Vote No on 6, But Only Out of Necessity

There are, as most voters in Michigan realize, several different statewide ballot proposals to consider in the coming election. Most of them do not merit serious thought, as they seek to clog up the Michigan Constitution and dangerously tie the hands of lawmakers. Perhaps the worst of those is Proposal 6. It would require a vote of the people before the state could fund any international bridge crossing. It was brought on by Ambassador Bridge owner Matty Maroun.

There seems little reason to believe that this is nothing more than Maroun throwing a hissy fit. He hasn't been able to get his way on building a bridge himself, so he's trying to keep Lansing out of the business. But be that as it may, by itself the proposal has certain merits. There's no reason why a private business cannot build and maintain even an international crossing. It's what we have anyway with the current Detroit/Windsor bridge.

Yet despite that, there are practical issues. Canada has said that it won't allow a private bridge to be built, essentially on the grounds that only governments should control international crossings. The argument is weak, but it is what it is and there's not much Michigan voters can do about that. If another bridge is to be built, it will be built publicly. And, to be fair, the Canadians are willing to put up the lion's share of the funds.

The strongest reason to vote for this proposal is that it supports individual rights. Never mind that we may not care for the attitude of the individual behind it: right is right no matter what we personally think of even the persons involved. But the trouble with enshrining within the Michigan Constitution a popular vote on such things is that such things ought to be up to the Legislature. It's why we elect leaders: to scan the landscape and do the best they can under the circumstances they're facing. Making a major decision such as a bridge which can only help international traffic, international business, and international relations, ought to be left to elected representatives. If we don't like their choices, well, we get a choice on them during the regular elections.

It would be easy to vote for Proposal 6 if for no other reason than to support the idea that individuals with the money and the will should be allowed to finance even international crossings. But as there will be no new bridge that way, it seems a silly and counterproductive effort. It's best to vote no on 6, even if we must do it with a frown and a smirk.

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?

Let Maroun Build the Bridge

Everyone appears to agree that we need a new bridge linking Detroit to Windsor. Yet nobody seems to agree on the best plan. Part of the problem is that both plans, one by Ambassador Bridge owner Matty Maroun and the other by the State of Michigan, have their good points. And their bad.

Under the Maroun plan, much of the cost would be privately covered. In this day and age of vast overspending by governments on all levels, this must be seen as a positive. Yet there are those who don't believe that an international structure such as this one necessarily is, ought to be furnished by private sources. Quite frankly, that's rubbish. A bridge need not come under national domain of any type, if it can be done privately and willingly.

The main advantage to the government plan, or the NITC (New International Trade Crossing) is that it would be farther downriver, and would not have trucks emptying onto surface roads in Windsor. Yet isn't that what's happening now? Is it all that bad?

To be sure, Maroun would be wise to heed whatever legitimate advice any of the governments, US and Canadian federal and the provincial and state governments of Ontario and Michigan, may offer. There's no big reason which we can see why Maroun should not be open to building a bridge father away other than whatever costs he's already, and perhaps ill advisedly, spend in creating the approaches next to the Ambassador Bridge.

In the end, as Michigan Lt. Governor Brian Calley, who is spearheading the drive for the NITC, asserts, the government plan will win out. He's probably right. Government power has become too great for any individual, even a vastly wealthy one such as Matty Maroun, to prevail once it decides that its presumed 'public' interest is the greater, more moral point. That's a shame on two fronts: as yet another example of unnecessary government intrusion, of outright government arrogance, on what ought to be a private matter, and as the taxpayers will be forced to cover a bill another person is willing to cover for them.

Maroun ought to be allowed to build the new bridge. But he won't be. And the real losers will be the people who actually will foot the bill.