Why Can't Maroun Build the New Bridge?

So it appears that a new bridge to Canada will be built downriver from the Ambassador Bridge. Matty Maroun, who owns the Ambassador, will protest, and likely stall the project through the courts. Michigan citizens meanwhile are told they won't pay a dime for the new span; Canada is apparently putting up the bulk of the cash, other than what the US Federal Government will put into a new customs clearinghouse. It all sounds good.

But what of a private investor's willingness to pay for something such as this? Why are people so fired up against Maroun? Why can't we allow him to build a new bridge himself?

One objection is that an international crossing ought to be built internationally. But if that's the case, why did we allow the original bridge? To be sure, such projects require international cooperation. Further, it appears as though the Canadians are the most concerned with a government ownership of the new span. Otherwise, they wouldn't be putting up so much of the cost, or opposing Maroun so virulently.

Considering too the venom with which even Michiganders are employing against him, and it almost looks as though the real problem with a private bridge is that it would be financed by the likes of Maroun; he doesn't seem very well liked.

At the end of the day, we don't particularly care who covers the cost of a new bridge. If our Canadian friends are hellbent for leather to spend their taxpayers' dollars, okay by us. But as the only real objections to Maroun building it is that he's arrogant, well, isn't government insisting that it, government, is best suited to build the thing also rather arrogant itself?