LANSING ? Michigan committee hearings on legislation to authorize a new bridge connecting Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, will continue, but Senate Republicans said late Thursday that the bills will not move until sometime after the Legislature’s summer recess.
The decision, at odds with Governor Rick Snyder’s request that the Legislature pass the legislation by July 1, underlines the enormous obstacles facing Snyder and supporters of the bridge in trying to persuade what is clearly a skeptical crop of lawmakers. Snyder, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) and Sen. Mike Kowall (R-White Lake Township), chair of the committee handling the bills, discussed the issue late Thursday afternoon.
“The outcome was that they will continue discussions about the legislation over the summer,” Richardville spokesperson Amber McCann said. “I think given the amount of information that the committee has received and is likely to receive, it’s unlikely that this bill will be coming to the floor before the end of June.”
Top Republicans were careful to say the move does not mean the legislation is in trouble.
Kowall said he planned further hearings for as soon as next week and especially wanted to bring in officials from the Department of Transportation.
Richardville said it was too soon to say the proposal was in trouble. “There’s still a fair amount of time to look at this,” he said, citing Snyder’s original declaration that he wanted to handle the project this year.
Asked about the level of skepticism in the Senate Republican caucus, Richardville said, “I specifically asked this caucus on Tuesday to be skeptical. I asked them to be sure they took a hard look and wipe the slate clean.”
Snyder press secretary Sara Wurfel said with all the other issues on the agenda, time simply ran out to complete the bridge bill in June.
“We look forward to working on the issue throughout the summer,” she said. “We’re going to keep a strong focus on the need for the bridge and its role in Michigan’s economic comeback. We’re look forward to a vote in the fall.”
The decision to wait on the bills (SB 410 , SB 411 ) came as the owners of the Ambassador Bridge, which fiercely opposes the new bridge supporters call the New International Trade Crossing, had their turn testifying before the Economic Development Committee after backers had their say Wednesday.
Matthew Moroun, son of Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel “Matty” Moroun, sought to rebut the points made Wednesday by Lt. Governor Brian Calley.
Perhaps the argument he hit hardest was the claim that the Ambassador has a monopoly on border crossing traffic. He showed maps with routes highlighted from Chicago to Toronto, Holland to Toronto, Nashville, Tennessee, to Toronto and Detroit Metro Airport to Toronto, using either the Ambassador or the government-run Blue Water Bridge connecting Port Huron and Sarnia, Ontario.
The mileage was usually similar. And he noted that the Ambassador competes with the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel for car traffic.
“There’s two different crossings that we compete with every day,” he said. Then reciting Calley’s argument, “A monopoly is where there’s no competition,” Moroun said, “That’s patently false.”
Moroun pointed to memos from government staff from the past raising concerns about whether tolls would generate sufficient revenue to repay bonds on a new bridge.
He also took particular aim at the claim that if a new bridge is not built in Detroit, one will be built in Buffalo, New York. Moroun displayed a map showing a clear geographical divide essentially along the Appalachian Mountains indicating that it would be wasteful for a company to go through Buffalo when it would be considerably fewer miles to go through Michigan.
“There’s no competition between Michigan crossings and Buffalo,” he said. “Rand McNally says so.”
Moroun mocked the constant refrain from bridge supporters that the Ambassador is fatally compromised by the 17 traffic lights along Huron-Church Road between the bridge and Ontario Highway 401. Moroun said Huron-Church Road is not an “evil, mythological hydra swallowing cars and trucks” and could be redone to eliminate traffic lights at a much lower cost than a new bridge.
Like Calley, who got tough questions and comments from committee members from both parties, Moroun also got grilled.
Senate Minority Floor Leader Tupac Hunter (D-Detroit) and Sen. Virgil Smith (D-Detroit) particularly unloaded on Moroun. Hunter blasted the tactics of the bridge company and its allies while Smith said the Moroun family has brought the proposed competing government bridge on itself.
Hunter seemed especially upset by a poll the bridge company conducted that characterized companion legislation providing benefits to the surrounding community of where the bridge would be build as a “payoff to Detroit politicians.”
“To stoop to that level is just very disappointing,” he said, also noting the fake eviction notices posted by Americans for Prosperity-Michigan, which receives funding from the bridge company. Then, speaking to Moroun and Mickey Blashfield of the bridge company of their apparent reaction, “There’s no need to look bewildered at all. It’s pretty clear where I’m going.”
Smith alluded to various problems the bridge company has encountered. Several of its properties – most notoriously the Michigan Central Station – are abandoned and in horrendous condition. He said the Morouns’ conduct was hurting its position in an ongoing legal dispute with the state over the Gateway project to tie the Ambassador directly into I-75 and I-96.
“I think Moroun, sometimes you’re your own worst enemy,” he said. “I’m of the opinion that you can do more to improve your image. Based upon that, I think you are running into huge problems in this project. … I think you’re going to have to clean up a number of your actions in Southeast Michigan or I don’t see it happening no time soon.”
A Wayne Circuit Court judge has ruled for the state and against the bridge company.
Republicans had tough questions too. Sen. Mike Nofs (R-Battle Creek) threw Moroun’s arguments against the new bridge against the Ambassador’s plans to build a new span next to the existing one.
“It points to you showing the business model isn’t there for this proposition to make any money and actually would be a disaster,” Nofs said. “If that is the case, why would you build a second bridge?”
Moroun countered that a new Ambassador span would cost $400 million to $500 million, much less than the government-led bridge. “They’re two totally different projects,” he said.
The committee also heard testimony from Samara Barend, vice president for strategic development and director for public-private partnerships for North America for AECOM, a leading engineering and infrastructure firm.
Barend said a public-private partnership would prove an ideal model for the new bridge and emphasized that taxpayers have greater accountability for the bridge through their government than with a purely private operation. She said the proposed bridge has attracted worldwide attention and her company would like to compete for the project.
Sam Barron, with group that is a leading provider of public-private partnerships, recently part of winning consortium on Long Beach courthouse.
This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com
