Seriously, my comments about a one newspaper town, especially a newspaper on a mission, are even more frightening now. Thank goodness for the Internet where we can read what others say easily.
Imagine, getting the real story about why the CMVA letter was written from the Toronto Star and not the Windsor Star. Oh we got a hint in the Windsor Star:
- "Michigan's government is considering an amendment in the state's budget to withdraw DRIC support.
Here was their follow-up:
- "Bill Shreck, spokesman for both the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Granholm on border crossing issues, did not respond to a message Thursday."
One whole message. Wow....that is investigative journalism that should win the Windsor Star some more newspaper awards. Imagine if Mr. Shreck had actually been contacted. Imagine if he said that the State had no opposition to the Ambasador Bridge moving forward with their Enhancement Project as was said before or that it was a ""viable private option" as the MDOT Director said. That might have ruined the story.
Obviously, the DRIC people have been out there lobbying for anyone to say anything to try to prevent the State from cutting off their funding. After all, drilling bore holes at around a million taxpayer dollars a hole is more vital than closing police stations.
And of course the Leakor was active feeding the "Exclusive" to Today's Trucking first.
Fortunately, the DRIC people got the auto association letter just in time to put it out into the media for the Mackinac Policy Conference. I am sure that Michigan Legislators will appreciate being pressured by their public servants in this manner or by the Canadian Governments.
It's time I did something about starting an Internet newspaper for Windsor! Writers, advertisers, investors, etc.....we should talk.
Here is the TORONTO Star story so you can put everything in a context.
- New bridge to Michigan hits a bump
Manufacturers say a second Windsor-Detroit crossing is crucial to relieve congestion, but some Michigan state legislators are balking at the costs.
The cash-strapped state could amend its budget to cut funding support for the planned project
Jun 01, 2007 , Tony Van Alphen, Business Reporter
Michigan says it is close to stopping project funding for a multi-billion-dollar bridge between Detroit and Windsor that is critical to the future of the Canadian and U.S economies.
Alan Cropsey, majority leader in the Michigan senate, said yesterday that legislators will likely pass a proposed amendment to the state budget within 60 days that would cut financial support of a continuing study for the bridge project.
"There is a huge concern that many of us have in the legislature about whether the state of Michigan should be funding another crossing," Cropsey said in an interview with the Toronto Star.
Cropsey, a Republican senator, said cash-strapped Michigan is questioning why the state should be spending money on a project when the owner of the Ambassador Bridge wants to twin it, owns the necessary property and has received government approvals.
A Michigan move to cut money for the study will be seen as a sign the state will not support the cost of the American half of the project – a tab that could run from $1.5 billion to $3.5 billion (U.S.), according to Cropsey.
"This is such a boondoggle," he said, noting the state has far more pressing budget needs.
A pullout by Michigan could further delay any relief for a worsening border traffic problem. It has dragged on for more than a decade and already cost business millions of dollars annually.
"It puts the new bridge for completion by 2013 in jeopardy," said Gerald Fedchun, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association. "This would be a very serious setback."
Other industry groups, including big auto makers on both sides of the border, are lobbying politicians and urging senate leaders to keep the bridge funding. Manufacturers have called a new crossing imperative and "a bottom line issue."
Cropsey said he believes a strong majority of the Republican-controlled senate will support the amendment, part of the next fiscal budget in the fall of this year. Governor Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, "is leaning" toward support of the amendment, he added.
The bridge study has also received money from the Canadian, Ontario and U.S. governments. It should be complete by the end of the year and could cost up to $38 million, Cropsey said.
"My guess is they have expended more than half of the costs so far," he said. "We want to stop it now. It's just a waste of money."
Meanwhile, trucking magnate Matty Moroun, who owns the Ambassador Bridge, and other executives of his company said this week they have been frustrated over what they describe as recent meddling by government politicians and bureaucrats into border crossing operations where they have no expertise.
Like Cropsey, Moroun said the study to select the next crossing location is a waste of money.
Adding to the uncertainy, Moroun told the Windsor Star that he would sell the Ambassador Bridge if the price is right.
Cropsey's revelation about strong support for cutting project funding follows a letter from auto makers to Cropsey and more than two dozen senators that urges them to continue financial assistance.
John Whatley, vice-president of the the U.S. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and Mark Nantais, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, said in the May 11 letter that the amendment will stop progress toward this "critical infrastructure."
Fedchun's struggling auto parts group has sought a resolution for years because the Windsor-Detroit border bottleneck is increasingly hurting its competitive position.
He suggested the Michigan amendment would seem to favour Moroun and give him some leverage in resolving the long crossing controversy.
"It sounds like someone who owns an existing crossing would want this to happen," said Fedchun, a Windsor native who has watched the problem grow ever larger over the years.
Fedchun said his group and Canadian governments prefer a public bridge because of security concerns and the need to avoid someone holding a monopoly on commercial border crossings.
"The twinning beside the existing bridge would create a security risk," he said. "If you have a big truck and blow up one bridge, you would damage the other one."
He noted a new bridge could be operated privately, as long as its was subject to public control."
No comments:
Post a Comment