Senate Republicans say state does not need second span across the Detroit River to Canada

Despite widespread and bipartisan support for building the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) bridge over the Detroit river between Canada and Windsor, it appears Senate Republicans will be the stumbling block.

The Senate Transportation Committee took testimony on 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, but before any testimony was taken, the Committee chair, Sen. Jud Gilbert, R-Algonac, made it seem he was just going through the motions, and he does not think the state needs a second crossing. He should tell that to Ambassador Bridge owner and Republican benefactor Matty Moroun who is already building a second span next to the Ambassador Bridge despite not having a single permit.

“There is a lot of talk, especially in the newspapers, that this needs to get done quickly,” Gilbert said. “I am all for doing things quickly, but I am not going to risk a $5 million debt.”

Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, the Minority Vive-Chair of the Committee and a strong supporter of DRIC – along with former Governors Jim Blanchard and Republican John Engler, Republican Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate – took exception to Gilbert’s claim that traffic does not support a second span.

“I am not an expert, but I have not heard one expert in this state say the traffic study done is wrong,” Basham said. “I hate to think we plan the future economy for my grandchildren on what’s happening today.”

Not a single Republican in the House voted for HB 4961, and one reason, besides going to bat for Moroun, is the claim that it takes away legislative oversight. Rep. Paul Opsommer, R-DeWitt, is one of the biggest critics of DRIC, as well one of the most conservative members in the House. He testified to that claim of a lack of oversight, but Basham debunked that claim.

“It sound like conspiracy theory; we always have control,” Basham said. “The Legislature can do lots of things; they can even repeal bills.”

Rep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint), sponsored HB 4961, and he said a public-private partnership was the best way to attract money for needed infrastructure improvements, and at the same time the legislation was structured to protect the state from incurring debt.

“It’s simple: if private investors don’t think there is a need for another bridge, they won’t invest,” he said.

The committee did not take a vote on the bill, and more testimony is expected.

Workplace smoking bill is back on track

LANSING -- Despite House and Senate leaders saying earlier this month they would not address the workplace smoking ban, the House Regulatory Reform Committee is holding a hearing on the ban on Wednesday.

House Bill 4377, introduced by Rep. Rep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint, is on the committee’s agenda that will meet at noon on April 29 in room 326 of the House Office Building in Lansing, and the meeting is open to the public. The bill, unfortunately, has exceptions for so-called "cigar bars" and casinos, but it’s a start. The committee is expected to actually take a vote on the bill.

Obviously, the pressure from the two-thirds of Michigan residents who support the ban got the bill untracked. This is the fourth hearing on the ban this session, and the last one was held on April 1.

Ambassador Bridge representatives lash out at MDOT and military

LANSING – Representatives from the Detroit International Bridge Company received little hard questioning at a hearing of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Thursday, despite skipping the hearing they were originally scheduled to testify at two days earlier, claiming a scheduling conflict and then getting busted by the committee chair at the House Office Building where the committee hearing was held just after the hearing adjourned.

The committee has been holding hearings on the DRIC (Detroit River International Crossing) study, and the lobbyist for the bridge company that owns and operates the Ambassador Bridge, Mickey Blashfield, and company president Dan Stamper were asked about conflicting traffic estimates the company provided that has apparently angered Canadian officials. Instead, the company said the numbers the DRIC team and the Michigan Department of Transportation provided were “grossly inaccurate.”

“We have a four year result to look back at the DRIC estimates, and it shows how far they were off,” Stamper said.

Stamper said the truck traffic peaked in 1999, but Committee Chair Rep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint, said there has been an upward trend in truck traffic since 1972. Gonzales said 2006 was a record year for truck traffic. The bridge company, however, estimates a flat forecast for the next 40 years. Stamper said they have hired a neutral third party to do a traffic study.

The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest commercial border crossing in all of North America, and its has enormous effects on the economy of both Canada and the U.S. 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 every single day. Increased traffic and increased security concerns led to a partnership between the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transport Canada, MDOT and the Ontario Ministry of Transport to increase traffic lanes and capacity across the Detroit River, and the DRIC study began in 2001 to find the best place to build a second crossing.

After studying various location options, the DRIC study found the best option was to build a crossing about a mile from the current Ambassador Bridge.

However the private, for profit bridge company has fought that in an effort to keep its monopoly, saying there is not enough traffic to justify a second crossing and then 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.

In 2007 Canada passed legislation, The International Bridges and Tunnels Act, to strengthen the Canadian government’s control over all international crossings. Specifically the act says “No person shall construct or alter an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the Governor in Council.” The government of Canada is on record as opposing a new bridge at the Ambassador Bridge’s current location.

Security has obviously been a major concern in a post 9/11 world, and only two international border crossings are in private hands. The committee presented video testimony from Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey who supports the DRIC location, and Stamper went out of his way to discredit McCaffrey. He said McCaffrey praised the Bradley fighting vehicle on CNN during the Iraq occupation, but he did not reveal he sat on the boards of several military contracting corporations. He also claims McCaffrey never disclosed he was on the board for a major supplier to MDOT. Stamper also claimed the bridge was the safest crossing in the country.

“We are the only bridge crossing in the country that has armed security 24-hours a day,” he said.

Gonzales asked Stamper if law enforcement had access to the bridge at all times, and Stamper ducked the question, saying Customs controls that; they just operate the facility. Stamper also said they had a massive floating bridge stored in a warehouse in case of a terrorist attack and the bridge was impassable. Stamper also used this opportunity to take some shots at MDOT.

“I don’t want to sound disrespectful, but they haven’t had any adult supervision, and that has allowed them to do whatever they wanted to do,” he said.

In what will be a major talking point for the bridge company to keep its monopoly, Stamper said the twin bridge only impacts the view from the old bridge. The DRIC crossing will displace 400 homes, 50 businesses and churches and non-profits. He said the company has spent $500 million since 1993 buying up property for the new bridge, but it has all been industrial property and will not affect anyone.

“We’re committed to it, and we will finish it,” he said. “We have invested half a million dollars of our owner’s own money.”

Only Rep. Pam Byrnes, D-Chelsea, called him on that testimony.

“For you to say you’re not going to have an impact is inappropriate,” she said.

Stamper also says the DRIC crossing will be built with tax dollars, but that is simply not true. In fact, his bridge would be financed the same way the DRIC crossing would. Both bridges will be financed by revenue bonds secured by future tolls. Both spans of the BlueWater Bridge and the International Bridge - publicly owned international crossing structures in Michigan - were financed this way, as well as the original construction of the Ambassador Bridge

The prospect of a second, privately-owned international crossing has been met with significant opposition, and the DRIC option has widespread support among groups and entities that do not always see eye-to-eye. Supporters include the Southeast Michigan Council of State Governments (SEMCOG), the Big 3 automaker and the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Gonzales asked Stamper why all the DRIC supporters were wrong, but he was right.

“The Big 3 would like five bridges all operated and subsidized by the government to keep fares low,” Stamper said. “At the heart of the matter you have a private company that has been operating efficiently for the past 18 years. The government wants to change that and build a government bridge that displaces 400 homes.”

Testimony is expected to continue next week with testimony from MDOT, but Stamper said he wants to come back and testify after MDOT does.

Bridge company reps skip hearing

LANSING -- The representatives from the Detroit International Bridge Company, the private company that owns the Ambassador Bridge, played hooky from the House Transportation Subcommittee Tuesday that was anticipating taking testimony on the DRIC (Detroit River International Crossing) study.

The lobbyist for the bridge company, Mickey Blashfield, and company president Dan Stamper were supposed to testify before the panel Tuesday, but they opted out by sending a letter to Subcommittee Chair Rep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint, in which he said it was "not possible to adjust pre-existing schedules and prepare further testimony,” according to the subscription only MIRS. But in a mid-day news conference, according to MIRS, Gonzales told reporters that he'd spotted Blashfield in the lobby of the House Office Building shortly after he'd adjourned the hearing. Then the Flint Democrat blasted Blashfield for skipping his scheduled testimony and handed out a copy of the letter he said Blashfield had sent him, claiming that he couldn't testify due to the scheduling problem.

“They wanted to hear what MDOT had to say before they testified,” Gonzales said during the abbreviated hearing. “They are acting like Obama and Clinton.”

That will change Thursday, and the bridge company representatives are expected to testify at 10:30 a.m. today in the HOB.

Amazingly enough, in the era of 9/11 the busiest international border in North America is owned by a private for-profit-company. Currently, 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.

In response to the need to increase capacity and redundancy in case something happened to the bridge, the bridge company is building a second span next to the current bridge to maintain its monopoly. Two bridges right next to each other should make a terrific target for terrorists looking to cripple the economy. Canadian law does not allow an international crossing to be in private hands, so it will be a bridge to nowhere.

In 2000, a partnership was formed by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transport Canada, the Michigan Department of Transportation, and the Ontario Ministry of Transport in response to a 1998 Freight Transportation System Study by the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario looking at cross border freight activity. The purpose of the partnership is to provide for the safe, efficient and secure movement of people and goods across the U.S.-Canada border at the Detroit River in order to support the economies of Michigan, Ontario, Canada and the United States. This bi-national partnership began the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) study.

Gonzales - and many other government, business and military leaders - say the decision on the crossing is the most important infrastructure decision since 1950 when the Mackinac Bridge agreement was reached.

House Bill aims to put a stop to unfair Big Brother-like practice

Big Brother made a stop in Livingston County to try and sell local human resource professionals on his highhanded policy of firing employees for engaging in a legal activity away from the job on their own time.

Howard Weyers, CEO of Okemos-based Weyco Inc., spoke to the Livingston Area Human Resources Association. He launched a tobacco-free mandate at the company in 2003, and when three of his employees could not kick the most addictive substance known to mankind, he fired them. Apparently, he gives his employees tests to check for the presence of nicotine. No word yet on if he plans to install some kind of smoke detectors in their homes to be more efficient, so that way he can nail smoking spouses and other relatives. This is just one more assault on the rights of workers.

Weyers defends his discriminatory practice by saying he takes a proactive approach to health care because it costs more to insure smokers because of the health risks associated with smoking. “Employees are also told to take biometrics and physical evaluations and, if they don't reach certain goals, they have to meet with a coach more frequently.”

This sounds exactly like the quarterly physical fitness tests I had to take when I was in the military. I don’t equate a third-party medical benefits administrator to the military, and at least the military allows the legal activity of smoking. I applaud Weyers’s efforts to promote physical fitness and healthy living, but most people use a carrot and stick approach. All I see is a big stick. Cleary, an incentive program would be much more fair.

The good news is that help is on the way to stop Weyers. Last week the House Labor Committee heard testimony on House Bill 4532, introduced by Rep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint. The bill, known as the "Employee Privacy Protection Act,” would prohibit an employer from “taking certain adverse actions against an individual who is engaging in –or is regarded as engaging in—a lawful activity both off the employer's premises and during non-work hours,” such as smoking.

According to the Livingston County Press & Argus, Weyers said he wishes legislators would be more open to his policy, especially considering the state is contemplating a ban on smoking in restaurants. He says if everybody were to live a healthier lifestyle, overall medical costs would come down and there would be less money coming out of employees' paychecks for medical benefits.

I agree to point. The smoking ban he is referring to is Senate Bill 109, introduced by Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, that bans smoking from all workplaces, including bars and restaurants. Basham has been pushing the fight against second hand smoke that kills more 50,000 people a year for the entire decade he has been in the Legislature, but he has only gotten one hearing and no vote in that decade while the Republicans then controlled both the House and Senate. There is finally some movement in the House now that the Democrats are in the majority there on House Bill 4163, the House version introduced by Rep. Brenda Clack, D-Flint.

This is a case of the chicken and the egg. How can Weyers defend his policy when it is not even illegal to smoke in the workplace, let alone your own home? The workplace ban must come first before Weyers’s policy can even be suggested. However, any legal activity you do in the privacy of your own home should never be grounds for dismissal.

Here’s even more irony. The biggest opponent of Basham’s bill is the Michigan Restaurant Association, and that opposition is coming from its board not its members. Subscription only MIRS reported last week that Senate Republicans held a one-day, mini-retreat off-campus to talk about the current budget. I have no idea what’s wrong with the Senate Republican caucus room, but they chose to hold it off site. Guess where? With Senate Republicans sitting on Basham’s bill despite mounting evidence illustrating the health hazard of second-hand smoke and support for the bill the Senate GOP held their caucus in the Michigan Restaurant Association’s new building.

Anti-smoking zealot’s employee Big Brother policy addressed by House Committee

In an irony of timing, a pair of bills addressing smoking will get a hearing Tuesday before two separate Michigan House committees as the person who prompted one of them is set to speak to the Livingston Area Human Resources Association at 7:30 a.m. June 20 at the Genoa Woods Executive Conference Center.

As you may recall, Howard Weyers, CEO of Okemos-based Weyco Inc., launched a tobacco-free mandate at the company in 2003, and when three of his employees could not kick the most addictive substance known to mankind, he fired them. Now, these three employees practiced the legal habit of smoking off the job during non-working hours, yet in an Orwellan twist straight of “Nineteen Eight-Four” they were still fired.

It makes you wonder what type of behavior Big Brother will try to control next, and how he will know if you are violating the new policy. I am one of the worst kind of anti-smoking crusaders, a former smoker who quit the habit more than 11 years ago, but the obvious question has to be when is an employee’s life his own? I think Weyers should reward those who quit smoking and keep healthy, fit and in shape by having them pay less for medical coverage, but if what Weyers is doing is not illegal it should be. What you do in your own home that does not hurt anyone else should be no one’s business but your own.

Help, however, is on the way, and the House Labor Committee-chaired by Rep. Fred Miller, D-Mount Clemens – will take testimony on House Bill 4532, introduced by Rep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint, on March 27. The bill, known as the "Employee Privacy Protection Act,” would prohibit an employer from “taking certain adverse actions against an individual who is engaging in –or is regarded as engaging in—a lawful activity both off the employer's premises and during non-work hours,” such as smoking. This will outlaw high-handed decisions like the one Weyers made.

Sen. Ray Basham (D-Taylor) will be testifying before the House Commerce Committee Tuesday, chaired by Rep. Andy Meisner, D-Ferndale, on his smoke-free workplace legislation, which would ban smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants. It seems amazing that Weyers can fire people for smoking at home during non-work hours, yet there is no law in place that bars people from smoking at their public workplace. Amazing.

Basham introduced this version of his bill, Senate Bill 109 on Jan. 30. He first introduced the exact same legislation two years ago, but it died when the 2005-2006 session ended on Dec. 31. The bill has not even been able to get a hearing in committee in the Republican-controlled Senate after some three years. The House committee is actually taking testimony on the House version of the bill, HB 4163, introduced by Rep. Brenda Clack, D-Flint, on Jan. 30. Hopefully, the House version will finally make the obstructionist Senate act, but if past history is any indicator it will meet the same fate of many other bills sent to the Senate - many passed by the Republicans when they controlled the House last year - and die without ever getting a fair hearing.

Let’s hope not.