadian Federal Highway system. It was shortsighted for this not to be built in the 1950/60's.
Basic Bob
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 5:27 p.m.
@Ponycar, They could not get approval to connect it to the Ambassador Bridge because it goes through a densely populated area of Windsor. Joint planning between the United States, Canada, Michigan, and Ontario resulted in choosing a site to build a bridge 1.5 miles downriver. All that is left to complete the connection is a bridge that is in the planned location. Maroun's bridge might be less expensive, but it is in the wrong place.
Ponycar
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 4:09 p.m.
Why did they build the expressway 1.5mi from the Ambassador? That makes no sense.
leaguebus
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.
Nathan, very good interview. You asked the hard questions and got some interesting answers. I don't see any reason the State cannot build and maintain a bridge. The Mackinac bridge bonds were paid off in 1987 and now the tolls pay for upkeep and the rest of the money goes back to the state.I am a little fuzzy about the alleged state subsidy for the Mackinac bridge? It would be interesting to ask the Canadian authorities why they oppose the Maroun bridge.(Future article?) I would have no problem if the Marouns built the bridge, but after seeing some of their outrageous and false ads, I am not sure that they have any scruples and this is bad for a company that has a monopoly on crossing the Detroit River.
Townie
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.
Weak interview. Example: AnnArbor.com: Canada has essentially refused to agree to allow your bridge to lead to the part in Windsor that it would lead. Moroun: Not true. You follow up with 'where is that not true?' Cite someone, something that we can fact check. The 'this side said this' and 'this said that' approach exemplifies what is wrong with the American press these days -- let's cite facts and tell people 'this side is telling the truth' and 'this side is simply lying'. It's not that each side is 'right'. Real journalism costs time and money -- and prep to counter the kind of lies Matty drops constantly. But I didn't see much of that at all here - he was permitted to state a lot of lies that went uncontested.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
Roads should be public. Follow the money. If the Moron family is against it, it is just because they don't want to lose all that coin. I've heard this guy (Matty) on WJR, I wouldn't partner in a garage sale with him.
Cash
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
If you do, make sure you keep the key to the change drawer.
Wolf's Bane
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
Hey Mr. Moroun, why not take care of some of your derelict properties, e.g. Michigan Central Depot etc. before pointing the finger at what is clearly a potential business threat to your father's interests? Slumlords should point fingers!
outdoor6709
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
clownfish & Semper Fi, You prove my point. EVERY one of the Successes you list are highly subsidised by taxpayers. Not sure about Chelsea Lighting & Power. Although in the city of Detroit power costs between 66% and 125% (depending on whose #'s you use) more to produce than DTE. Ann Arbor sewer & water. I read the report that said money was diverted from mantainance fees on our bills to general fund. U of M is whining that they are not getting the money they want from Lansing. But they can afford new football and basketball stadiums. How do you think the US government got $14.5 Trillion in debt. It was funding every project anyone could think of. What will you be willing to forgo to pay for the government bridge?
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.
Was there ever a time we had a balanced budget and SURPLUSES as far into the future as needed to pay offf the debt? Yes, but one party decided to cut tax rates and spend $400 BILLION on a prescription drug plan that had no competition in it, and wage two wars against countries that had no citizens involved in the 911 attacks. If you want everything to be self funded then I no longer wish to pay for the military, the AAPD, the stadium bridge (I will find a detour), the Fire Department (I will use a hose, and I have insurance anyway) I will maintain the roads in front of my home, but each and every person will be required to pay me a toll to use it. I will accept credit cards for you to pass on the road in front on my house.
Cash
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:33 p.m.
If you don't like government projects, I have JUST the country for you! <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general</a>
SemperFi
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:26 p.m.
outdoor, you need to stay on task. As clownfish states, we gave you government programs that work. The function of government is to serve the people, all of them. That costs money. Programs that don't work need to be re-evaluated and dealt with. Not all goveernment is bad government.
clownfish
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:07 p.m.
I would be willing to forgo some of the MBT breaks.
clownfish
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:06 p.m.
On another side note about our debt: Two wars supported by people that did not want to pay for them. Tax breaks during two wars. "cost plus" contracts that ran up huge bills filled with corruption and theft. Lack of regulatory oversight led to the collapse of investment firms and banks leading to the tax payer paying hundreds of billions to keep private capital afloat and a severe reduction in tax receipts. And yes, overspending on too many govt programs. That does not mean we shut down govt anymore than we should stop private business because 1/2 of them fail. It means we should focus on our govt and keep an eye on it. I would favor EVERY govt program undergoing review every 10 years to see if it is still needed, is it running on budget and without graft.
clownfish
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3 p.m.
You asked for programs that work, we supplied answers. Now you want to move the goalposts and argue about how they are funded. Of course they take subsidies, they are government programs. One assumption I see implied in your posts is that many people think the govt is THE answer to all problems, i do not believe that. What I do know is that some things need to be done by the govt, roads and bridges being one of them. No private company is going to track disease rates. Polio was eradicated by govt programs, as was smallpox. Canada has said they will not let Maroun build his bridge, case closed.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 2:41 p.m.
how much are you willing to pay in tolls to drive over every bridge in Ann Arbor? What should the toll be to drive down Main street?
Basic Bob
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 2:04 p.m.
I just drove past the Ambassador Bridge on Wednesday. That nice new ramp that the government built a few years ago to connect to the bridge has never been opened because Maroun doesn't want to follow the rules. Taking the government to court is not a great way to get your next project approved. The state should barricade his duty free shop and gas station until this is settled. To me, it doesn't matter who owns the bridge, because they all charge toll. Tolls pay for the bridge, not Maroun, and not the government.
grye
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
What a con job. Don't let the govt build a bridge. It will be a money losing proposition. But we would be happy to build a bridge. Why? If it is a money losing proposition why build your own bridge? Oh, because you can make money on it. Like a said, what a con job.
SemperFi
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
If Maroun is so convinced that this bridge is going to lose money, why does HE want to build one? Fact is that the Maroun family have been diverting maintenance money from the Ambassador Bridge for a long time. It's a 90 year old bridge in need of major repairs and upgrades. If they built a new one right next to it, you would soon see the old one closed for a lengthy time or all together. If a bridge is built downriver, he'll be forced to upgrade his facilities or lose out to a more efficient operation. He doesn't want the competition, that's all. Michigan taxpayers will benefit from the Snyder bridge plan.
SemperFi
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:21 p.m.
Taxpayers will benefit by having a safe, well-maintained bridge to promote commerce between MI and Canada. And the traffic won't all have to be funneled through a downtown area. Most of the international truck traffic that adds to congestion downtown can be alleviated by diverting it to a downriver location. It'll save huge wear & tear on downtown freeways and make it easier to get around in the city. Maroun has already demonstrated his unwillingness or inability to provide a safe, well-maintained bridge.
mojo
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 1:40 p.m.
How will taxpayers benefit?
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 1:03 p.m.
Another bridge does absolutely nothing for me. Why should I pay for it? Snyder likes "free enterprise" so much - let free enterprise pay for it, and take the risks. Yet, suddenly, with the bridge, he's for socialism? If the trucks of for-profit businesses need a bridge so bad, let them pay for it. Why should I subsidize someone else's business? We've done just fine with a privately owned bridge. Shrugs.
speravi
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 6:49 p.m.
johnnya2, it's so good to see you and some others above finally beginning to refute this nonsense in a very effective manner. Seeing how we are all interrelated takes a modicum of imagination. The consequences of an inability to see beyond one's own nose are enormous.
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.
The problem is the trucking companies are OWNED by Moroun. I wonder if you think all roads in Michigan should be tolls? I have never driven on many roads, why should I pay for them? That seems to be your position. Those that use it should pay for it. I guess I want my refund for not using police, fire, Veterans Park, the military, the schools or any number of things that others may use, but I personally don't.
David Paris
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
I have yet to see Rick Snyder do anything that favors the tax payers of this state, and therefore, I'm backing the Maroun's on this debate.
Ann English
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:41 p.m.
I do agree with you about the Marouns. Jay McNally has interviewed one of the Marouns on his Saturday morning show at 7:00 on 1600 AM more than once and will most likely continue to have the family members on his show, which covers very local and state subjects for an hour per week. The private sector cares much more about quality work than government does.
Ann English
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:35 p.m.
He freed the home-based daycare workers from having to join a union (state governments pay health benefits and pensions to public-sector union members, which is an unsustainable practice) and signed business tax cuts into law, although the cuts won't take place until October, the start of the next fiscal year.
John B.
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:32 p.m.
David: I would ask that you do your homework on this one before you make a final decision....
Townie
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 5:24 p.m.
You're in great, rich company since the Koch astroturf outfit 'Americans For Prosperity' (the prosperity of the Koch brothers who inherited their money) is backing the Morons.
Les Gov
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:26 p.m.
Build the bridge NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
outdoor6709
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:21 p.m.
Can any of you in the government is the answer crowd, give me an example of a successful government program? Social Security & Medicare will be broke in 15 years. Amtrack and Post Office require taxpayer subsities. I realize next year is an election year, but the Federal Government has no money to give. According to channel 32, a Canadian station, The Canadian Politicians are telling their voters, "Canadian Taxpayers will not be required to pay a penny for the bridge". Sounds like our politicians. How about if we get a pledge from the politicians who say this will not cost the taxpayers anything " I pledge my government pension as first source of funds to repay all debt incurred by the bridge". I assume there will be no takers.
tim
Sat, Jun 11, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.
And how long have these institutions been in place ? 80 plus years is a pretty good stint for any organization. GM and Chrysler had their bad times too and now they are doing well.
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 2:08 p.m.
Really? Social security and medicare are failures? When did any of their checks bounce? I missed seniors not getting these benefits that they are lawfully entitled to. Please point out how in any way these two programs are failures? I can show you a prime example of a failure of private enterprise in the same line as SS. People who invested with Bernie Madoff. That was a pure failure. People lost REAL money, not the chance that maybe possibly in say another 15 years it might not work. IT IS TODAY. Amtrak supports itself with fares at a higher % than the Interstate Highway system does through gas taxes. Amtrak uses 20% tax payer subsisdy while the highway system takes 50%. The post office has always been a major success. I know this will blow your mind, but you can actually get a REAL LIFE document from Florida to Michigan in a couple days for 44 cents. Check the rates at the "private" companies. As for successful government programs, I will say the US Armed Forces, filled with GOVERNMENT employees has done a pretty good job (ask Bin Laden). I would also say the Michigan State Police, the Ann Arbor fire department, the state of Michigan state parks, and how about something VERY similar, the Macinaw Bridge. As a final note, the technology that allowed you to post this was developed by the government. But dont let facts get in the way of your lies. The right wing never does.
SemperFi
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 1:30 p.m.
Don't forget the: DNR National Highway Traffic Safety Administration EPA Department of Agriculture National Park System Veterans Administration (not perfect, but trying to do the job) you get the idea.
clownfish
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:45 p.m.
National Institute of Health. Center for Disease Control The University of Michigan. Eastern Michigan University. SCHIP Head Start FDIC City of Ann Arbor water and sewers Chelsea Light and Power The interstate highway system The GI Bill The National Weather Service I assume you use public roads to get to work? Half of all businesses fail within five years, half of all marriages fail, do we see an outcry against these American institutions?
clownfish
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:17 p.m.
If there is no money to be made, why do the Mourons want to build a bridge? The guy is a cheat and a liar. He is in violation of multiple court orders and should be spending some time in jail. The only reason he is still in the picture is because of legal bribery of state officials. The latest tactic by the Koch founded (and misnamed) "Americans for Prosperity" was beyond reproach. Hanging "eviction Notices" on doors was disgusting. The public option on this one is a no-brainer.
clownfish
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:36 p.m.
The people whose homes will be removed already know about it and have seen the offers by the state. They will be well compensated. The tactic used by AFP was low, disgusting, predatory and deceptive.
outdoor6709
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.
The money is in the gas station, duty free shop. Do you not think the people who will get eviction notices once the project is approved should know the are about to be evicted if they do not speak up? Go my attention.
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.
Let's look at the history off this family. 1. They are under COURT ORDER to do things with the current bridge and won't do it. They are on the verge of being fined and one of their company president was JAILED for not following the court order. Anything out of this guys mouth is a lie <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20110608/BUSINESS06/110608021/Court-threatens-action-Ambassador-Bridge-dispute" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20110608/BUSINESS06/110608021/Court-threatens-action-Ambassador-Bridge-dispute</a> 2. "Moroun: The business economics are against them despite what they put in the legislation" Then why would you build a second span Mr Moron? You are lying that it is not economically viable or you really have no plans to try to get a second span. In fact. you will blame the Canadian government if you don't get a second span and keep your monopoly. 3. " our only business is not the Ambassador Bridge. Before we owned the Ambassador Bridge, we've been in the transportation business" Hmm, transportation? Where do these trucks go? Could they travel over something like say a BRIDGE? 4. If you want to see how good the Moroun family is on promises, I suggest you take a trip to the Michigan Central Train Depot and see what his ownership has done to this building since he bought it in 1996 <a href="http://peoplesworld.org/at-empty-train-depot-detroiters-demand-jobs/" rel='nofollow'>http://peoplesworld.org/at-empty-train-depot-detroiters-demand-jobs/</a> Do you want to know when a Moroun is lying? Their lips are moving.
David Paris
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:34 p.m.
While you were sleeping, the renovation of MCD has begun. <a href="http://www.detnews.com/article/20110607/METRO/106070433/Work-begins-to-replace-windows-at-Michigan-Central-Depot" rel='nofollow'>http://www.detnews.com/article/20110607/METRO/106070433/Work-begins-to-replace-windows-at-Michigan-Central-Depot</a>
mojo
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.
Estimated toll income per year? Estimated yearly cost to operate and maintain? Final cost to complete? Open on time? Taxpayers should be asking these questions . . . . First off: any bridge is good - it eases all traffic and does help business grow; good for us and that is wonderful. But the numbers have to add up first - this is known as 'financial discipline' , and it is sorely lacking is Lansing. . Second, the "taxpayers" should not have to pay a dime for this bridge as there already is one for use. This is plain-as-day logic - Ask yourself why investors are not lining up to partner with any developers to put up a second span at this location? Would you build another 50,000 student university in Ann Arbor at the scale of the U? More jobs, more investment? Why not? Because it is a money loser - that is why. Does the bridge "pay for itself?" Even with a 50 year proforma, and rosy predictions on critical items like 'total toll collections' interest rates, and maintenance costs. Last, the soft emotional reasons for this bridge do _not_ 'out-weigh' the cold financial discipline from the spreadsheets - the 'numbers do not add up'. Once government budgets are opened to begin full consulting, construction, and yearly maintenance/operations - - all predicted cost estimations used to sell the bridge to us will double or triple via, charge-backs, delays, change orders, etc. Governments never come in 'under budget' or 'on time' - it is not their money - it is your money, they don't care - you should. We have had enough taxpayer funded money-loser programs in Michigan. Taxpayers are broke. The traffic just isn't there to operate this second span.. Perhaps the partnership could sign off to agree that the bridge will be sold off if it loses money - like any other operation. Then Michigan taxpayers would never be on the hook. Republicans would support that.
mojo
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 9:53 p.m.
Not if it is a "boon-doogle" - a loser project is a loser project regardless of who pays.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
The tax payers belong in the road/bridge/international boarder business. Its one of those things Government should be doing.
mojo
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:33 p.m.
1 - I believe his completion costs are $.20-.30 on the dollar compared to the DRIC bridge. 2 - His operating costs will be likely about half of the DRIC operating costs. 3 - His span is shorter - my guess is less cost to build, less cost to maintain operate. 4- it is private money - he can light cigars with it for all I care. Frankly this issue is about tax payer Dollars, not some slumlord bridge privateer.
clownfish
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:19 p.m.
Then why does Matti want to build a money losing bridge himself?
hermhawk
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:09 p.m.
The Maroun family has a lot of nerve. Keep in mind this is the same family who has allowed the old train depot to rot for over 2 decades and who have violated laws and ordinance regarding their properties. While I have been very critical of Governor Snyder's actions while in office, his support of the bridge is the one act I support. As for the group Americans For Prosperity and their loud, overbearing opposition to the bridge, I contend the only group that will prosper from their actions is the very people they are supporting; the Marouns themselves who are paying them to lie to the point of modern day McCarthyism.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 11:56 a.m.
According to a New York Times article there are only 2 privately owned bridges to Canada out of a total of 24. The other one connects International Falls Mn and Fort Frances Ontario. Those two towns have a combined population of around 15,000. That bridge is jointly owned by a Canadian and an American paper/pulp companies. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Frances-International_Falls_International_Bridge" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Frances-International_Falls_International_Bridge</a>
Cassandra
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 11:33 a.m.
As usual, the Moroun factor comes to the table with misleading "facts" (I'm being polite), twisted figures and all manner of hyperbole, all of which has been refuted and proven false countless times by countless experts and objective truth squads. I like the way Manny sneakily says "WE built the Ambassador Bridge" -- no, the Morouns didn't built it; the bridge was built back in the '20s, and much later, Matty Moroun euchred Warren Buffet out of his major share of the bridge. If there is, as the Morouns claim, not enough future traffic to warrant a second bridge, why are the Morouns spending millions on ads, P.R. firms, spin doctors and political "contributions" to further their own "twinned span"? Because there WILL be enough future traffic and Matty, the Prime Prevaricator, can't bear to see all that money slipping away from his greedy grasp. The Morouns keep everybody busy refuting their outrageously false claims; it's part of their campaign. Do they think that Michiganders are stupid enough to believe them? Do they think that Gov. Snyder and Lt. Gov. Calley and House Speaker Bolger and Senate Majority Leader Richardville are stupid? Meanwhile, the Morouns are fighting for the chance to build another bridge in Buffalo. Of course Matty doesn't put all his eggs in one basket; if he isn't able to prevent the building of The People's Bridge Downriver, if he isn't able to build his twinned span, at least he'll have his Buffalo bridge as a backup to keep that money rollin' in. If there's anybody out there who still believes in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, you can believe the Troll Under the Bridge.
jns131
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 11:18 a.m.
I just read this article and boy does this smell of double untondres or however you spell this word. Annihilation means end of Michigan and lights out as we know it. When I first heard this? I knew that all it meant was more money into the fat cat pockets and nothing for us but more taxes. Good grief I really need to move out of Michigan. This state is imploding. Thanks for the article. No wonder they can't get any business into this state. Snyder needs to be recalled. So sorry I voted for him. Can I take my vote back?
John B.
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 9:19 p.m.
entendre (French).
tim
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 11 a.m.
Moroun is just desperate to keep his monopoly in place and will come up with 101 excuses why the new bridge shouldn't be built. I didn't agree with Snyder on the cuts to public schools by I agree with him on this one.
1bit
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 11 a.m.
The more the Moroun family is against this, the more I think it is a good idea.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:05 p.m.
Indeed! Good Night and Good Luck
a2grateful
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:58 a.m.
"Moroun's business would be 'annihilated' by public bridge . . ." Maybe this should be the headline. Public roads and bridges are public for a reason. There seems to be no argument that a new bridge is needed. Should important international access be controlled by private entities? That is the stark question. Now, factor the idea that the private entity may be hostile. It would have been interesting to hear Moroun speak to his company's multi-year dispute with MDOT over "agreed-upon" bridge and plaza improvements. His company is currently in contempt of court over a recent judicial ruling over improvements. MDOT is asking for $100,000 per day court fines for noncompliance. Mouron lacks approval from the Canadian government for his proposed bridge. Canada is willing to finance partial construction cost. His company appears to have little Canadian government support. On the other side, Mouron is fighting the State of MI in a legal dispute regarding bridge and access improvements. His company is an adversary with the State of Michigan. The US government is willing to count Canada's funding towards Michigan's infrastructure investment requirements. The public bridge has US government support. Canada wants a new bridge. Ditto Michigan. A private owner has a current bridge, and is fighting with a principal stakeholder in a lengthy, costly, bitter court dispute. Given this contrariness, it seems unlikely that Mouran's company will be building the new bridge.
a2grateful
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 11:03 a.m.
4th paragraph of comment should read: Mouron lacks approval from the Canadian government for his proposed bridge. Canada is willing to finance partial construction cost of a PUBLIC bridge. His company appears to have little Canadian government support.
Chip Reed
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:43 a.m.
One good thing about living in Ann Arbor is we only have the University throwing it's weight around locally. Mr. Moroun and his family are a powerful and formidable opponent. Matthew's comment about Canada being a democracy is disingenuous at best (he would probably claim not to know what "disingenuous" meant).
15crown00
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:33 a.m.
So where does Gov. Rick and Senator Dandy Randy propose all this money from the state will come from?I'll tell u where.the taxpayers where all government spending money ultimately comes from.What do we get out of it if we don't use the bridge? NOTHING!!!!! But then those two crooks and the rest of them in Lansing don't really Care About Us. Recall Them ALL.
yaah
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 10:25 a.m.
Seems to me that the only "taxpayers" that will be annihilated will be the Maroun family. They are taxpayers, after all.