Not saying it is justified but I think the fear mongers argument is "If Canada pays for it, they will own it and then we will have to start paying tolls if they ever decide to put them up to cover future maintenance or recoup their money"... You get the idea. That's the way fear-mongering works. Play to future unprovable fears and the sheeple will follow you right off the fucking cliff.

I assume there would be tolls like at all of the international bridges. The bridge they currently use has tolls so that can't be it...
Is it the idea of public infrastructure that's so scary? An adverse reaction to the commie notion that not everything has to be privately owned?

@Yonni, I don't know about in the mid-west, but in the real west of the U.S. there are plenty of government built, owned, and maintained free bridges. I don't think that is it.

I have only read the above article so don't know the facts. But, from what I read there are two parts to this. First, the people are being asked if they want a voice. Whether they agree or not with the free bridge, they are likely to say yes to that.

Second, Canada is offering a free lunch. This draws a ton of skepticism thinking there must be some hidden agenda or plan because "there is no such thing as a free lunch". This would make it easy to find a few people willing to put their faces out there to "protect" everyone else. Doesn't mean everyone is against the free bridge.

Are there any poll results on whether people want the free bridge or not? Not talking about whether people want a vote on such a bridge, but whether people want the bridge itself or not.

Alderian makes a good point. The ballot initiative isn't about this bridge, but about having a voice. Who is going to say no to having some say in things that directly affect their lives?

The explanation is that a fear, uncertainty, and doubt campaign is effective, but usually difficult to afford. Selling tax-exempt fuel at near-market prices makes it easier to afford.

The current Ambassador Bridge is privately built, owned and operated (actually, all the border crossings in Detroit are private ventures). Matty Maroon (owner of the current bridge) apparently had a deal to build a new span, but something buggered it up -- I think Canada didn't like where he wanted to land his bridge in Windsor - it would cause additional congestion, etc. Anyway, Jennifer Granholm tried to push a deal through with Canada and failed, then comes Gov what's-his-face business guy who get a deal with Canada wherein they will 100% fund the bridge AND the funding will also count towards Federal matching grants, which we can then use on other highway projects. Seems like a no-brainer...Canada get's paid back by tolls to use the bridge. Canada wants the bridge for commerce - lots of auto-industry traffic crosses this border. BUT...apparently there is no document legaling binding all this -- Canada can apparently withdraw from the deal whenever they want or amend the agreement...so the fear is the "free bridge" may become "the tax-payers of Michigan built bridge".

For many, we look at this and don't get it. A *private* investor wants to spend his own money to build and manage a bridge, which he has already done successfully. How can a so-called "conservative" governor want a government bridge instead? Makes no sense.

BUT...Prop 6 is a constiutional amendment being pushed by, essentially, *one* individual...which also stinks to high heaven.

We need the bridge (in theory) - it will increase commerce, cut down on expensive traffic delays for businesses, etc - especially if the economy picks up (and traffic with it).

Turning down free Canadian money and matching Federal funds is hard to do. It sounds like Gov Snyder has put together a good deal...it's just not a "conservative" idea to some.

I'm voting no on 6 and letting the Candians build us a bridge.

The extensive reddit discussion covers many of the points rather well:
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/12031c/greedy_us_billionaire_urges_michigan_voters_to/

as does the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_River_International_Crossing

The Canadians seem to be for the new bridge since the existing bridge, the Ambassador Bridge, creates major traffic congestions issues.
It also seems that a new bridge would be favorable for both the Americans and Canadians in that region for economic and traffic reasons.

However, interestingly, the Ambassador Bridge is privately owned (and the only privately owned border crossing between the US and Canada). The owner of the bridge is lobbying hard in opposition of the new bridge as it would directly compete with his bridge, and he would potentially lose profits from both tolls and duty free shops that he owns (including a duty-free gas station that saves consumers a few cents per gallon, but pockets the rest of the 60 cent per gallon tax exemption).

re: Government-owned infrastructure....Uhhh...apart from some bridges, like ALL your roads are government owned and built - so the whole "government shouldn't own infrastructure" argument is a little late...

"...he only privately owned border crossing between the US and Canada..." THIS statement is incorrect.

Also isn't there always big money to be made when government business falls into private hands? I'm a big supporter of free enterprise, but selling tax-exempt fuel because you own a bridge is a bug, not a feature. How did that go wrong?

I didn't know much about the issues about there being "no document legaling binding all this" or what sort of international binding documents could be created but connecting the 401 to the I-75 is a no brainer.

It is appauling that one decrepit billionaire can bully his way into delaying (or stopping) something that is very much in the public's best interest.

But such is the world I guess. I was just curious if there was something more to it than that.

Sorry, apparently it is actually one of two privately owned bridges.

"...isn't there always big money to be made when government business falls into private hands..."

Your foundational argument is false -- that there is "government business" to begin with. That the government *is* involved in so much business is often the problem, as there is no incentive to control costs...because when you run out of cash, you dig into the tax-payer's pocket. Private industry tries to minimze costs in order to maximize profit. Let's also keep in mind that when government "get's involved" in business, it really means "private industry will eventually do the work...but we are going to skim cash off the top FIRST for the bureaucracy..."

And as for letting people vote on it.
Isn't this one of the most basic functions of government. Deciding where roads go?

@yebellz - there are also two private tunnels - one for traffic, one for trains.

@yonni - lol When is the last time ANYONE voted on where a road was going to go?? lol That's hillarious!

Isn't that essentially what Prop 6 is suggesting?

Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality ***where “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” are to be located*** before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.

@krellin - 'that there is "government business" to begin with'

Fair enough, maybe there shouldn't be, or maybe there should be. Either way, handing a tax arbitrage to an individual is a bug, not a feature. Either have the tax and everyone pays, or don't have it and no one pays. My point was that the *confusion* has produced this outcome - everyone pays except the bridge owner, who then pockets most of the difference.

Prop 6 is amending the constitution for a *single* point issue, and was put together by *1* billionaire. It's repulsive and abusive.

We actually elect government officials to negotiate things like this.

Take this concept to the ridiculous extreme....where voters get to vote on ALL infrastructure that the government has oversite of...sewer lines, power lines, roads, etc. You'd be casting a vote on roads and such every day. So when you apply the stink test to this proposition -- i.e. what if we applied thsi idea everywhere! -- it stinks to high heaven, even if your an atheist.

"everyone pays except the bridge owner" I'm not sure to what you are referring, and with your previous "tax-exempt fuel" statements. this is some issue I am not aware of.

If you are not aware of it just check out the wikipedia page for DRIC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_River_International_Crossing. One of the privileges of owning the (current) bridge is that you own the duty-free gas stations there, which do not have to pay tax on the gasoline they sell. Almost none of this price difference is reflected in the customers price. Owner pockets most of what other gas stations (his competitors in the market) have to pay in tax.

@krellin to hone my last point a bit, the tax-free gas is the whole reason anyone wants to own that bridge.

@tendmote -- duty free -- it's in all the airports, too. Not a new concept at all.

Well if you are going to own and maintain a bridge privately, you actually *do* need a source of revenue. Noone is forced to buy gas there.

Generally speaking, though, sure, it's a raw deal for others. Just like every single municiplaity with an automotive facility in it gives property tax breaks to the auto companies, even though their traffic tears up the roads, etc. Oh...but they provide jobs, etc. And on and on it goes...corporations get tax breaks everywhere, not just bridge owners.

then again, corporations paying taxes is a lie anyway. Corporations don't pay taxes...YOU pay taxes when you purchase goods and services from the corporation, because the taxes are baked in to the price. Only, now the government is double dipping, because you pay a % sales tax, for example, on the taxes baked into the cost of a product. Get it...

Corporate taxes should be eliminated.

Ironically, Canadian corporate taxes are building you a shiny new bridge ; )

@krellin Duty-free is not a new concept, but that does not mean it's a good idea. To me it seems like a pretty bad case of government and business getting intermingled in a way that plays favorites. It's the worst of both worlds when one player in business gets a different set of rules than his competitors (in this case, nearby gas stations. No one is forced to buy gas at the bridge, BUT IT SURE THE FnCK IS CHEAPER. Where are you gonna go?)

Duty-free is perfectly acceptable. It's in airports (as has been pointed out) and oncruise ships. The moment a cruise ship corsses into international waters, the duty-free shop opens up. In a US airport, if you have a ticket for an international flight on the backside of security, you can shop in the dutyfree shops, you just can't get your items until you are boarding the flight, preventing you from buying your studd then cancelling the flight. And in other countries flying into the US, once you are beyond US customs, you are good to go in shopping at the duty free shops.

I love duty free. On cruises you can buy cuban cigars. Now you can't on flights into the US as they are import prohibited, but to be able to have a Cuban off the coast of Cuba on a Caribbean cruise is, well, one of the finer things in life.

Draugnar's cynical doctrine of personal enjoyment is also acceptable. Never mind the distortion of the market by inconsistent application of government power. Draugnar like! Draugnar like! At least it keeps things simple. :)

Fuck yeah! :-P

Yonni-- there are no corporate taxes. Canadian citizens are paying for it. Corporations do not have money unless citizens pay them for products and services. From the profits, they pay taxes...profits come from purchases...purchases come from people.

In fact, liberals should truly abhor corporate taxes, because they harm the poor more than the rich. i.e. When I buy a shirt that has X% cost increase because of taxes, it doesn't matter if I'm poor or rich, I pay the same rate. Those that think the rich should have a larger % tax burden should hate corporate taxes.

@krellin - I think you have answered the original question. Why are some people opposed to the new crossing? Because they believe in free markets and believe the new government-sponsored bridge is antithetical to free markets. They are being led to believe this by the owners of the existing bridge, whose income comes from avoiding taxes that others have to pay. That is not the type of level playing field a free market requires. The status quo isn't free-enterprise capitalism either, and from the US perspective here, hey, free new bridge? I'd take the bridge.

I'm certainly no expert on taxes, but it was my understanding that corporate taxes are essentially an alternative to taxing the income of the people who own the corporation. The income gets taxed at the lower(?) corporate tax rate rather than the personal income tax rate.
I'm not sure how you construe this being passed on to the consumer any more than it being taxed entirely as personal income.

Well, if it is true there is no contract, I wouldn't. I'd say "give me a contract first" and get the guarantee in writing. I have a hard enough time trusting my own government. You think I'm gonna trust some foreign government not to screw me over?