DRIC bridge is the highlight of a SOS filled with vague generalities

We waited a year for this?

New Michigan Gov. Rick “Chief Executive Outsourcer” Snyder has been very vague on how he plans to reinvent Michigan since he launched his campaign last year with an expensive Superbowl ad, and people were hoping they would finally hear some actual details when he gave his first State of the State address Wednesday night. Instead, we got very few details and a very general plan that included more corporate buzz words like “dashboards,” “road maps” and “gardening.”

The speech was so general that lawmakers from his own party were wondering and wanting more specifics. Still, it was nice to hear he appears to be a moderate Republican instead of the nasty extremists who hijacked the party, and there may be some common ground to keep the recovery moving in Michigan. There were some great things in the speech, and the most hearting was his support for entering into a public-private partnership with Canada to build the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) bridge. That move drew praise from both sides of the aisle.

“This is the right move for Michigan," said Republican Oakland County Executive Brooks Patterson. “If we all don't stand together behind the DRIC project now, we will all be standing in Buffalo in a few years watching them cut a ribbon on their new bridge to Canada."

The bridge will bring more than 10,000 new jobs to the state. The only cloud on the horizon is that every single Republicans voted to kill it last session, and a camera shot of the crowd when Snyder spoke about DRIC showed the right aside of the House chamber sitting on their hands while Democrats stood and cheered. That could mean a major campaign funding source for state Republicans could be lost in the form of Ambassador Bridge owner Matty Moroun.

More disturbing was in lack of detail on how he plans to close the estimated $1 billon General Fund budget deficit. Senate Republicans are floating a plan to close it on the backs of state workers, but we have heard nothing from Snyder. Even more disturbing was his plan to kill the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) and replace it with a flat 6 percent corporate tax. That will increase the deficit to $3 billon.

Also unsettling for consumers was the proposal to gut Michigan’s item pricing law. Retailers would no longer have to place the price of the item on each individual item. That will require consumers to place their trust in the scanner at the retail outlet and cost consumers millions of dollars.

It will be an interesting year in Lansing.

False and sleazy attack ads against Leyton having an effect

Voters say they hate negative, attack campaign ads, but political pundits and consultants say it works. The pundits must be right because there is no other explanation for Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton trailing in the polls for Michigan Attorney General.

His opponent, Bill Schuette, has run some of the sleaziest ads I have ever seen, but he has finally been shamed into taking one of them off the air by the family of someone he was shamelessly exploiting. But that, in my opinion, is not the sleaziest ad.

The TV ad most people have seen has lead to a profane-filled death threat against Layton, yet it still stays up.

That ad stars Debbie McIntosh, of Grand Blanc, whose son, Adam, 25, was murdered in 2006. She is very angry that the killer did not get more time and that he was the only one charged, even though there’s no evidence that anyone else was involved. Republicans are using the millions of dollars of unregulated corporate cash to run that smear ad exploiting McIntosh holding a photo of her son and calling Leyton a liar.

Even after an anti-Semitic attack by McIntosh on the Flint Journal web site and death threat, the ad is still running.

I’m not sure what crime has to do with the Michigan Attorney General, since the job is largely a civil and administrative posts and acts as the state’s attorney, but the Republicans have been trying with no success to paint Leyton soft on crime. Every ad they have run has had a foul called on it by the nonpartisan Michigan Truth Squad.
In his two terms as Genesee County Prosecuting Attorney, Leyton has prosecuted more than 20,000 criminal cases to Schuette’s zero. The teabggers have driven the Republican Party so far to the right they are in danger of falling off the cliff, but one thing they constantly claim is that they will not support career politicians. Yet almost all of the Republican candidates can qualify for that label.

While Leyton was serving in local government as an elected prosecutor, he also served on the Flint Township Board of Trustees, first as a Trustee and later as the Township Clerk; Schuette was, first, a U.S. Congressman, a member of former Gov. John Engler’s cabinet, then a state Senator and finally an Appellate Court Judge.

This is just more Republicans teabagger hypocrisy.

The ad that was pulled off the air claimed that Leyton was “overly lenient in the plea deal he reached with a drunken driver who led police on a chase that resulted in the death of Flint police officer Owen Fisher,” according to subscription only Gongwer.

“Flint police officer Owen Fisher, murdered while on duty. An open and shut case: not for David Leyton," the ad says. “He plea bargained down to just three years in prison; said it was just and right."

But Gongwer said David and Vida Fisher, the deceased officer's parents, said “the ad is wrong and that Christopher Bentoski would see more than three years in prison for his convictions on assault with intent to do great bodily harm and fleeing police.” The Fishers also criticized Schuette for using the story without consulting with them first and for making an ad that was disrespectful to their family.

"We request that Mr. Schuette remove this ad from the airwaves," David Fisher said. "Our son was a tremendously civil human being and this ad is both uncivil and incorrect. We believe that Genesee County prosecutor David Leyton approached this case with appropriate gravity and treated our family respectfully."

Back to the drawing board, and since Republicans have so much unregulated corporate money to burn, a new ad is already up in its place featuring Republican Oakland County Executive Brooks Patterson criticizing Leyton for plea bargains. Patterson is very familiar with plea bargains; like the one he took in 2003 to reckless driving after being pulled over for possible drunk driving.

Not a single House Republican votes for DRIC and 10,000 Michigan jobs

Michigan House Republicans are taking a page out of the federal Republicans in Congress, and not a single Republican voted yes on legislation clearing the way to build the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) bridge over the Detroit river between Canada and Windsor on Wednesday.

After a couple of delays, the House finally took up and approved House Bill 4961 Wednesday that would authorize Michigan to enter into a public-private partnership with Canada and a private sector developer/financier to build the DRIC bridge by a slim vote of 56-51, just one vote above the minimum, and not a single Republican voted with the Democrats to save and create 10,000 Michigan jobs. Nine Democrats crossed over to side with Republicans.

The project will have a tougher go in the Republicans-controlled Senate, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, has said he will allow an up or down vote. But the biggest and most ferocious critic of the DRIC project in the Legislature - Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt – controls the Senate floor. Grosse Pointe billionaire and Republican benefactor Matty Moroun spreads his billions wisely, and he spreads it around in a few key places to gum up the works.

It remains to be seen how this will play out because some very influential Republicans are strong backers of the DRIC project, such as Republicans like Oakland County Executive Brooks Patterson and former Republican Governor John Engler.

Employees and lobbyists of the Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC) and Moroun have been all over Lansing the last couple of weeks spreading misinformation and lies. One of the biggest and most passionate supporters of the DRIC project - Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit – found all four tires on her vehicle had been slashed last week. Although she has been out front on some contentious issues that ignite passion, like the Arizona illegal alien bill debate, she told subscription only “that she had trouble not seeing the tire slashing in context with her position on the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC).”

It’s a perfect way to get back at her. The bridge company knows she is so passionate that she will blame them for it, and they can act offended that she would accuse them of such a thing. If she keeps silent, they have the knowledge that they intimidated her.

Moroun and the bridge company launched a stealth but failed recall attempt against her last September, but they denied they were behind it. One tactic employees of the bridge company have used in their lobbying effort in the past couple of weeks was to threaten any House member supporting the DRIC that had a primary election that they would finance their opponent.

It remains to be seen when the Senate will take up the bill, but it will most likely go to the Transportation Committee first.

DRIC bridge moves forward with committee hearing on public-private partnership bill

The first step in building a public-private Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) bridge between Detroit and Windsor will begin Thursday when the House Transportation Committee takes testimony on House Bill 4961 that would authorize Michigan to enter into a public-private partnership with Canada and a private sector developer/financier and create and save thousands of Michigan jobs.

State, local and Canadian officials - along with leaders from business and labor - held a press conference last Friday to try and persuade a reluctant Legislature – most notably the Senate Republicans - to authorize the construction of a new bridge connecting Detroit and Windsor. The press conference - held at the Detroit Regional Chamber's headquarters - included Gov. Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Chamber President Sandy Baruah, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, former Governor James Blanchard, Steve Biegun, Ford Motor Company vice president for international government affairs; Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis, Michigan AFL-CIO President Mark Gaffney; Shorty Gleason, president of the Michigan Building Trades and Construction Council, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson and a half-dozen legislators.

The DRIC Bridge has bipartisan support, but Senate Republicans have been doing what they can to protect the monopoly of Grosse Pointe billionaire and Republican benefactor Matty Moroun, who owns the Ambassador Bridge. Moroun has said both there is not enough traffic to warrant a second span, yet he is trying to build a second span. However, he has not been able to secure the necessary permits; not that it has stopped him from building anyway. Both Canadian and U.S. officials want to build a new, modern crossing a few miles downstream of the current Ambassador Bridge.

Despite the support of Patterson, one of the state’s leading Republicans, Senate Majority Floor Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, continues to do everything in his power to block the DRIC bridge.
Cropsey told subscription only Gongwer that Patterson is only supporting the DRIC to win favor with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) so it will agree to widen I-75 in Oakland County, a long-sought major project there. Cropsey told Gongwer that he had no proof of such an arrangement, but "that's what's going on."

The House Transportation Committee will meet at 10:30 a.m. Thursday, April 21 in room 521 of the House Office Building in Lansing. The meeting is open to the public.

L. Brooks blows smoke rings in State of Oakland

Apparently, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson’s PR agent Bill Mullan has not seen his boss’s name in the paper lately, so the news is all atwitter that Patterson not only will not enforce the popular workplace smoking ban that takes effect in two weeks, he is going to sue the state.

Patterson has made the unfounded claim that the smoking ban is an unfunded mandate, so he will not enforce the hard won smoking ban. That is simply not the case. The enforcement protocol is complaint driven. Local health departments are responsible for inspecting food service establishments to comply with Public Act 188. Most violations would be no more than a bartender or manager asking the person who lit up to simply stop smoking. However, any complaint recorded by the health department would be logged, and a protocol would be followed. If the local department had to go out and investigate any complaint that could not be cleared up by phone, the business would be charged a fee for that investigation. If the bar or restaurant failed to pay, their liquor or food license would be at stake.

That makes it a funded mandate. Even if that were not the case, counties receive state revenue sharing. Not only that, the very function of a health department.

Call the Oakland County Health Department at (248) 858-1280 and tell them to do their job of protecting the public health.

UPDATE: Apparently, the flak Patterson received from the overwhelming number of people who support the workplace smoking ban has led him to backtrack, and he no longer plans to sue to stop the ban, the Detroit Free Press reported shortly after 3 p.m. today. However, he still has no plans to enforce the law and protect the public health.

Patterson’s mouthpiece spins the facts

Apparently, Oakland County is a little sensitive about its decision not to enforce the workplace smoking ban, and my post about that over at Blogging for Michigan (BFM) drew a response from Bill Mullan, the media and communications officer for Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson.

Here is his rebuttal to my essay posted both here and at BFM.

The "Communications Guru" says it's a mystery why Oakland County will not enforce the State of Michigan's smoking ban. Trust me, the "Guru" knows. Like many who tell half-truths, the "Guru" omitted the rest of the quote that puts it all in context.
Oakland County Health Division Manager Kathy Forzley told The Detroit News that the new law amounts to an unfunded mandate. "With dwindling funding and trying economic times, implementing a new law without attached funding is very difficult," she said.

The "Guru" needs to pull out the Michigan Constitution. According to the Headlee Amendment, the smoking ban is unconstitutional because it is an unfunded mandate.

Section 29 of the Headlee Amendment says: "A new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond that required by existing law shall not be required by the legislature or any state agency of units of Local Government, unless a state appropriation is made and disbursed to pay the unit."

Oh, but why involve a little thing like the Michigan Constitution where public health is concerned? The "Guru" says, "Wow. Thanks for protecting the public from deadly secondhand smoke, Ms. Forzley."

In reply, I say, "Wow. Thanks for protecting the public from unconstitutional laws, Guru."

I know the state Constitution is a pesky little thing. I mean, if you're going to ignore a little item like a constitutional amendment that controls public funding - perhaps the government's most powerful tool - then I suppose you can toss aside such matters as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right against self-incrimination.

From a public health point of view, Oakland County Health Division agrees a smoking ban in public buildings is better. In fact, Oakland County will implement and comply with the law on our government campus in Pontiac, and any other facilities we operate.

Indeed, our county government enacted smoking restrictions in its own buildings years before the State of Michigan passed its ban into law, first in 1997, then expanded in 2006.

But if the State of Michigan wants Oakland County to enforce its ban, we're merely saying, "Put your money where your mouth is."

Here are Oakland County's numbers: We have 26 food service sanitarians that are responsible for inspecting more than 4,600 restaurants in the county. In 2008/2009, they conducted more than 17,000 inspections - that's 654 inspections per sanitarian.

When Ohio passed its smoking ban, there were 18,000 complaints against restaurants not enforcing the law its first year. Imagine if Oakland County absorbed merely 10% of that complaint load, we would have to budget for three additional inspectors just to keep up.

Taking a page out of the "Guru's" book, if you want the State of Michigan to do its job, call the Governor's office at (517) 335-6397 and tell them to uphold the Constitution to which she swore an oath when she took office.

Unlike the "Guru," I will not hide behind an anonymous blogging name. I am Bill Mullan, media and communications officer for Oakland County.

Great job, Bill, standing up for the taxpayers of Oakland County, or should I say the State of Oakland.

However the mystery remains why Oakland County would not enforce a popular state law that protects the public health that has not even gone into effect. I assume the State of Oakland County does restaurant inspections, so there is no reason it can't be handled then. Please tell me how that costs you any extra money.

The Michigan Department of Community Health and the Michigan Department of Agriculture have been meeting frequently since the law was passed in December to work out implementation and enforcement issues, and they have come up with a solid enforcement protocol.

Local health departments are responsible for inspecting food service establishments to comply with Public Act 188. Most violations would be no more than a bartender or manager asking the person who lit up to simply stop smoking. However, any complaint recorded by the health department would be logged, and a protocol would be followed. If the local department had to go out and investigate any complaint that could not be cleared up by phone, the business would be charged a fee for that investigation. If the bar or restaurant failed to pay, their liquor or food license would be at stake.

I fail to see the unfunded mandate here.

As for Mr. Mullan’s use of the Michigan Constitution to try and make his point, if you go to Article IV Section 51 of the Michigan Constitution it's pretty clear what the county’s mission should be: "The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are herby declared to matters of primary public concern.” I assume that applies to the State of Oakland County.

I don’t have the power to protect “the public from unconstitutional laws” even if that were the case, but Oakland County has the power and obligation to protect the public health from deadly secondhand smoke. They are shirking that responsibility.

It's great the State of Oakland County complies with the smoking ban in public buildings, so why will it not enforce the law in bars and restaurants?

As for my screen name, if he would have followed any of the links in the post on BFM - other than the one for the Detroit News article, it would have taken you back to my blog here where my name is at the top along with my picture. For the record, it's Kevin Shopshire. For a former research assistant at the Detroit News, that should have been pretty easy to smoke out.

Oakland County will not enforce popular workplace smoking ban

Apparently, Republican Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson is taking a page from the teabagger playbook and is invoking the rejected theory called Nullification.

After a decade long struggle and widespread support, Michigan’s workplace smoking ban that includes bars and restaurants was signed into law last December and goes into effect in less than a month on May 1, but Oakland County says it will not participate or comply. In a story in the Detroit News on Monday, Kathy Forzley, manager of the Oakland County Health Division, said if the county hears a business isn't conforming, "Complaints will be referred back to the state."

Wow. Thanks for protecting the public from deadly secondhand smoke, Ms. Forzley.

It’s not difficult to enforce the ban, and the Michigan Department of Community Health has put out guidelines. Local health departments inspect restaurants quarterly for cleanliness and health violations, and if a bar or restaurant does not enforce the ban they lose their liquor license or they cannot serve food. Individuals or a business can be ticketed for violating the law, with fines of up to $100 for a first offense and up to $500 for additional offenses. Establishments that continue to break the law could ultimately lose their licenses, according to the DT.

“Health department officials in Wayne and Macomb counties said they will enforce the smoking ban along with their regular restaurant inspection programs.” Why Oakland refuses is a mystery.

The Detroit News article goes on to quote Andy Deloney, vice president of public affairs for the Michigan Restaurant Association, who threw up every roadblock to kill the bill, including debunked studies, even though most of his members supported the ban.

Lawmakers "didn't see the mountain of ice underneath the surface of the water," Deloney said. "Where do the signs have to be posted? What about charity dinners? What about smokeless tobacco? That's just a tip of the iceberg."

Really, that’s all you have to try and kill a law that has not even gone into effect yet, Mr. Deloney? Those questions are easily answered. “According to the state: Signs must be posted at the entrances and exits of businesses and anywhere smoking is banned; smoking would not be allowed at charity dinners, and smokeless tobacco is included in the law's definition of tobacco products. “

Opponents have clung to the debunked notation that somehow less than 25 percent of the population that still smokes will somehow hurt business, but that has never been the case. Numerous studies, as well as the results from the 37 other states with smoking bans, prove that.

In the same edition, the Detroit News has a story with the headline “Restaurants in smoke-free states report no harsh impact.”
Here are some highlights:

“When Ohio adopted its ban in 2006, "there was a lot of concern that (bar and restaurant owners) would lose business, but none of our members have said that the ban has impacted them negatively," said Jarrod Claybaugh of the Ohio Restaurant Association. “

“In Chicago, which banned smoking in 2005, the restaurant business is strong, said Fabian Martinez, a manager at Giordano's pizzeria.”

“New York City, among the first municipalities to prohibit smoking in 2003, is thriving as a bona fide smoke-free zone.”

Call the Oakland County Health Department at (248) 858-1280 and tell them to do their job of protecting the public health.

Governor conspires to steal spotlight from L. Brooks

Those of us who follow Michigan politics are aware of the ego of Republican Oakland County Executive Brooks Patterson, but the flap over the State of the State Address is surprising.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm announced last week that she will give the annual State of the State address on Feb. 3, but apparently, Patterson had also scheduled his state of the county in Pontiac on the same date.

The same thing occurred last year, and both speeches were held on Feb. 3. Granholm chose that date last year to ensure it did not conflict with the President’s State of the Union. It appears that date may have been chosen again this year for that reason. The State of the State is tentatively scheduled for Feb. 2.

But Patterson’s response is really outrageous. He is accusing the Governor of trying to upstage him. He told the Detroit News she did it on purpose. After all, the world revolves around Patterson.

“I’m not going to accuse the governor of picking the same date, but to quote Bogart ‘of all the gin joints in town.’ ” Patterson said the Detroit News.

I, and the Governor's scheduler, were unaware they had to run her schedule through Patterson’s staff.

You will also recall last year that the state’s most powerful radio station, WJR in Detroit, declined to carry the State of the State address in favor of Patterson’s speech. It could be forgiven if the great conservative voice of the Great Lakes had chosen to air the Wayne County State of the County speech over the Governor because the station is actually located in Wayne County, and it’s the largest county in Michigan. The problem there and the reason why that will never happen are because Wayne County Executive Bob Ficano is a Democrat.

It makes no sense that WJR does not have a single non-conservative voice on air despite broadcasting in one of the most Democratic cities in America from a state that has been blue since 1992.

It’s unclear if they will carry Patterson’s speech instead of the Governor’s State of the State this year. Last year they had an extra incentive to carry Patterson’s speech. Less than a month earlier in January 2009, Patterson announced he was a Republican gubernatorial candidate. He has since dropped out of the race, so we shall see if they air Patterson’s speech again over the State of the State.

Rightwing WJR declines to carry SOS address in favor of State of Oakland County address

I will be watching Governor Granholm's State of the State address on PBS at 7 p.m. tonight, but if you are not fortunate enough to be close to a TV, try listening to it on NPR.

Amazingly, you will not be able to hear it live on Michigan's most powerful and most rightwing radio station, WJR. The great conservative voice of the Great Lakes is unbelievably carrying the state of the county address of Oakland County Executive and Republican gubernatorial candidate Brooks Patterson. Yes, you heard it right: the most powerful radio station in the state is carrying Patterson's speech on airwaves owned by the public instead of the Governor. Unbelievable. If there ever was a reason for the Fairness Doctrine I can think of no better illustration as this outrage as the reason why.

Even funnier is the station's management reason for it? Get this: Patterson had is hand up first.

It never ceases to amaze me that WJR continues to cling to its rightwing lineup despite broadcasting from a state that has been blue since 1992 and located in one of the most Democratic cities in America. Did they not see the result of the last election?

The have all the national hatemongers on the air, like Rush Windbag, Sean Haity, "Dr." Laura and Mark Levine, and the local line-up is also rightwing. Paul W. Smith subs for Windbag on occasion; I can't believe this guy is from my hometown of Monroe. Bill O'Reily wannabe Frank Beckman was voted one of the most biased reporters, columnists and commentators in Michigan.

But I almost fell out of my chair when I read the headline from Detroit News columnist Neal Rubin: "WJR: No vast right-wing conspiracy." He was correct, however, when he said "WJR-AM (760) leans so far to the right it almost topples over."

Really? If there is no conspiracy then why are there no non-rightwing voices on the station? Rubin falsely claims "Liberal equivalents have historically struggled." That’s' because they are not on as many stations as rightwing tools. When they go head-to-head liberal formats do as well or better.

The likes of Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, Randi Rhoades and Thom Hartman are very successful, and I will put them up against anyone.

Let's let WJR program director Steve Stewart how insane it is to bump the Governor for the head of just one of Michigan's 83 counties, and while you are at it, also ask him why there is no balance on WJR.

You can call them at (313) 875-4440 or toll free at (800) 859-0957; email them via their web site at http://www.wjr.net/contactus.asp or even snail mail at
News/Talk 760 WJR
3011 West Grand Blvd.
Suite 800
Detroit, MI 48202

Livingston County Democrats willing to give their obsolete phone booth to state GOP

To quote the late great Jackie Gleason, How sweet it is. Tuesday's Democratic electoral victories were sweet, and our quote of the week really reflects that.

This is a quote we Livingston County Democrats have heard directed at us for many years, and I believe it was first put forth by an editor at the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus who once ran for the state House of Representatives as a Republican. Something to do with local Democrats can hold their meetings in a phone booth. But when you consider more than 42,000 people in the Livingston County voted for President Barack Obama, and Supreme Court Justice Diane Marie Hathaway actually beat incumbent rightwing Republican Cliff Taylor in the county it will have to be a big phone booth.

Perhaps we can lend that phone booth to the Michigan Republican Party since we have not needed it for a few years.

"We Republicans are caucusing in a phone booth."I'm enthused that we will rebuild our party but it's going to take some time." -- Republican Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson. Gongwer November 6, 2008.

Leading state Republican says debate over DRIC study is moot

It has been a confusing week where the party of Wall Street voted against Wall Street, so it was no surprise that a leading state Republican came out in support of the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC)study.

Michigan House and Senate Democrats have supported the DRIC study that wants to build a new public-private bridge about a mile from the current Ambassador Bridge, but Senate Republicans, led by Alan Cropsey, are carrying water for Grosse Pointe billionaire and Republican benefactor Matty Moroun’s plan to build a second, private for-profit Ambassador Bridge and keep his monopoly intact.

Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson has voiced his support for the DRIC study in the past, but Tuesday he joined Richard Blouse, Jr., president and CEO of the Detroit Regional Chamber, in an OP-ED in the Detroit Free Press in support of the DRIC study.

"Political infighting and special interests cannot be allowed to stop economic progress in the Detroit region."

Truer words were never spoken, especially when considering the Ambassador Bridge is the busiest commercial border crossing in all of North America, handling 20 percent more trucks than its closest competitor and almost double the commercial traffic of the next busiest crossing on the Canadian border. In all, almost 30 percent of all U.S./Canada trade and over 25 percent of the truck traffic between the U.S. and Canada passes through the Detroit-Windsor gateway. This U.S.-Canadian trade directly supports 7.1 million U.S. jobs, 221,500 Michigan jobs, and one in three Canadian jobs. More than $1 billon in trade crosses the bridge everyday.

Brooks and Blouse summed up clearly why the debate should end:
"This is really a moot debate, because the Canadian government passed a law prohibiting the proposed location of a private bridge that would dump additional traffic into downtown Windsor. Therefore, the next viable option is a public bridge, which is what DRIC is attempting to accomplish."

Cropsey is doing everything he can to help Moroun, including a threat to shut down the state government. His delaying and blocking tactics may lose the international crossing altogether.

"However, the longer the delay with DRIC, the greater the risk the bridge project will move somewhere else. Buffalo, a community that would welcome the jobs and investment from the project, is poised to build another international bridge if the DRIC process falters. Another bridge crossing between the United States and Canada is going to be built. The question has come down to location."

"This is the oldest political trick in the book by those wishing to obstruct an initiative. We cannot allow petty politics and jockeying among special interest groups to threaten the new jobs and investment in the Detroit region, an outcome that would have a negative ripple effect throughout Michigan's already troubled economy."

Cropsey threatens blackmail to kill DRIC study and keep monopoly for billionaire GOP backer

The Detroit-Windsor border crossing near Zug Island proposed by the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) Study is holding up the Michigan Transportation budget, and the conference committee report to iron out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the budget is not on the agenda for the Senate session on Thursday.

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) wants the bridge to be built in the Delray section of Detroit, and last month the Canadian government announced the Canadian crossing will be in the Brighton Beach section in west-end Windsor, adjacent to Delray. The new crossing would alleviate frequent traffic jams and long delays on the Ambassador Bridge and through the Windsor-Detroit tunnel caused by the 17 traffic lights semi-trucks must go through in downtown Windsor to reach the highway. The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest commercial border crossing in all of North America.

The aging Ambassador Bridge is only one of two international border crossings in the country in private hands, and it is owned by Grosse Pointe transportation billionaire Matty Moroun. In order to keep his monopoly, Moroun is planning to build a span right next to the current bridge, despite a Canadian law that says an international crossing cannot be in private hands.

Moroun’s money has gained him some powerful friends, such as Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, who is on the conference committee for the Transportation budget bill, House Bill 5805.

Subscription only Gongwers reported Cropsey is using blackmail to keep Moroun’s monopoly intact.

“Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt) said he is taking the Senate's lead on negotiating on DRIC. And he furiously said there will be little negotiating unless the House adopts a resolution about DRIC that is sent to Congress and Governor Jennifer Granholm write a letter supporting a second Ambassador span.”

This piece of blackmail is dispute the fact that the second Ambassador will not get a permit from the Canadians. Then we get this ridiculous quote from Cropsey.

“Mr. Cropsey was also furious at the "bullying" of Canada. "Where does Canada get off saying they don't want that bridge? Canada needs to be a good neighbor," he said.

Kettle, meet pot.

Gongwer also said, “Senate Republicans strongly support a plan by the Ambassador Bridge Company to build a second span adjacent to the current nearly 80-year old bridge,” as well as noting, “The Ambassador Bridge company is owned by Matty Maroun who is also a major financial backer of the Republican Party.” That, my friends, is the reason for the standoff.

This news comes on the heels of news of support for the MDOT and Canadian crossing decision by prominent Republican L. Brooks Patterson.

If the Legislature refuses to give the department the authority to move on the proposal, then MDOT has to stop its end of the work, and Michigan could be on the hook to pay back some of the federal grant. There is also a possibility the federal government could continue with the process.

Patterson endorses DRIC study bridge location

Republican Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson joined Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis Wednesday to support the downriver Detroit-Windsor border crossing near Zug Island proposed by the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) Study.

The endorsement by the prominent Republican Patterson may put an end to the lobbying effort of Grosse Pointe transportation billionaire Matty Moroun, who owns the Ambassador Bridge, and GOP opposition to the DRIC study, as well as Moroun’s plan to build the exact same bridge next to the current one. The bridge will be a bridge to no where because Canadian law says an international border crossing may not be in private hands. The Ambassador is only one of two border crossings in the country owned by a private entity. Canada officials

announced last month

that the Canadian location will be directly across from the American crossing chosen by the DRIC study.

Moroun has and continues to conduct an intense lobbying effort on both sides of the river with his deep pockets, and his main ally on the American side in state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, the Senate Majority Floor Leader. He has held up the state transportation budget because of it. It remains to be seen if he will now back down based on Patterson’s endorsement.

The private, for profit bridge company has fought hard in an effort to keep its monopoly, saying there is not enough traffic to justify a second crossing, and then contradicting that by going forward with building a second span right next to the current one, despite not having clearance from the Canadian government to connect it to Canadian soil. Additionally, traffic on the Canadian side of the Ambassador empties into a city street in downtown Windsor, and trucks must go through 17 stop lights to reach the freeway. Backups can be as long as 5 miles, and Canadian officials do not want to see more traffic dumped onto city streets.

"The DRIC Downriver Border Crossing is the absolutely best alternative because it will significantly ease traffic congestion between Detroit and Windsor thus enhancing the ability of companies on both sides of the river to get their products to market in a timely and efficient manner," Patterson said in a Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) press release.

The DRIC study indicates that Canada-US trade supports 7.1 million U.S. jobs including 221,500 Michigan jobs and one in three Canadian jobs.

Last year, Canadians made more than 1.2 million visits to Michigan and spent $208 million. Michigan exports to Canada total $13 billion, representing 61percent of its foreign sales. In addition, the U.S. exports about $135 billion worth of goods every year to Ontario. To put this in perspective, the U.S. sells only $55 billion annually to all of China.

"The Windsor-Detroit Gateway is more than a river crossing. It is not only vitally important to the economies of Windsor and Southeast Michigan, it is a critical supply chain stretching from Montreal to the Port of Los Angeles. Windsor supports the preferred location announced recently by the bi-national study to locate the next crossing in the Brighton Beach industrial area of the city," Francis said.

Two bridge designs are currently under consideration for the downriver border crossing. One is a suspension bridge, similar to the Ambassador Bridge. The other is a cable stay bridge similar to the Denver Millennium Bridge. The cable stay bridge is less expensive and more in vogue today around the world.

Partners in the Detroit River International Crossing study are the U.S. Federal Highway Administration; MDOT; Transport Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. The timeline for the project calls for property acquisition in 2009, construction starting in 2010 and the opening of the border crossing in 2014.

According to MDOT, the project will be government owned and maintained with the private sector playing a role in construction and operation of the facility. Details still need to be worked out. The cost of the project to the U.S. will be approximately $1.25 billion for the bridge, plaza and interchange. However, less than 10 percent of the total cost will come from Michigan, none of which will be General Fund dollars.