  Sg9018 Member Username: Sg9018 Post Number: 105 Registered: 10-2006 |
David L Littmann wrote a editorial on the possable new Detroit-Canada Crossing. He wrote the new bridge will be unprofiable and a waste of tax money. He based his opinion on the unprofitable Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron . Here is a link, http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20071227/O PINION01/712270314 What do you guys think. Should the new crossing be built? | ||
Sciencefair Member Username: Sciencefair Post Number: 35 Registered: 10-2007 |
I think a second span is worthwhile, as long as it's not on the taxpayer's dime. I usually cross at Port Huron or take the tunnel, but I understand the impending need for a new bridge. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3152 Registered: 06-2006 |
"He wrote the new bridge will be unprofiable and a waste of tax money." Hmmm...Moroun (the guy he's arguing on behalf of, btw) sure thinks a second span would be profitable if he intends to spend $1 billion on it... | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4390 Registered: 10-2003 |
I wonder if Littman got something nice in his stocking from Manny Moroun? "...the Ambassador Bridge became the most successful border crossing in North America since being acquired by the Maroun [sic] family in 1979." If no crossing is built, who benefits? I find it difficult to believe that a second span would not be profitable, long run. Sometimes analysis does not properly take in the 'if you build it they will come' aspect. In other words, opportunities offered by expedited traffic and competition to hold down costs could unmask hidden markets. Build it, but not as a part of Moroun's monopoly. | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 741 Registered: 08-2006 |
The state is also looking to gouge a large are of Port Huron with a new border crossing terminal which will eat up over 60 acres of land. Not to mention they also want to sever crossings under the bridge dividing the city. The city is already cut in two socially and economically and this project may make things worse by physically cutting off two ends of the city for the most part. http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0 ,1607,7-151-9621_11058_22978-9 3508--,00.html http://thetimesherald.com/apps /pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007101 4/NEWS01/710140325 http://thetimesherald.com/apps /pbcs.dll/article?AID=/9999999 9/NEWS01/71005011&theme=PLAZA& template=theme | ||
Izzadore Member Username: Izzadore Post Number: 79 Registered: 11-2006 |
A second crossing should be built privately. Competition is always good. Could you imagine sitting at home and watching a commercial touting the Ambassador Bridge? It'd be kinda cool I think. | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 980 Registered: 09-2005 |
This is the same David L Littmann, isn't it, that has recently joined that crack think-tank, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy? They make Ron Paul look like a centrist. In their feverish dreams, the government doesn't do any governing, or spending on infrastructure. The Mackinac Center's motto should be "Don't Spend Nuthin' on Nuthin'". | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 11178 Registered: 12-2003 |
Can you have a double negative in a motto?! Wait! That's a triple! Or is it a single with dual nulls? Dammit. Spend Something on Nothing. (since "spend something" is equal to "don't spend nuthin'") I think I need more caffeine... | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 11179 Registered: 12-2003 |
...doesn't that make them pseudo-Neo-Cons?! THEY spend LOTS on nothing. | ||
Billk Member Username: Billk Post Number: 192 Registered: 09-2005 |
I think he used to be the chief economic forecaster at Comerica Bank also. Usually knows what he's talking about. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 427 Registered: 06-2007 |
In this case, it's one more example of an Op-Ed piece being passed as fact by the DetNews. It's the rag version of Fox News. I wish we had a real newspaper in this city. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1551 Registered: 02-2006 |
However, if it's true that traffic on the bridge is down that much, it DOES beg the question: "so why do we need another one?" If it's privately financed though, who cares. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 476 Registered: 11-2003 |
Littman was chief economist for Comerica and is president of the Mackinaw Policy Centre. Maroun is one of if not the richest guys in the area. Connection? Of course. All those folks know each other, and have a large interest in helping each other out, even if there is no "direct connection." It's how the rich stay rich, folks. There's never money exchanged, it's in conversation at a dinner party. Access is how you get things done - that is the entire game. I am against private ownership of these sorts of vital arteries. Agreed with the poster above - if it would be unprofitable, why then boost Maroun's case later in the article? I personally don't care if the bridge turns a profit. It's infrastructure. Under the logic proposed by Mr. Littmann, we need to make sure every road built and repaired turns a profit. That's lunacy. If we followed that logic, vast areas of this country would still be in the third world as they never would of been electrified, which wouldn't of happened without government intervention. There are things that I totally believe are best served by private interests. Owning an internationally vital bridge is not one of them. | ||
Treelock Member Username: Treelock Post Number: 250 Registered: 03-2005 |
There's been talk that two new bridges could eventually be built – one by Mr. Mouroun and the other, probably down in Delray, by the state. That would probably be excessive, but I'm sure Mouroun's arrogant enough to go forward with his plans come hell or high water. Whatever happens, I just hope we all get the option to not further line the pockets of this disgraceful, disrespectful slumlord. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6005 Registered: 08-2004 |
I'm not sure that Wall Street will want to fund (via private or public bonds or otherwise) 2 new bridges across the river. They may deem it too risky. | ||
Rob_in_warren Member Username: Rob_in_warren Post Number: 54 Registered: 11-2007 |
"He wrote the new bridge will be unprofitable and a waste of tax money." Only government should build and own this bridge. It should only be built if it makes this region more suitable in the eyes of international commerce. The bridge can cost millions per year to build/maintain, but if it sparks billions in business it is then "profitable". | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 984 Registered: 09-2005 |
" think he {Littmann} used to be the chief economic forecaster at Comerica Bank also. Usually knows what he's talking about." Actually, when Littmann was the Comerica economist, his motto was, "Sprawl is Good!" His articles were always slanted towards unchecked construction and minimum regional planning. Since he worked for a company that wrote countless hundreds of millions in mortgage and commercial building loans, I don't think his editorials were unbiased intellectual assessments back then either. | ||
Andyguard73 Member Username: Andyguard73 Post Number: 270 Registered: 03-2006 |
Regarding Fareastsider's post: I've been following the Port Huron Plaza plans pretty closely the last year and a half, and originally flip-flopped on the issue, but now I've firmly settled in as being pro-plaza, so long as its built as the city-west alternative. This would correct a lot of the mistakes that the state made in the mid-90's. For the record, the plan does not call for any north-south crossings to be closed only for pine-grove to be re-routed. Also, the Times-Herald has been entirely biased against the plaza, (like it is against all change). This website discusses some of the merits of the plans in a (relatively) objective manner. http://www.positiveplazaaltern atives.org/ Sorry for getting a little off topic, but I thought it was worth mentioning. |
