Print

• yes
• no

[Professor H]

I can't stand the lies coming from the bridge owner but the chosen course to git r done is wrong in my opinion.

This is a golden opportunity for the US Federal government to implement a FDR type public works program to put some of our citizens back to work.

Possible beneficiaries could be the engineers...the foundries....those constructing it...and even those operating it (US government employees should be in charge of the borders)

Talk about creating jobs.....and the trickle down effect would be enormous....US citizens contributing to the economy...but again that's contrary to the off-shoring mantra of Rick Snyder and his anal maze loving supporters.

It wasn't "shovel ready"...   but I do agree it should have been more of a US priority -
perfect for Obama to exhibit economic leadership on... 
He dropped the ball.

The Canadians were never going to allow the expansion at the current location due to the congestion and truck traffic it brought to that section of Winsor.   
(It makes sense - as they don't want to perpetuate our mini-version in Frenchtown on Telegraph where they over built the capacity of the one lane road servicing it.)

Snyder tried - but couldn't get it past the legislature who was still trying to balance the mess left over from Granholm. 

You still will see some jobs - but the majority will be for Canadians.

The US customs will still be in charge of entry - who owns/operates a bridge doesn't change that - so there will be a few more jobs in that area as well...

[Baby Hitler]

The US customs will still be in charge of entry - who owns/operates a bridge doesn't change that - so there will be a few more jobs in that area as well...

Not to mention all the gas stations, and fast food restaurants that will undoubtedly spring up all over that area once the bridge is built, and probably prior to that as well to service the construction workers. Not to mention local apartment complexes, hotels, etc. to house those workers, and the grocery stores and clothing stores that they will shop at.

[jbs49238]

It wasn't "shovel ready"...   but I do agree it should have been more of a US priority -
perfect for Obama to exhibit economic leadership on... 
He dropped the ball.

Snyder tried - but couldn't get it past the legislature who was still trying to balance the mess left over from Granholm. 

You still will see some jobs - but the majority will be for Canadians.

You drilled it profH.

Interesting how some folks cannot get behind a guy even when he does the right thing, simply out of blind partisanship.

Snyder tried to get this done in a way that would benefit Michigan BOTH short and long term, but the hangover of Grannynomics and the deep pockets of Moroun paying off elected officials to protect his enterprise kept Snyder from getting the FULL positive economic effect of the project.

Snyder showing his true grit and leadership made the right move, bypassed those who refuse to put constituent representation before personal gain, and made the best deal for Michigan.  Part of something is better than none of everything.

At least someone in Lansing is FINALLY looking out for Michigan.

[jbs49238]

First amendment gives people the right to petition government. Toss Morry and Dick for all I care, neither one is fit to build the bridge. The bridge isn't going to do diddley squat for Michigan except cost us money and jobs.

Petition all you wish... then go pound sand.

Neither IS building a bridge.  Canada is!  Why?... because your elected representatives were too stupid and paid off not to.  We are just giving them an end point.  You have been told and shown this will not cost Michigan money and will only create jobs in the long term. 

Just go ahead and keep on believing Matty Moroun... he will be joinging you in the sand pounding soon anyways.

[T-M-T]

First amendment gives people the right to petition government.

True.  You could petition for an investigation into Obama's birthplace, an end to the Federal Reserve or a nationwide ban on green M&M's.  That doesn't mean you automatically get to go in front the Supreme Court and argue your case.  Fortunately, our country has ways to screen out the nutjobs and keep them from bogging down the sane people who actually have to get things done.

[SMASH]

This bridge has been coming for a long time.
Who is going to pay for it is irrelevent. We are all going to pay for it.
The politicians can say what ever they want. At the end of the day we will foot the bill for it.
Go back to sleep people.
OBEY

doublespeak 101

[Maverick]

If I wanted the opportunity to vote on the bridge I would first become a Canadian citizen.

[lordfly]

Who is going to pay for it is irrelevent. We are all going to pay for it.
The politicians can say what ever they want. At the end of the day we will foot the bill for it.
Go back to sleep people.

Spooky socialist bridge will bring more FedNotes by the metric (Canadian, remember) truckload! HIDE YO KIDS, HIDE YO WIFE

[SidecarFlip]

This bridge has been coming for a long time.
Who is going to pay for it is irrelevent. We are all going to pay for it.
The politicians can say what ever they want. At the end of the day we will foot the bill for it.
Go back to sleep people.
OBEY

Normally, I agree in principle with your assertations but not this time.  This is a Canadian undertaking and has little to do with the United States or Michigan other than creating a few jobs on the American Side of the Bridge.

Windsor is an auto town, like Detroit was 20 years ago before Coleman Young raped the city and it's population, dummed down from years of gestapo like rule, complied with Young's and then Kilpatrick'a agenda.

It's very important for Canada to insure the flow of imports and exports as it relates to the automotive industry.

Thats why they are building it.
Matty on the other hand is a sore looser.  He'll still make money on his bridge, just not as much as the greedy bassard wants to make.

[marilyn.monroe]

True.  You could petition for an investigation into Obama's birthplace, an end to the Federal Reserve or a nationwide ban on green M&M's.  That doesn't mean you automatically get to go in front the Supreme Court and argue your case.  Fortunately, our country has ways to screen out the nutjobs and keep them from bogging down the sane people who actually have to get things done.

Supreme Court has exceeded it's power too.

US constitution and subsequent legislation and Executive orders gives the authority for border crossing access to the State Department - Secretary of State or authorized delegee (who already has approved it initially)

You want to challenge the President and Secretary of State's Authority 

Education is a wonderful thing...  Try using it in your defense other than hiding behind ideology of "I have rights"...    That same constitution gave powers to the President and Congress, and they've been doing border crossings for many years without a national referendum or vote.   

Your premise on why YOU think a bridge is unnecessary is moot to the issue of authority to build a border crossing

It's a Canadian Bridge since Michigan Legislators didn't want to fund it.

Presidents and Congress have long addressed border crossings by giving the authority as noted to the State Department:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying for Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Facilities (Canada)

Fact Sheet
BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS
January 21, 2009

This document describes the application process for Presidential permits for the construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities on the U.S.-Canada border. It is intended to help permit applicants understand the permit process, and does not constitute an exhaustive review of all steps that must be taken from concept development through construction. Permitting, construction, and completion of any project on the U.S.-Canada border requires close coordination and planning with the Government of Canada as well as with sponsors and federal, state, and local authorities in both countries.

What is a Presidential Permit?

Executive Order 11423, August 16, 1968 (33 Fed. Reg. 11741) states that "...the proper conduct of the foreign relations of the United States requires that executive permission be obtained for the construction and maintenance at the borders of the United States of facilities connecting the United States with a foreign country." Such permission is conveyed through a Presidential permit. Permits are required for the full range of facilities on the border, including land border crossings, bridges, pipelines, tunnels, conveyor belts and tramways. The Department of State processes permit applications for most facilities at the border, although other agencies permit certain cross-border facilities under separate legal authority, as detailed below. To issue a permit, the Department must find that the border facility would serve the national interest. The Department consults extensively with relevant federal, state, and local agencies, and invites public comment in arriving at this determination.

Legal Authorities

The Department's legal authority to issue Presidential permits for land border crossings, international bridges, oil pipelines and certain other trans-boundary facilities is found in Executive Order 11423 of August 16, 1968, as amended by Executive Order 12847 of May 17, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 29511), Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 25299) and, to the extent applicable, the International Bridge Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 535 et seq.). In processing permit applications, the Department reviews compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 470f), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 7629), concerning environmental justice.

Early Consultations Are Desirable

Applicants should consult as early as possible with relevant federal and state agencies. Such consultations help the applicant understand the process and address possible concerns at an early date. At the federal level, applicants should consult with the General Services Administration, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coast Guard (if the project is an international bridge), , as well as the Department of State. At the state level, the applicant should consult with appropriate agencies, including those responsible for the environment, parks, wildlife, highways, and historic and cultural preservation.

Project Categories and Notification

As described in Interpretative Guidance that it published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 8245), the Department has identified three categories of non-pipeline projects for purpose of determining whether a new or amended Presidential permit is required. These categories are based on the magnitude and complexity of the proposed changes at the border.

Red (both notification to the Department of the change and new or amended Presidential permit are required): (1) all new border crossings; and (2) proposed changes that would substantially modify an existing border crossing.
Yellow (notification to the Department of the change is required and a Presidential permit may be required): modification of a border crossing that may have a material effect on Canadian or Mexican government operations in their respective country. The sponsor must notify the Department of its plans. The Department will promptly decide if a Presidential permit is required.
Green (neither Department notification nor Presidential permit is required): changes that are not expected to have a material effect on Canadian or Mexican government operations in their respective country and are not substantial modifications to the border crossing.
For a more detailed explanation of the categories identified above, the Department would refer to the detailed Interpretative Guidance published in the Federal Register (72 Fed. Reg. 8245).

How to Apply and What to Include in the Application

Applications for Presidential permits for land border crossings, international bridges, and certain other trans-boundary facilities at the U.S.- Canada border are made to the Secretary of State, Attention: Border Affairs Officer, WHA/CAN, Room 3917, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20520 or to WHACANmail@state.gov. Applicants should provide the Department five copies of the application and should be prepared to provide approximately 50 more copies in cd-rom or equivalent electronic format directly to the Department or to other federal and state agencies at the Department's request. See below for information about submitting applications for facilities at the U.S.-Mexico border or for oil or liquids pipelines.

Applications should include the following:

Identifying Information. Information precisely identifying the person or entity applying for the permit that will ultimately be responsible for the crossing. If a corporate entity, please identify the ultimate parent corporation and its individual owners. If the applicant is a county, municipality, or other public body, the applicant should state its legal authority to make the application and to own and/or occupy the crossing. The application should specify any intention on the part of the applicant to transfer, sell, or assign to any other entity the facility for which approval is sought. For land border crossings, the General Services Administration will generally be the permittee.
Description of Facility. A detailed description of the proposed facility, including its location, design, the safety standards to be applied, access routes, and details of the proposed construction methods. The application should also include photographs of the construction site; maps that identify the parcel of land that the sponsor intends to provide as a site for the border crossing, if applicable; engineering drawings including the anticipated cross-section, technical specifications and such other explanatory materials as are available, including, if applicable, whether and how the facility may affect the level, flow, or content of any nearby waters.
Guidelines for the construction of an international bridge or tunnel

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/surface/bridges/IBTAguidelines1.htm

Guidelines for the alteration of an international bridge or tunnel

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/surface/bridges/IBTAguidelines2.htm

Guidelines for the change in ownership, operator or control of an international bridge or tunnel

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/surface/bridges/IBTAguidelines3.htm

 

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Requirements and the International Bridges and Tunnels Act

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/013/ibta_e.htm

Other U.S. Approvals. A list of all permits or approvals from all applicable agencies, including U.S. federal, state, and local agencies, that the applicant believes are required in connection with the proposed facility, and a description of what steps have been or will be taken to secure them.
Historic Preservation. A list of all properties in the project area that are included in, or potentially eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Properties. Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, the Department must consider the effects of the proposed facility on such properties and seek comment from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency established under the NHPA. The Department also seeks comment from the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office.
Environmental Justice. Information on minority and low-income populations likely to be affected by construction of the proposed facility. This information will assist the Department in fulfilling its obligations pursuant to Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice.
Environmental Review

In addition to the above, the applicant should include information about foreseeable environmental impacts of the proposed facility. Pursuant to NEPA, in considering an application for a Presidential permit, the Department must take into account environmental impacts of the proposed facility and directly related construction. Environmental impacts may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. Prior to deciding whether to issue the Presidential permit, the Department may be required to prepare, circulate for comment, and file environmental documentation. Applications should include any environmental documentation applicants believe is required under NEPA and the regulations found in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. If an Environmental Assessment (EA) is produced by the applicant, it may be necessary, depending upon the Department’s analysis, for the Department to prepare an EIS. For additional guidance on NEPA requirements, you may wish to consult the following web sites:

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/applcgrf.pdf

http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/tools/guidance/volume2/2-3-eachecklist.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/r9esnepa/checklists/EAEISOutline.PDF

Agency Review and Public Comment

Once the application is complete, the Department will instruct the applicant to provide copies -- including all environmental and other documentation -- to relevant federal and state agencies for their comment. The Department will also publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment. If the proposed facility is located within or near an area declared to be a non-attainment area under the Clean Air Act, the Department must engage in additional consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and appropriate state agencies concerning the level of environmental documentation required. Should questions from the agencies arise during the review, they will be referred to the applicant. The Department, participating agencies, and the applicant will work together to resolve such questions.

The applicant may be required to prepare an amended application reflecting any agreements made in the course of mitigation and/or addressing agency concerns. The Department would then circulate the amended application for final agency review. If the Department determines that the project would have no significant environmental impact, the Department will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Department will publish the FONSI in the Federal Register. If a significant impact is found, the Department must prepare a full environmental impact statement (EIS) before the permit application may be considered further.

National Interest Determination and Permit Issuance

Executive Order 11423 specifies certain federal officials with whom the Department must consult when reviewing a permit application. The Department may also consult with other appropriate federal, state, and local government officials, and it considers all views expressed, including public comment, before making a decision on a permit. When these consultations are complete, the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee will decide whether or not issuance of a permit to the applicant would be in the national interest. If a positive determination is made, the Department informs federal agencies of its intention to issue a Presidential permit. Barring objection(s) from any of the officials specified in the Executive Orders, the Department will issue the Presidential permit 15 days thereafter. In the case of an objection, the Secretary of State will refer the matter directly to the President for a final decision.

Other Necessary Approvals Prior to Authorizing Construction

1. Under the provisions of the International Bridge Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 535, 535c-535h), the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the construction, modification, operation, and maintenance of any bridge connecting the United States with a foreign country. Applicants should consult with the Coast Guard directly regarding its permit process.

2. Receipt of a Presidential permit does not guarantee the availability of sufficient U.S. personnel to provide essential inspection services at the border crossing. Applicants should consult with Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security regarding staffing decisions that could affect the opening and operation of the proposed facility.

Bilateral Coordination with the Government of Canada

The Department coordinates closely with the Government of Canada through a wide variety of channels. Issues involving bridges are generally coordinated through Transport Canada, which is responsible under Canada’s International Bridges and Tunnels Act for permitting international bridges at the federal level. Construction generally cannot begin until the U.S. and Canadian Governments exchange diplomatic notes specifically authorizing construction. The Department must approve any contractual arrangement between state or local authorities and Canadian federal, provincial, or municipal authorities concerning construction of the facility prior to the exchange of notes authorizing construction. Permittees must keep the Department informed of all significant developments related to construction so that the Department may conduct the necessary bilateral coordination with the Government of Canada and, if needed, with other entities.

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2009/114990.htm

And since this originates on the Canadian side... their similar views and process

Guidelines Respecting the Construction of an International Bridge or Tunnel Under the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, S.C. 2007, c.1

Coordination with the Government of the United States

19. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Embassy of Canada coordinate closely with the Government of the United States on issues affecting the U.S.-Canada border. As appropriate, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade communicates with the State Department via diplomatic note at various stages in the approval process.  The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will inform the State Department when applications are received and approved.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/surface-bridges-ibtaguidelines1-909.htm

It might seem like the government has the final say, but the PEOPLE are the ones who run this country and it is high time government was reigned in!

Canada this and Canada that. Canada wants that bridge for a reason and it is not to help out poor Americans.

[Professor H]

It might seem like the government has the final say, but the PEOPLE are the ones who run this country and it is high time government was reigned in!

So are you running for an office to get involved?   

You, me, are the the "People"... and by voting make a difference by duly electing and empowered elected officials to do so.   

No one agree's or likes everything they do - but that doesn't mean it violates the Constitution.

Hope you choose to participate,  - it's a great experience.

[marilyn.monroe]

So are you running for an office to get involved?   

You, me, are the the "People"... and by voting make a difference by duly electing and empowered elected officials to do so.   

No one agree's or likes everything they do - but that doesn't mean it violates the Constitution.

Hope you choose to participate,  - it's a great experience.

No, I am working on my law degree.

[jbs49238]

Mr. Moroun will be glad to have you on staff.

[marilyn.monroe]

Mr. Moroun will be glad to have you on staff.

I wouldn't work for Moroun. I will help the underprivileged.

[SidecarFlip]

Marylin, I'm proud of you.....

"Canada this and Canada that. Canada wants that bridge for a reason and it is not to help out poor Americans."

Very astute.  Canada cares less about the 'poor Americans'.  I stated before that this bridge is about the industrial commerce of the Windsor area as it relates to automotive.  Nothing more and nothing less as far as the Canadian government is concerned.

You should go work for Matty.  He'll be 'underprivledged' soon.  He's about to have his cash cow's udders cut off.

I also find it interesting that CN Rail (Canadien National) is enlarging the tunnels under the river and has proposed an additional tube.  Enlarge the tunnels to accomodate the new, higher multi-levels (car transporting rail cars....).

Marylin.....

Maybe Canada will sell us poo folk down here some of their clean Hydro power.....?