Print

• yes
• no

[marilyn.monroe]

How is it Constitutional to deny citizens the right to vote on a major contract for the state or amend their Constitution?

[blue2]

NO just build it for the truckers and let them pay for it.

[Skittelroo]

I don't feel I have any input on a new bridge, since I have only been across the current one once in my lifetime.   Only those who use it would have an idea whether it is needed, seems to me.   I just don't have an interest in leaving our lilttle corner

[Baby Hitler]

How does this bridge negatively affect anyone that doesn't already own a bridge? The Canadians said that they will pay for it, so I don't see it as a big deal.

Let's look at the pros and cons of the current situation:

Pros:
1. Less traffic for the Ambassador Bridge means shorter wait times to get to and from Canada for everyone.

2. It will create thousands of jobs and opportunities for new businesses.

3. The Canadians are paying for the cost up front, with the tolls to be used to repay them and their backer.

4. Having two bridges in relatively close proximity of each other, and having different owners, will help to insure reasonable bridge tolls at both bridges.


Cons:

1. Because the bridge will be owned by the Canadians, there will be no profits made directly from the bridge for the U.S. It probably should have been done as a joint venture between Canada and the U.S.



Prior to the current situation, and with regards to any Michigan Taxpayer money being used to finance the cost of the bridge, I would agree that the amendment to require a vote could possibly be a plus. However, due to the changes that have been made, I don't see it as an issue to be voted on.

Now if they wanted to have an amendment that stated that the citizens would have to vote for the increases to pay for representatives, or to vote for any new taxes, I'd be all for it.

[Professor H]

Can't vote on something being done by a Foreign Country - and already has the support of the Feds.

Enough doubt was spread in the propaganda to stop the State from taking a financial leadership role - so let the Canadians put up the $$ and reap the benefits.

Fluffy - I'm surprised we haven't already put it on the ballot at State level - No pay increases when taxes are above 2% without a vote of the people at the gubernatorial election...

Federal Levels...  No pay increases while a deficit is more than 10% of GDP - and pay cuts when it is more than 15%

Wanna see busy congressmen - enact those and you'd really see some action.

[Baby Hitler]

Can't vote on something being done by a Foreign Country - and already has the support of the Feds.

Enough doubt was spread in the propaganda to stop the State from taking a financial leadership role - so let the Canadians put up the $$ and reap the benefits.

Fluffy - I'm surprised we haven't already put it on the ballot at State level - No pay increases when taxes are above 2% without a vote of the people at the gubernatorial election...

Federal Levels...  No pay increases while a deficit is more than 10% of GDP - and pay cuts when it is more than 15%

Wanna see busy congressmen - enact those and you'd really see some action.

I agree on the state level. On the Federal level, it is my opinion that they make more in the form of kickbacks and jobs waiting for them after they get out of office for the favors they did while in office.

And no, I don't have any evidence to support such claims, it's just my opinion.

[marilyn.monroe]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2012/06/22/wdr-bridge-petition.html

A lobby group in Michigan has gathered nearly half a million signatures petitioning against the decision of a new, publicly-funded international crossing between Windsor, Ont., and Detroit.
 
Last May, the People Should Decide Ballot Committee started gathering signatures to get on the November state-wide ballot.
 
The referendum would decide whether Michigan voters will have the final say on a new international crossing.
 
The group needed 322,000 signatures. More than 420,000 have signed the petition.


http://thepeopleshoulddecide.com/

[lordfly]

Wait, is it a petition against the bridge, or a petition to put it on the ballot?

Why do we need to vote on bridges?

What is the downside of a new bridge?

[Frenchfry]

Latest bridge ad is full of more distortions than facts

Like political attack ads, the Ambassador Bridge owners' latest TV ads attacking Gov. Rick Snyder's proposed public bridge offer a blend of fact, half-truths, and outright distortion.

The claim: The most recent ad opens with a shot of a woman worried about money as she writes checks for a pile of bills. A voice-over then says that government bureaucrats want to write a $2-billion check for Snyder's proposed bridge to Canada.

The ad continues that citizens can save themselves $100 million a year by signing a petition to put an Ambassador Bridge-backed referendum on the November ballot to require a public vote on any new bridge or tunnel. The ad is paid for by an Ambassador Bridge-funded effort called the People Should Decide.

Fact check: The proposed New International Trade Crossing bridge project costs about $2 billion, but most of that will be paid for by Canada or the U.S. government. Even Michigan's $550 million up-front share would be paid for by Canada and paid back through tolls, not by Michigan taxpayers.


The claim: The ad also says the Michigan Senate voted down Snyder's plan and that the governor wants to go around the Legislature.

Fact check: The full Senate never voted on the proposal. One Senate committee voted against it. But it's true that Snyder now appears ready to rely on an agreement with Canada to build the bridge, bypassing the legislative roadblock in Lansing.


The claim: Finally, the ad says Snyder's bridge proposal will cost Michigan taxpayers $100 million a year, a figure the Ambassador Bridge owners claim would be needed to cover shortfalls in bridge tolls used to pay back construction costs.

Fact check: That's false. Snyder and other leaders have said repeatedly that the agreement is written in a way to protect Michigan taxpayers. Any shortfall in revenues will be borne by the private operator hired to build and run the bridge.

Overall assessment: Like earlier such ads, this one offers more distortion than fact.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120613/BUSINESS06/206130444/Latest-bridge-ad-is-full-of-more-distortions-than-facts

[marilyn.monroe]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The citizens of Michigan have a Constitutional right to petition the government!

[Professor H]

The citizens of Michigan have a Constitutional right to petition the government!

Of Canada???  It's a Canadian Bridge this time... 

[marilyn.monroe]

Of Canada???  It's a Canadian Bridge this time... 

Since when does Canadian law supercede the Constitution?

[SidecarFlip]

Of Canada???  It's a Canadian Bridge this time...

Whatever MM has in between her ears, maybe the Canadians should use it for the bridge abutments......

MARYLIN....IT'S A CANADIAN OWNED AND FINANCED VENTURE

sheeeesh.

[marilyn.monroe]

Whatever MM has in between her ears, maybe the Canadians should use it for the bridge abutments......

MARYLIN....IT'S A CANADIAN OWNED AND FINANCED VENTURE

sheeeesh.

hehehe. Last I checked part of it was going down on Michigan soil.

[jbs49238]

Well it wouldn't be much of a money maker if it stopped just short now would it?