Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2007 Tobocman vs. Moroun Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Realitycheck
Member
Username: Realitycheck

Post Number: 417
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 8:49 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The state rep from SW Detroit, who's now House Majority Floor Leader, is aiming at a longtime adversary: Matty 'Monopolist' Moroun.

Law proposed to oversee bridge, The Windsor Star reported yesterday as our so-called papers snooze past local news.

A bill Steve will re-introduce soon calls for a Border Development and Protection Authority with "the same sweeping authority over border crossings -- including Windsor's bridge and tunnel -- as adopted by Canada's federal government" this year, The Star says.

The new agency would issue annual operating permits, regulate tolls and oversee planning/security -- bringing sunshine + public oversight to Matty's secretive world. At Lansing hearings, we can expect to hear bridge company prez Dan Stamper howl "lay down your sword," as he did in Ottawa before the House of Commons voted to bring the private bridge under federal jurisdiction.

Tobocman first pushed a Michigan version in '05, but never made it to a committee hearing. Now he's got a bigger stick.

Good way to use it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Corktownmark
Member
Username: Corktownmark

Post Number: 277
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 9:47 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is really great for SW Detroit. It has been a long time since the Michigan state legislature has looked at doing ANYTHING that specifically helps Detroit. The new house is a breath of fresh air.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 3221
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 9:55 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Go Steve!
Top of pageBottom of page

Treelock
Member
Username: Treelock

Post Number: 196
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 2:51 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As I ran over the bridge during the the Detroit-Windsor marathon and half last year, I came across an orange cone on what would be called the sidewalk of the bridge's southern edge. It had been kicked or blown over, and was doing a poor job of concealing a gaping hole (!) in the cement through which you could see the blue river far below.

What do you suppose that says about the bridge's structural integrity?
Top of pageBottom of page

Southwestmap
Member
Username: Southwestmap

Post Number: 744
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 2:59 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have a sneaking fear that Manny is deliberately not keeping up the Bridge. He likes it to look a little seedy, when for all the decades I have known it, it looked like a new penny. (He also loves it when he takes out lanes so that it appears hugely crowded and is a frustrating commute for travelers. This advances his goal of making the average joe believe that a new bridge is critical)

Before he said very publicly that the Bridge would be fine for another century. Now, since he wants to build a new bridge that will hold 50% more truck traffic, he says that the bridge is unstable and in need of repair and teetering on the edge of obsolescence.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk

Post Number: 421
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 3:16 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Law proposed to oversee bridge, The Windsor Star reported yesterday as our so-called papers snooze past local news.


It was reported the first time the bill was introduced and reported the first time it was shot down by a committee chair. I don't think it's going to fly. The U.S. is a very pro-property rights state, and as much as I hate Matty Moron, it's going to be tough to wrestle control away from him. Only the federal government could do that, and even then...
So, to answer your question, it likely didn't get reported because:
a) It hasn't been introduced yet, so there's no news. Just that he plans to do so.
b) It doesn't stand a chance. If a lawmaker talked about proposing a bill to sell the U.P. to Canada, it probably wouldn't be reported either. (Though it might for the shear absurdity of it.)
c) If he does introduce it and it appears a committee will take it up, then it has legs, which makes it news.

Seriously, as a guy who used to cover the state Capitol as a reporter, you have no idea how many bills are introduced each day. Many never see the light of day.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.