LANSING - Wednesday will see another episode of “Alan Cropsey, Attorney at Law.
The Senate Majority Floor Leader will continue his grilling of Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) officials and anyone else who interferes with Grosse Pointe billionaire and Republican benefactor Matty Moroun’s plan to build a second Ambassador Bridge and keep his monopoly intact. The Republican controlled Senate’s special ad hoc panel to look into the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) study that’s holding up the Transportation budget will hold its seconds hearing at 1 p.m. Wednesday in room 402 in the Capitol.
The DRIC study is a partnership between the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transport Canada, MDOT and the Ontario Ministry of Transport, and it concluded a public funded bridge should be built near Zug Island and the Del Ray area of Detroit and on the Canadian side in the Brighton Beach section in west-end Windsor.
The busiest international border in North America is owned by a private for-profit-company, and Cropsey has worked hard to ensure that continues, despite what an impartial study by the experts says.
Wednesday will see testimony from Transportation Director Kirk Steudle and representatives from the Detroit International Bridge Company. Cropsey has been like a bulldog prosecutor in grilling those who oppose Moroun’s monopoly, and it’s a pretty safe bet Steudle will get the same treatment. That will be in sharp contrast to the softball questions the bridge company lobbyists will receive from the ultra conservative Republican.
2 comments:
I feel sorry for the MDOT Director. It is a no-win for him at the hearing. He either supports his staff's foolish remarks or disowns them. In either case MDOT looks ridiculous.
The last hearing was a disgrace for FHWA and MDOT. They destroyed themselves with absurd comments.
Cropsey had to say little as they flip-flopped and tried to salvage their unsalvagable position.
All it showed was that they had no rational argument to support spending at least a billion dollars of taxpayer money for a new crossing (and thereby bankrupting the other crossings since the traffic levels are worse now than before 9/11)and giving up billions in federal matching funds.
What foolish statements are you talking about? Does he have to defend the statements of Transport Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Transport? They had the same position. Cropsey had no problem berating a Canadian official in his quest to keep earning Moroun’s money, so I guess they would get the same treatment if he could compel them to testify. But eh problem is he can't because this is an international crossing, not a Michigan crossing.
The disgrace at the last hearing was Cropsey's bullying. Perhaps you should have been at the hearing before you made that ridiculous statement. I saw no flip-flopping, and the position is clear and consistent. Perhaps you can explain how Moroun can build a bridge when he cannot get a permit to land it on the other side?
Ass for taxpayer money, Moroun has no problem accepting $200 million for the gateway project to help him earn more money. Second, when you build a bridge, it charges a toll that pays for the bridge. To build it, the bridge sells bonds and the bonds are paid off with the toll.
If the traffic is down after 9/11 – not true by the way – why is Moroun building a second span?
Post a Comment