Tag: public

The lefties have it wrong yet again.

Gross Pointe schools either do not want "certain elements" from other school districts in their schools or they are ignorant of the needs of kids getting shafted in certain areas throughout the state. From the Oakland Press:

"My personal point of view is when you take away local control of education, you essentially steal a community's destiny," board president John Steininger said.

"If your school board cannot control its boundaries and who is allowed to attend your schools, there just isn't much left that Lansing can't determine," Bledsoe said. "The school board is left to hire and fire the superintendent and that's about it."

Even though the new governor has not really done anything to directly harm the unions, what he has done has established some choke points which put union desires at risk.  Desires, which of course rely on fiscally imprudent decision making, in times that cannot afford such decisions.  His line in the sand has met the oncoming rush of contracts they would like to have in place, and the new limits are getting under their skin.  Add to this, the reality of future liabilities and a quest by Lansing to deal with it in the manner chosen has prompted them to action.

Recalls, Protests, general aggravation.

Its the only tools they have.  The leftist driven leadership of the unions only know how to "persuade" through coercive measures.  Coercive being a subjective term I admit, however.  All the actions being taken to object to the decision making in Lansing are of course legal right? Well perhaps not, but who might be the first to call out shenanigans and be seen as a partisan.

But I digress

I get it.  I get the reasons the union leadership is pushing their recall and protest agenda.

The image below the line is just the first salvo from both sides of the bridge issue.

Its good to see the arguments made from the different perspectives. Plenty to be said about whether or not we actually pay for it in one way or another, but surprisingly no one yet doing what will ultimately provide the most accurate answer.

The math equation.

20,000 Crossings a day now.  Unless the Ambassador bridge is FORCED to close, then the traffic would split.

Average ticket of $6 Gross $120,000/day (if the ambassador is FORCED to close) $44 Million a year

Debt service (interest only) of $30 Million a year. Then add to this the cost of operations, ongoing liabilities (you know those pesky benefits) and maintenance.   An additional $30? $50 million? A year?  

My goodness So who DOES pay for it when it doesnt even pay its bond?  mmmm?

Dick Morris says Rick Snyder should act like a Republican, and in the process draws out the hard core "re-distributionists."  Darrell Dawsey writes at MLive:

Matty Moroun is rich enough. He doesn't need or deserve a second bridge. (Personally, I wish someone could take the first one from him, too.) Free enterprise is fine, but private citizens shouldn't be in the business of owning international border crossings. Our borders, and the economic and national security issues they generate, are a matter of public interest.

Snyder's wishes of another bridge makes perfect sense in some ways, and little in others.

He is a "Milliken Republican" which brings a brand of centrism that has too much in common with the Dawsey think, that government ought to have control of all things no matter how miserably they fail under government control. Detroit Schools? Detroit itself?  Perfect examples of Centrism allowing a minor scratch to develop into full blown gangrene.  Why not invite such catastrophe when given the opportunity?  Perhaps a little brick and mortar money poured into the patient's [amputation inviting] open sore infested hole will fix it?

Maybe such things need to be questioned a little more thoroughly.

To hear MDOT talk, the proposed Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) is not so much a bridge as a yellow brick road to eternal prosperity.  This image appeals to your Wizard, of course, but I am more concerned about whether the image is based in reality or merely the result of a bump on the head.  Why the DRIC instead of a private second span put up by the Ambassador Bridge (AB) people?

The case for DRIC goes something like this:  (1) we need a second bridge to accommodate the tremendous growth in traffic we will see in the future, (2) the good witch of the north (Canada, for those of you not following my Oz analogy) has offered us a $550 million loan to get started, and (3) we can turn that $550 million into another $2 billion from the federal government to put toward our roads.  Ultimately, the DRIC is supposed to generate thousands and thousands of jobs and enable our manufacturing and agriculture industries to thrive.  The Canadian loan, the cost of the project, and all future costs would be paid or repaid out of bridge tolls.

Let's set aside the "jobs" and "thriving industries" justifications for now.  Whether the bridge is built through a public-private partnership or by the AB folks, those benefits should still accrue, so those justifications favor neither approach.  And, if we need a second bridge, we need a second bridge, regardless of who builds it.

So, based solely on media coverage (a dicey proposition, I know), the case for DRIC appears to boil down to the fact that Canada has offered its loan for a public bridge, and we can use that loan to leverage federal highway funds.  Let's look at these issues in some more detail: