25% of US/Canada trade depends on a single privately owned bridge
twitter.com
twitter.com
I've never seen a stronger case for ensuring public ownership of key infrastructure in all cases, otherwise you can end up in a situation where two giant economies are held hostage by one person. It's also a cautionary tale on the dangers of special interests and lobbying being able to stifle action so clearly in the public interest.
"Manuel Moroun, owner of the Ambassador Bridge until his death in 2020, spoke out against this proposal. He sued the governments of Canada and Michigan to stop its construction, and released a proposal to build a second span of the Ambassador Bridge (which he would own) instead.[38] Critics suggest that Moroun's opposition was fueled by the prospect of lost profits from duty-free gasoline sales, which are exempt from about 60 cents per gallon in taxes even though the pump price to consumers is only a few cents lower.[11] On May 5, 2011, a judge dismissed the case, citing a lack of reasoning for it to proceed.[39] Moroun and his Detroit International Bridge Company contended that the new bridge would affect its proposal for a second span which would be built next to the Ambassador Bridge. "
The idea that a private individual, no matter how wealthy is able to literally exact a toll on society is ridiculous. In Europe we also still have a few toll bridges and tunnels, as well as many toll roads (for instance: in Poland and France). Most of these, but not all, are in the hands of various governments. I can't wait until this particular form of highway robbery disappears. Oh, and Germany re-enacted something similar but only for tourists. They first got slapped down in court then reduced the German road tax to be able to apply the tax on 'everybody' but in practice that means that it is just a levy on foreign traffic.
it's a huge scandal and yet very hard to solve because of the same dynamics of the bridge above: special interests, and hideous lobbying
THe public should know the names and faces of the people involved and they should associate negative and petty emotions with them.
Most Canadians hve no clue about this bridge or the people like Moroun and his lawyers who are involved. These should be names that people spit on the ground when heard, there should be political cartoons and memes that satirize their faces everywhere. There should be boycotts against his businesses and the businesses of his lawyers and accountants.
What did he gain by attempting to protect his investment in this way? He made the world a bit worse, and in doing so gained... absolutely nothing of any practical utility. Why bother?
I believe it's the same to people like Moroun. They didn't get rich by passing up opportunities to invest, and the very thought of leaving an asset to slide away, when it could still generate more profit, is offensive to people like them. Whether they actually need the profit is beside the point. It's a matter of principle.
You could have said the same thing when he was worth $50 million instead of a billionaire. For people like that, the mindset is endless growth at all costs...that's why they still turn up to work despite having money to live like kings for multiple lifetimes.
You probably won't even be able to buy a superyacht comfortably, and a megayacht is absolutely out of your reach. For that you need to be a billionaire
1. They don’t have to do anything they don’t want to so generally have a relative lack of empathy
2. just a few notches above average intelligence but are rarely “genius”
3. They live in mental/emotional bubbles and almost never spend time with “regular” people doing things like shopping, cooking, sitting in traffic or using the infrastructure that unwashed use
That means they can think far enough in the future about “macro“ trends (which don’t really exist), while also fucking over everybody in the process because they don’t have to even experience any of the “externalities” that their actions take.
They see themselves as kings and better educated, more traveled, more cosmopolitan etc… so it’s purely ego
It's owned by Spanish consortium, and was sold by a previous conservative gov't for a fraction of what it's made in profit, since.
They sold a 75 year contract to metered spaces for 1.5 billion dollars in 2008. Currently there have been 2 billion in revenue, and there are 60 years remaining on the contract...
So about 1 billion USD annual revenue per year. 99 year lease.
The government of the time sold the lease rights for $3.1 billion CAD. So about $5 billion in today's dollars, about $3.7B USD.
>> TORONTO, Feb. 16, 2023 /CNW/ - 407 International Inc. (the "Company") announced today revenues of $1,327.2 million for 2022, compared to $1,023.1 million for 2021. The Company reported net income of $435.3 million for 2022, compared to a net income of $212.4 million for 2021. Earnings before interest and other, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA"1) totalled $1,138.8 million for 2022 compared to $859.0 million for 2021.
Per https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculat..., $3.1 billion in 1999 is about $5.26 billion today. So, in 2022 the consortium had an income of about 8.5% of what they paid. Not nearly as good as your numbers imply. The consortium is making back what they paid every 10-15 years, so over a 99 year lease they'll make something like a 600%-700% return on their investment. That's not great. And they shoulder the risk of collapsing toll revenue.
It's actually majority owned by CPP( Canadian Pension Plan).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_407#:~:text=As...
> Indirectly owned subsidiaries of Canada Pension Plan Investment Board 50.01% Cintra Global S.E., a subsidiary of Spanish firm Ferrovial S.A. 43.23%
Cintra Global S.E., a subsidiary of Spanish firm Ferrovial S.A. 43.23%[36][37]
SNC Lavalin 6.76%[36]
But the original lease sale was far more skewed:
"The Ontario corporation, known as 407 International Inc., was initially owned by the Spanish multinational Ferrovial through their subsidiary Cintra Infraestructuras (61.3%), the Montreal-based engineering firm SNC-Lavalin (22.6%) as well as CDP Capital (16.1%)"
Ontario don't care, it seems. Canadians just bend over and take it.
Around here (Flamborough, outside of Hamilton/Burlington) there's a whole layer of people who rant and rant and rant about being amalgamated into Hamilton.
Except those same people who rant about it, are almost all conservative voters. And it was the conservatives under Harris who forced that amalgamation.
It boggles the mind, the short memory people have.
In the early/mid-90s recessionary period when this was inked, the justification was excessively high debts incurred by the previous provincial gov't. Austerity was the name of the game, and decisions like these were seen as "wise fiscal management." Those debts now look minor compared to the present, and we'd have been in much better fiscal situation keeping the toll road public and letting that money flow back.
It doesn't usually make sense to buy something in order to break even.
Duh.
I question whether you were, though.
Sounds like yall should get a beer and hash it out.
Also, from boots on the ground in North Texas, parts of NTTA-proposed systems were won by Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte in the early 2000s. Parts have been built, but it didn't complete by its 2015 target date. https://journalrecord.com/2004/12/spanish-firm-to-build-6-bi...
https://www.ntta.org/whatwedo/fin_invest_info/Documents/2022...
How else do you think that individuals are able to become billionaires? They're not ten thousand times smarter or stronger or harder-working than the rest of us. Bezos is worth $180B because he's paying his warehouse drones $13.60 an hour while they run from shelf to shelf and pee in bottles, contributing value to society far in excess of the pay they're receiving. The difference is pocketed by Jeff.
Uhm, what?
Toll roads are about as fair as it gets. The alternative is spreading the cost over all (national) drivers.
I hate toll roads too when I encounter them, but making non-users pick up the tab for users is the actual highway robbery.
Should the owner of a toll road have to pay money back to subsidize the costs of the roads which give access to their toll road? Vehicles need to be able to get on/off the road before tolls can be collected.
Or, if we apply your logic, then it is impossible for people to live in rural areas, because the cost of the roads is more than the local economy can bear.
Road networks are an infrastructure investment. Since they are networks, the value comes from the entire network. What is the value of a road with no on or off ramps?
Because the value is so diffisive over both space and time, the only effective way to account for and recoup the cost is through a mechanism that can take a share of the economic growth resulting from the network.
i.e. taxes.
In some countries, the majority of motorways are toll roads: https://about-france.com/geo/motorways.htm
So in the result, only those who use (or intend to use) the toll road pay, but without the toll booths that slow everything down. The price also happens to be more reasonable.
But we're "so rich" that a few billionaire parasites doesn't amount to much, and so we let the legal fiction continue.
Key recent articles on how the US government is dependent on Elon Musk; how Ukraine depends on Starlink for communications, and how Elon is talking DIRECTLY AND IN PERSON to Putin, while watching Ukrainian troop movements live by monitoring Starlink usage.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-sha...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/elon-musk-pu...
Elon Musk is “wired for war.” At least, that’s what Musk has told Walter Isaacson, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/09/elon-...
Musk admitted to talking to Putin a few times. But you've somehow cooked up a conspiracy of him actively monitoring Ukrainian troop movements and feeding the info back to Putin...seriously?
“You know," she giggles, "I think I would.”
“Would you sleep with me for 50 dollars?"
"Really, what kind of a woman do think I am?"
“We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling about the price.”
This doesn’t make sense to me. Presumably some entity more specific than the “public” would be responsible for such a work. It would still require a toll in order to exist in a revenue positive way. It would need to be revenue positive in order to build a future replacement. What difference does it make if the entity is controlled by something called an “agency” or by a “company?”
Are the various entities chartered by government somehow immune to turf battles and protection of proprietary interests?
Should Canada pay for more of a publicly owned bridge than the US since the trade traversing the bridge represents more of that country’s total trade?
so is it wrong that an individual risked millions of his own money for a "public service" ?
> ... construction of a tunnel under the river ... Construction started in 1871 and continued until ventilating equipment failed the next year; work was soon abandoned
No, nothing wrong with that.
The problem is when that person tries to stop any "competition" (e.g. a new bridge). Infrastructure like roads and bridges aren't "just" a business, they're needed for basic economics and trade to function. "We invested in this bridge a 100 years ago so now no one can build a new bridge in the general area until the end of times" is nothing short of delusional. When people complain about "capitalism" what they usually mean isn't the basic concept, but this kind of hyper-narcissistic money-grabbing wankery.
its kind of the government's fault for having many ways it can be "corrupted" or that politics are inefficient and too slow to move (having a new bridge approved and built)
Canada managed to go through with it
I don't know how it is in Detroit but on this side Manuel Moroun is (was) reviled because he bought up a lot of residential property near the bridge, presumably for planned expansions (I don't know the details) which never happened so all of those houses are just boarded up and rotting. Crime and decay in that area is very high and this is surrounding a major port of entry into Canada. Not only is it so wasteful and destructive, but it's also not a great way to welcome people to our country.
From what I gather, Manuel was kind of a "fuck you I'll do what I want" personality and never really wanted to work with municipalities to find mutually beneficial solutions.
So the planned replacement has been in the works for quite a long time and is planned to complete and open soon.
We did get to see a couple years ago what happens when the bridge is closed by protests:
day 1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ambassador-bridge-pro...
day 2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ambassador-bridge-pro...
day 4: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ambassador-bridge-blo...
recap after 6 days estimating cost: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ambassador-bridge-pro...
retro 1 year later: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ambassador-bridge-blo...
Who knows if it'll actually happen, but it's good to see that someone actually thinking about it for once.
> it was owned by Grosse Pointe billionaire Manuel Moroun, until his death in July 2020
Doesn't talk about estate / current ownership (or i missed that).
"In July 2020, Matty Moroun died aged 93, with his family maintaining their ownership of the Ambassador Bridge. In 2022, the Detroit Free Press reported that Moroun's family were preparing a case for damages, following the acquisition of properties by eminent domain for bridge construction"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordie_Howe_International_Br...
Edit: to the downvoters, I'm legitimately confused about why government control is generally seen as bad in the US, and why this case should be an exception.
Canadian, not American and we tend to have a much more government-friendly position. I view public ownership of natural monopolies as vitally important. Then private enterprise can fairly compete in a reasonably regulated way to deliver services via that publicly owned infrastructure (like food distribution). When private entities own the infrastructure they can hold the entire society hostage, which was exactly what happened with the Ambassador Bridge.
In the west it's the oil & gas sector (or forestry), in Central Canada its banking, service, and manufacturing.
The reality is we have very little "socialism" in Canada, and a whole lot of corporatism which has worn a liberal facade for its own survival. It dates back to colonial times, we just replaced the British colonial parasites with our own local ones.
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_River is a total of 24 miles long, and both sides have been populated since at least 11,000 years ago. Good luck.
> And also a few miles to the north
Tell me you don't live here without saying it. What's an added 3 hours of commute one way? No big deal. Employers will be pleased.
Reading [1] which talks of frequent delays, it sounds inconvenient. It isn't really "efficient for an international border" compared to the Schengen area in the EU, or India-Nepal, Russia-Belarus, UK-Ireland etc. At those, there are no checks at all; so no need to stop.
In short, yes.
City borders are often much smaller than city population areas. Population of the metropolitan areas on both sides of the Detroit River is over 5 million people.
If we had to decide who's worse, i give my vote (of being the worst) to the politicians.
People still commit all those crimes you say? Oh.
The toll system on the New York interstates is a dream compared to what we have here on things like the 407.
Even our much lauded "socialist" single payer healthcare system actually consists mostly of many private entities (doctors) billing the government. Public pays, private profits -- just has the advantage (vs the US) of cutting out the parasitical insurance companies in-between.
Telco sector (split into a 3 parasites, mainly), wine/beer/liquor (special distribution and retail privileges just for Andrew Peller and Vincorp in Ontario, no inter-provincial trade, monopoly private Beer Stores), the list goes on. And we're getting new ones, e.g. Shoppers Drug Mart exclusive contract for COVID vaccine deliveries. Moving Service Ontario facilities into Staples stores. Likely based on whoever attended Doug Ford's daughter's Stag & Doe, etc.
Been that way since the Hudson's Bay Company. The most "successful" way to do business in Canada is via regulatory capture.
Government planners have their own priorities, but it doesn’t mean it’s the only way. Waiting for central planners to make decisions as the ONLY way is always bad.
I don’t like it, but it’s pretty standard.
Plenty of bad things used to be standard: slavery¹, doctors not washing hands between handling cadavers and assisting in births², radioactive children’s toys³, throwing feces out the window⁴. As a society we should aim to discontinue or change those standards to something better, but we can’t do it if we shrug our shoulders because something is already commonplace. That only makes the situation worse, as the industries which take advantage of that complacency and lack of information continue to thrive.
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
³ https://www.energy.gov/lm/articles/holiday-toy-shopping-duri...
³ Alright, not that one: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/12/did-people-in-the-m...
I'm just so used to it at this point that this particular instance doesn't seem like a big deal compared to everything else.
These are all big deals and we should collectively and individually never allow ourselves to be pushed into apathy because it has become normalized.
Not even on the radar for me.
Whether something is 'standard' or not has no bearing on whether it is ethical, productive, makes economic sense and in general improves society or not.
You can blame the public, as you always can do in a democracy, but the reality is that there's only a limited amount of attention and outrage available, so if people "don't care" about something, it's easy enough to postpone it indefinitely. Usually some sort of disaster eventually brings it to the forefront and then the issues are solved.
Many major infrastructure projects are this way - it's held up in court and other areas for decades, until a nearby bridge collapses, and then suddenly it's greenlit and moves forward.
If I ask the government for something unreasonable and they give it to me, you should blame the government and not me. I'm within my rights to ask for whatever I want.
Americans lost the battle for small government, but not the distrust.
This said, the Federalists also argued that a Bill of Rights wouldn't be necessary because good governments don't infringe the rights of the people and nothing in the Constitution allowed them to.
Turns out they were wildly optimistic, like every project/ideology that relies on a unbounded set of humans to be rational, forward-thinking, altruistic, unselfish, etc. for more than a day or three for success.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
The Federalists papers are just the opinions of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (which is not to diminish them entirely, only to apply needed perspective). The powers were almost entirely with the states at that time, so the papers are mostly convincing the states to give that power up. It was the first step away from the small federal government of the founders.
First: note that the Articles of Confederation devolve all the powers of the governments to the States. It doesn't repudiate those powers, it just keeps the out of the federal government.
Second: the Constitution is a repudiation of the Articles of Confederation. It doesn't incorporate the principles of the Articles even implicitly.
So the best case for your argument is that the federal government is untrustworthy, but the governments of the several States are not. But you don't even get to that best case, because your evidence is refuted by our controlling founding document.
A lot of lobbying is done to get people to believe the government is bad at everything and that corporate rent seeking should be the defacto way a country is run. And lots of people dying from lack of affordable health care believe it.
> However neither Ontario nor Michigan wanted to finance a river crossing. Michigan automakers subsequently decided to take the initiative to connect the Midwest to central Canada. After they created a bridge company, the project got into trouble when a Toronto financier hired to sell its securities instead embezzled the money and ran off, before ultimately committing suicide in a prison cell after conviction for murdering a drugstore clerk. The bridge boosters turned to New Yorker Joseph A. Bower, a businessman who specialized in rescuing mismanaged companies. Bower succeeded in raising the necessary initial $12 million. "The only way things can be done today, is by private business," said Henry Ford, who backed the project.[15] The bridge was constructed with investment from Detroit business people incorporated as the Detroit International Bridge Corporation.
For example seaports (or at least LA and NYC) are broadly operated by government (or government owned) organizations. The St Lawrence seaway is operated by government or government owned organizations. US airports are generally operated by publicly owned organizations.
Maybe they shouldn't be.
Where are you taking this analogy?