Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Coast Guard considers suit over second Detroit-Canada bridge
By TODD SPANGLER • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • April 17, 2009
Updated at 4:01 p.m.WASHINGTON – The president of the company that owns the Ambassador Bridge says the Coast Guard is being fed disinformation and that concerns a second international span is being built without government approval are unfounded.
Dan Stamper, president of the Detroit International Bridge Co., told the Free Press today he already has responded to a letter from the Coast Guard sent last month in which its top bridge administrator said she was considering legal action against the company for beginning work on a second span without getting a permit. The evidence of that, the letter indicated, was construction of a pier and an approach ramp which would serve the new bridge, which the Ambassador Bridge’s private owner – Manuel (Matty) Moroun – wants to construct adjacent to the existing 80-year-old bridge. But Stamper said today – and in his letter responding to Coast Guard administrator Hala Elgaaly’s concerns – that the pier and the ramp are part of the $230-million Gateway Project already well underway, which was originally designed to improve access to the Ambassador Bridge and accommodate a second span to the existing bridge. “We’re saying they’re mistaken, this is not part of the bridge proper,” said Stamper, who added that it’s “disheartening” that misinformation is being given to the Coast Guard. • PDF: Download the Coast Guard's letter The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest trade crossing in North America, linking Detroit with Windsor, Ontario, its span the most important freight link between the world’s two largest trading partners, the United States and Canada. At present, its operators are fighting to maintain their competitive advantage, however. Federal, state and provincial officials on both sides of the border are supporting what’s known as the Detroit River International Crossing or DRIC – a proposal for a publicly owned second span a little more than a mile downriver from the Ambassador Bridge. (2 of 2)
Its supporters say it would create needed redundancy for a link vital to Michigan and Ontario and provided added capacity. Its detractors – including the operators of the Ambassador Bridge – argue it’s a waste of taxpayer money and that capacity needs, if there are any, will be addressed by the Bridge Company’s plans for a six-lane second span to the exisitng four-lane Ambassador Bridge. The big problem with that, however, is that Canadian officials – particularly those immediately across Detroit River in Windsor – are balking at any plans to improve key access roads to the bridge, saying their community won’t stand for it or the traffic it would create. They’re pushing enthusiastically for the downriver span. There was no word today on the Coast Guard’s reaction to Stamper’s repsonse to the letter. Elgaaly didn’t return calls for comment to the Free Press. A photo in the Free Press on March 29, showed some of the work which already has been done in anticipation of the a new Ambassador Bridge on the American side, including approaches to what would be the new span. At the time, Stamper acknowledged the plazas and approaches had been built, saying, “The only thing left is to connect a dead end in Detroit and a dead end in Canada.” Today, however, he said that’s a far cry from actually beginning work on the bridge proper. In her letter, Elgaaly noted that while the Ambassador Bridge does not require a presidential permit for a new international bridge – Congress gave the Bridge Company the authority to build the existing bridge in 1921 – it doesn’t exempt it from other requirements, like a Coast Guard permit. It’s a point Stamper wouldn’t concede in his response but argued is irrelevant because the pier in question represents the final approach from the already authorized Gateway Project and is 4,000 feet away from the actual second span over the river. That newly constructed ramp may dead end where a new span would begin, said Stamper, but that, too, was considered part of the Gateway Project: “There is some overlap,” he said in the letter, adding, “they were always intended to function together.” Earlier this year, the Coast Guard issued a preliminary finding that the new Ambassador Bridge span would have no significant impact but has yet to finalize that ruling. It was still accepting public comments up until the end of last month. If the Coast Guard were to take legal action, it would be under a section of federal law that states no bridge over the navigable waters of the U.S. can be built or commenced without the transportation secretary signing off on it. Criminal penalties for violation of that section could inlcuded fines of up to $5,000 a month and forcing the “removal of such bridge and accessory works at the expense of the persons owning or controlling such bridge.”
By TODD SPANGLER • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • April 17, 2009
Updated at 4:01 p.m.WASHINGTON – The president of the company that owns the Ambassador Bridge says the Coast Guard is being fed disinformation and that concerns a second international span is being built without government approval are unfounded.
Dan Stamper, president of the Detroit International Bridge Co., told the Free Press today he already has responded to a letter from the Coast Guard sent last month in which its top bridge administrator said she was considering legal action against the company for beginning work on a second span without getting a permit. The evidence of that, the letter indicated, was construction of a pier and an approach ramp which would serve the new bridge, which the Ambassador Bridge’s private owner – Manuel (Matty) Moroun – wants to construct adjacent to the existing 80-year-old bridge. But Stamper said today – and in his letter responding to Coast Guard administrator Hala Elgaaly’s concerns – that the pier and the ramp are part of the $230-million Gateway Project already well underway, which was originally designed to improve access to the Ambassador Bridge and accommodate a second span to the existing bridge. “We’re saying they’re mistaken, this is not part of the bridge proper,” said Stamper, who added that it’s “disheartening” that misinformation is being given to the Coast Guard. • PDF: Download the Coast Guard's letter The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest trade crossing in North America, linking Detroit with Windsor, Ontario, its span the most important freight link between the world’s two largest trading partners, the United States and Canada. At present, its operators are fighting to maintain their competitive advantage, however. Federal, state and provincial officials on both sides of the border are supporting what’s known as the Detroit River International Crossing or DRIC – a proposal for a publicly owned second span a little more than a mile downriver from the Ambassador Bridge. (2 of 2)
Its supporters say it would create needed redundancy for a link vital to Michigan and Ontario and provided added capacity. Its detractors – including the operators of the Ambassador Bridge – argue it’s a waste of taxpayer money and that capacity needs, if there are any, will be addressed by the Bridge Company’s plans for a six-lane second span to the exisitng four-lane Ambassador Bridge. The big problem with that, however, is that Canadian officials – particularly those immediately across Detroit River in Windsor – are balking at any plans to improve key access roads to the bridge, saying their community won’t stand for it or the traffic it would create. They’re pushing enthusiastically for the downriver span. There was no word today on the Coast Guard’s reaction to Stamper’s repsonse to the letter. Elgaaly didn’t return calls for comment to the Free Press. A photo in the Free Press on March 29, showed some of the work which already has been done in anticipation of the a new Ambassador Bridge on the American side, including approaches to what would be the new span. At the time, Stamper acknowledged the plazas and approaches had been built, saying, “The only thing left is to connect a dead end in Detroit and a dead end in Canada.” Today, however, he said that’s a far cry from actually beginning work on the bridge proper. In her letter, Elgaaly noted that while the Ambassador Bridge does not require a presidential permit for a new international bridge – Congress gave the Bridge Company the authority to build the existing bridge in 1921 – it doesn’t exempt it from other requirements, like a Coast Guard permit. It’s a point Stamper wouldn’t concede in his response but argued is irrelevant because the pier in question represents the final approach from the already authorized Gateway Project and is 4,000 feet away from the actual second span over the river. That newly constructed ramp may dead end where a new span would begin, said Stamper, but that, too, was considered part of the Gateway Project: “There is some overlap,” he said in the letter, adding, “they were always intended to function together.” Earlier this year, the Coast Guard issued a preliminary finding that the new Ambassador Bridge span would have no significant impact but has yet to finalize that ruling. It was still accepting public comments up until the end of last month. If the Coast Guard were to take legal action, it would be under a section of federal law that states no bridge over the navigable waters of the U.S. can be built or commenced without the transportation secretary signing off on it. Criminal penalties for violation of that section could inlcuded fines of up to $5,000 a month and forcing the “removal of such bridge and accessory works at the expense of the persons owning or controlling such bridge.”
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Dear neighbors and friends,
Below is an editorial submitted by hired Ambassador Bridge Company consultant, Adolph Mongo. He directly attacks the integrity of our community and my work to protect the community from getting shortchanged, yet again, by the Ambassador Bridge Company. No matter which bridge, we should demand 1) a comprehensive environmental impact study, 2) transparency and 3) public discussion of sustainable community benefits that will help revitalize what both bridges plan to destroy and 4) require mitigating measures that protect our human environment be in place before any bridge construction. The DRIC (Delray Bridge) process did include a four-year environmental impact study and monthly public meetings where residents are given an opportunity to oppose, support, ask questions, etc. However, it is important, as many of you know that we carefully monitor the development of the Delray Bridge. Although, the majority of residents are supportive, it’s only because we are given the opportunity to discuss mitigating measures and community benefits. If needs and requests by the community are not met, support for Delray could easily change and we must use that to our advantage. Ironically, his depiction of the Delray Bridge may actually help us fight for more community benefits and protection for those who will be displaced. I urge you all to send in a response to this editorial. I plan to submit mine today.
You can send your letters in a variety of ways:by e-mail: letters@detnews.comby fax: (313) 222-6417by mail: The Detroit News, Letters, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226.
Thursday, April 16, 2009 Commentary
Why deny Detroit a real bridge stimulus?
Adolph Mongo
The issue over who will build a new bridge in southwest Detroit is heating up. The Detroit International Bridge Co., the owner of the 80-year-old Ambassador Bridge, wants to build a second span right next to the old bridge that would benefit the city. The bridge company is prepared to invest $1 billion into a development that would generate an estimated more than 4,000 jobs. This would serve Detroit well at a time when the state leads the country in unemployment. In addition, new manufacturing opportunities would be created. But State Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, who represents southwest Detroit, is opposing this stimulus package. She claimed at a March 17 public hearing that a second span would create more pollution problems. She also stacked a Coast Guard public hearing with an array of speakers who supported her agenda. What Tlaib didn't say is that she does support another bridge project. She is behind the Detroit River International Crossing plan. This proposal is also supported by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, former Gov. James Blanchard and former state Rep. Steve Tobacman. Interestingly enough, the DRIC proposal would force 400 homeowners, a few hundred businesses and several parks in Delray to close or relocate. Advocates want the state to pay for the project. Anyone remember the Poletown project of the early 1980s? The city of Detroit forced 5,000 people, several hundred businesses, three schools, 16 churches and one hospital to move for a new GM plant that was built on the Detroit-Hamtramck border. Proponents claimed that a new technology park would emerge from the new plant, and thousands of jobs would be created. Almost 30 years later, a lone plant stands employing one shift and surrounded by a vasty empty wasteland of vacant lots. That scenario could repeat itself if the DRIC is approved. Detroiters should ask Tlaib why she supports a project that would destroy a fourth of her district and seriously erode her voter base. Detroiters should ask Tlaib why she opposes $1 billion in private investment when the state is drowning in red ink. Tlaib's priorities are misguided. Crime, education and unemployment are issues that need to be dealt with. Tlaib is putting politics before common sense.
Adolph Mongo is a Detroit political consultant who is working for the Detroit International Bridge Co.
Below is an editorial submitted by hired Ambassador Bridge Company consultant, Adolph Mongo. He directly attacks the integrity of our community and my work to protect the community from getting shortchanged, yet again, by the Ambassador Bridge Company. No matter which bridge, we should demand 1) a comprehensive environmental impact study, 2) transparency and 3) public discussion of sustainable community benefits that will help revitalize what both bridges plan to destroy and 4) require mitigating measures that protect our human environment be in place before any bridge construction. The DRIC (Delray Bridge) process did include a four-year environmental impact study and monthly public meetings where residents are given an opportunity to oppose, support, ask questions, etc. However, it is important, as many of you know that we carefully monitor the development of the Delray Bridge. Although, the majority of residents are supportive, it’s only because we are given the opportunity to discuss mitigating measures and community benefits. If needs and requests by the community are not met, support for Delray could easily change and we must use that to our advantage. Ironically, his depiction of the Delray Bridge may actually help us fight for more community benefits and protection for those who will be displaced. I urge you all to send in a response to this editorial. I plan to submit mine today.
You can send your letters in a variety of ways:by e-mail: letters@detnews.comby fax: (313) 222-6417by mail: The Detroit News, Letters, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226.
Thursday, April 16, 2009 Commentary
Why deny Detroit a real bridge stimulus?
Adolph Mongo
The issue over who will build a new bridge in southwest Detroit is heating up. The Detroit International Bridge Co., the owner of the 80-year-old Ambassador Bridge, wants to build a second span right next to the old bridge that would benefit the city. The bridge company is prepared to invest $1 billion into a development that would generate an estimated more than 4,000 jobs. This would serve Detroit well at a time when the state leads the country in unemployment. In addition, new manufacturing opportunities would be created. But State Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, who represents southwest Detroit, is opposing this stimulus package. She claimed at a March 17 public hearing that a second span would create more pollution problems. She also stacked a Coast Guard public hearing with an array of speakers who supported her agenda. What Tlaib didn't say is that she does support another bridge project. She is behind the Detroit River International Crossing plan. This proposal is also supported by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, former Gov. James Blanchard and former state Rep. Steve Tobacman. Interestingly enough, the DRIC proposal would force 400 homeowners, a few hundred businesses and several parks in Delray to close or relocate. Advocates want the state to pay for the project. Anyone remember the Poletown project of the early 1980s? The city of Detroit forced 5,000 people, several hundred businesses, three schools, 16 churches and one hospital to move for a new GM plant that was built on the Detroit-Hamtramck border. Proponents claimed that a new technology park would emerge from the new plant, and thousands of jobs would be created. Almost 30 years later, a lone plant stands employing one shift and surrounded by a vasty empty wasteland of vacant lots. That scenario could repeat itself if the DRIC is approved. Detroiters should ask Tlaib why she supports a project that would destroy a fourth of her district and seriously erode her voter base. Detroiters should ask Tlaib why she opposes $1 billion in private investment when the state is drowning in red ink. Tlaib's priorities are misguided. Crime, education and unemployment are issues that need to be dealt with. Tlaib is putting politics before common sense.
Adolph Mongo is a Detroit political consultant who is working for the Detroit International Bridge Co.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Council Wants EIS!
Today City council Voted 7-0 in favor of submitting comments saying that the council would like an EIS done... Rep. Tlaib (Rashida) wanted to extend a special thanks to those who came to council, showed their support and poured their souls out! It worked! Congrats to all, but our work is far from over because as we all know we have one of the worst neighbors in the country in the bridge and we have yet to get word on a final decision from the Coast Guard on an EIS... Hopefully word will come our way soon. Keep demanding more from our city and hopefully we will continue to see the fruits of our labor.
Cheers,
Joe Rashid
Cheers,
Joe Rashid
Monday, April 6, 2009
Moroun tries to sink rival bridge -- with help from Detroitcongresswoman
By TODD SPANGLER • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • April 6, 2009
WASHINGTON — Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel (Matty) Moroun wants toforbid federal spending on a rival Detroit River bridge project, andasked U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick to write the ban into nextyear’s federal budget.Advertisement
The Detroit International Bridge Co. he controls asked U.S. Rep. CarolynCheeks Kilpatrick, a Detroit Democrat who is the state’s sole member onthe budget-writing House Appropriations Committee, to block funding fora proposed bridge near Zug Island that federal transportation officials,the state of Michigan and supporters in Canada are backing.
Moroun hopes to build a replacement span next to the 80-year-oldAmbassador Bridge, the busiest trade crossing in North America, but isrunning into stiff opposition on the Canadian side of the border.
Kilpatrick posted the request on her Web site on Monday, one of dozensof requests for earmarks — items that go into the federal budget whichare introduced by individual members of Congress and typically call forspending on projects, not prohibiting it. What was unclear was whethershe had forwarded it onto the Appropriations Committee for inclusion innext year’s budget.
Since 1998, Kilpatrick has received more than $64,000 from Moroun andhis allies and she has called into question the need for the othercrossing in the past. Both the Ambassador Bridge and the proposed newspan about 1½ miles downriver are in her district.
State officials expected about $8 million in federal funds for theproject next year.
By TODD SPANGLER • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • April 6, 2009
WASHINGTON — Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel (Matty) Moroun wants toforbid federal spending on a rival Detroit River bridge project, andasked U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick to write the ban into nextyear’s federal budget.Advertisement
The Detroit International Bridge Co. he controls asked U.S. Rep. CarolynCheeks Kilpatrick, a Detroit Democrat who is the state’s sole member onthe budget-writing House Appropriations Committee, to block funding fora proposed bridge near Zug Island that federal transportation officials,the state of Michigan and supporters in Canada are backing.
Moroun hopes to build a replacement span next to the 80-year-oldAmbassador Bridge, the busiest trade crossing in North America, but isrunning into stiff opposition on the Canadian side of the border.
Kilpatrick posted the request on her Web site on Monday, one of dozensof requests for earmarks — items that go into the federal budget whichare introduced by individual members of Congress and typically call forspending on projects, not prohibiting it. What was unclear was whethershe had forwarded it onto the Appropriations Committee for inclusion innext year’s budget.
Since 1998, Kilpatrick has received more than $64,000 from Moroun andhis allies and she has called into question the need for the othercrossing in the past. Both the Ambassador Bridge and the proposed newspan about 1½ miles downriver are in her district.
State officials expected about $8 million in federal funds for theproject next year.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Input sought on new 6-lane bridge next to Ambassador
FREE PRESS STAFF
The Detroit City Council is to hold a hearing at noon April 13 to get public comments on the proposed construction of a 6-lane bridge span next to the Ambassador Bridge.
Residents and council members want the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct an environmental and traffic impact study of the plan.
The council also met with city attorneys and planning officials in a closed meeting Tuesday to discuss pending litigation involving the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit International Bridge Co.
The litigation involves the bridge company's apparent seizure of Riverside Park in southwest Detroit without the city's permission.
The Detroit City Council is to hold a hearing at noon April 13 to get public comments on the proposed construction of a 6-lane bridge span next to the Ambassador Bridge.
Residents and council members want the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct an environmental and traffic impact study of the plan.
The council also met with city attorneys and planning officials in a closed meeting Tuesday to discuss pending litigation involving the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit International Bridge Co.
The litigation involves the bridge company's apparent seizure of Riverside Park in southwest Detroit without the city's permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)