Posted on Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 11:57 a.m.
Proposal 6 seeks to require voter approval of new international bridge
By Cindy Heflin
Among ballot proposals facing Michigan voters in the Nov. 6 election is one that could affect the proposed construction of a new bridge between Detroit and Windsor.
The Ambassador Bridge is the only link between Windsor and Detroit that can accommodate truck traffic.
AP photo
Dave Eggert looks at arguments for and against the proposal in an MLive report.
The ballot initiative is an attempt by the owner of the Ambassador Bridge, at the moment the sole bridge between Detroit and Canada, to halt plans for a new bridge. Michigan and Canada signed a deal to build a new bridge in June.
In the end, the vote may not matter, however, MLive reports. Supporters of the project say the interlocal agreement is binding regardless of the outcome.
Comments
snapshot
Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 7:42 a.m.
Having an international bridge privately owned is irresponsible and a threat to national security. Who vets contractors and employees? Where's the operational transparency? I say no on prop 6 and yes to our state government controlling our border crossings.
goosenews
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 3:30 p.m.
I'm going with Prop #1 is a Yes and No on the rest!
clownfish
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.
If 6 passes the bridge will not get built here. It will be built in NY and all of the factories will follow. If you think getting the Canadians to pay for the bridge is a bad idea, you have been fooled by a fine propaganda machine, not any real issues.
DonBee
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 12:04 p.m.
Here is the language of the proposal - PLEASE look at the definition in the second part - If I were a lawyer I would have a field day anytime that some township or city tried to replace any bridge in the local area. I don't care who are side with, the second paragraph makes this a lawyer's dream and a citizen's nightmare. ----------------- Full text of ballot proposal follows: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS This proposal would: Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels. Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012." Should this proposal be approved?
rutrow
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 11:02 a.m.
Lost in this bridge "debate" is the bizarrely absurd situation here that a billionaire finds it so desperate to continue his monopoly, and with it continue to secure his unfettered access to more capital, that he needs to persuade the public to force the rules to conform to his ease in doing so. Why Americans find this normal is well beyond me. It's not that Moroun "needs" more money than his over a billion. I mean, think about just how much one billion (1,000 thousand millions!) is to one man. If it were a sane person, he'd just let it go and allow the much-needed bridge project to progress, without having to desperately peddle outright lies to the public about how much it will cost them with zero benefit. This is way, way beyond greed. This is over-the-edge lunacy. No on Proposal 6!
johnnya2
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 3:20 a.m.
This is creating a special "vote" om people. It is the same concept as the proposal that requires 2/3 vote to raise taxes. Why should there be special things carved out for these people? I suppose we then put EVERYTHING up to a vote to see if anything gets done. We can have elections every day. There is a reason we have a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. I believe if this passes, the federal government will claim jurisdiction over this, and the state will lose out. The Feds will negotiate the contract and say, border crossings are 100% a federal role. They will build it and end the stupidity of a private industry operating a border crossing to and from the US largest trading partner.
Kai Petainen
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 10:25 p.m.
As it is written: "Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012" That means... that 'ANY BRIDGE'... would need to go under a vote. So, if they build a bridge in Ann Arbor, then that bridge goes under a vote, and people elsewhere in the state could vote on what is best for Ann Arbor. It does not say 'ANY INTERNATIONAL bridge or tunnel'
OLDTIMER3
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 12:40 p.m.
not unless they are building it to Mexico.
Tom Todd
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 9:38 p.m.
Did business not get a tax break on the backs of the poor and middle class. thanks snyder for nothing. I'm not voting for anything snyder wants. yes on 2 and 6.
snapshot
Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 7:21 a.m.
T-Todd you sound like a good union man. No on 2 ids a yes for democracy. Why would we allow the minority to rule the majority? That's what 2 proposes. I don't want the unions making laws I have to pay for.
Jeff Frank
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.
Great way to make decisions, Tom... The enemy of my enemy is my friend... how well has that worked out for US foreign policy over the years?
clownfish
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
If this passes, the businesses (Morouns monopoly) will get more from the backs of the other businesses that depend on the border crossing.
Brad
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 7:37 p.m.
I need a yard sign "Maroun is a maroon!"
John of Saline
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.
Then spell it right: "Moroun."
Arboriginal
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
No on 6!!!
Basic Bob
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.
Where do I get a yard sign for NO ON SIX? This is one I feel strongly about and less likely to attract arsonists than some of the other proposals I will vote for or against.
Jim Walker
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 4:26 p.m.
Basic Bob needs to try the ferry at Marine City/Sombra. If you are going to London Ontario or further east, it is the best choice. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Basic Bob
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 9:07 a.m.
@Roger, I think it is money well spent. It will be paid back by bridge users through tolls. I shouldn't have to drive to Port Huron to find a decent border crossing.
Roger Kuhlman
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 3:26 a.m.
So you like the fact that the bridge is being paid for with "FREE MONEY."
Ignatz
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.
Build it and they will come (and then leave, once they drive across).
Angry Moderate
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
Luckily, we can make money off them as they make their way through.
treetowncartel
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.
Yeah, lets not provide more access to a state that is surrounded by water on three sides. The bridge is a no brainer, build it, even if it costs us money.
Jim Walker
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
We have more cross-border capacity than we need for the foreseeable future. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Roger Kuhlman
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 3:22 a.m.
Why build a new bridge when existing roads in Michigan are in such a bad state. I think federal transportation monies should go to road repair not new international bridge boondoggles
Jim Walker
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.
I have no problem with a new bridge IF AND ONLY IF the financing is set up so that if not one single vehicle ever shows up to pay the toll or the bridge structure subsides by six feet into the underground salt caverns in that area and has to be totally rebuilt --- that the State of Michigan, the taxpayers, our transportation funds, our bond authority, our ongoing federal gas tax funds after the initial match to the Canadian funds, and any other way the citizens would have to pay for the bridge over the next 100 years owe exactly $0.00. If EVERY possible way the bridge could fail to success financially has the losses borne by Canada and the private investors, NOT by Michigan and its citizens, then OK. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Jim Walker
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
For A2Onward - I will be happy to "pitch in" by paying the toll whenever I would use a potential new bridge - but NOT in any other way. For the foreseeable future, we have more Detroit and St. Clair River crossings capacity than we need. PS. I never use either bridge or the tunnel, the ferry at Marine City/Sombra is far better. For DonBee - If the contracts are absolutely iron clad, then OK, as I said originally. For johnnya2 - We do fight for the rights of motorists in many ways. Along with PIRGIM and the Independent Truck Drivers Association OOIDA, we helped defeat the overly broad Public-Private-Partnership bill in 2010 that would have given MDOT the right to toll almost any existing road with no legislative oversight and build new toll facilities with no legislative oversight (currently illegal under MI law). Our efforts on helping people fight traffic tickets are quite necessary in Ann Arbor because most main road speed limits are set so that 80+% of all drivers are defined as violators. That sort of deliberate mis-engineering is NOT for safety, it is for revenue. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
johnnya2
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 3:13 a.m.
Coming from an organization ( will assume this is the position of your organization since you DID choose to use the name in your comment) that shows people how to get out of tickets and fights for the "rights" of motorists (I missed that part of the constitution). They also have said that Detroit is a " world-class city" without mass rail. Nobody believes Detroit is a world class city by any metric out there. Unless of course they are referring to the idea of cheap driving costs.
DonBee
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 5:08 p.m.
Mr. Walker - You will be happy to know that the contract covers your concerns (listen to the NPR interview with the law professor on the Michigan Radio website). No we are NEVER on the hook for the construction costs - regardless of what happens. Also as a bonus for MOTORISTS - the US Department of Transportation has agreed to release over $2 billion in highway funds that Michigan is due but did not have the matching funds to pursue because of the Canadian investment. These funds can be used elsewhere in Michigan to improve roads. The downside is more orange barrels and more of our tax money returning to Michigan because of the bridge Canada pays to build. OBTW - Michigan is still a net donor state - paying more in Federal taxes that is returned to the state - so getting more of our tax money back into the state is a good thing in my mind.
A2Onward
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 4:52 p.m.
Though it was nearly impossible to discern what on earth you were trying to say, it seems to me like you are all for something that would benefit the state and you, as long as you don't have to pitch in. Nice.
John of Saline
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
Vote "no." The signature canvassers actually gathered signatures INSIDE Meijer (AA-Saline Road) and in the parking lot. How was THAT legal, I wonder?
fjord
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 4:23 p.m.
Is there any possible scenario in which both sides lose? That's an outcome I could vote for.
pseudo
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.
Marouns have been terrible stewards of their monopolies. Why pass a constitutional amendment to protect them? Build a publicly owned bridge - bring on a revenue source!
Roger Kuhlman
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 3:28 a.m.
From what I see there are plenty of uninformed on the side of building the bridge.
motorcycleminer
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 8:18 p.m.
Gangsters ..alive and well
Fordie
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 4:32 p.m.
Why pass a constitutional amendment to protect them? Because while they're terrible stewards of their monopolies, they are great at building support among the uninformed.