I would imagine that a number of bureaucrats on both sides of the river have been searching through their archives to try to figure out where Dan Stamper is coming from:
- “Ambassador Bridge has "right" to twin span
Stamper: They have to live up to the law
The Ambassador Bridge company claimed Friday it has all the approvals it needs to start building a six-lane twin span beginning next year.
Legislation from the 1920s when the bridge was constructed provides the company all it needs to push forward with construction, said president Dan Stamper.
"There are agreements and legislation out there," he said. "I think we have the necessary approvals. We are going to build a bridge because we have a right…"
"My hope is people will live up to legislation and agreements made by everybody through the years. I think anybody against replacing an 80-year-old bridge has a different agenda -- one that's not good for the public or transportation.
"Other than political interference, I see no reason we won't be in the ground next year."
His comments are hardly a surprise. No one as shrewd and as smart as the Owner of the Bridge Company would spend a decade and a half billion dollars building his Enhancement Project on spec! He must have an iron-tight, legal right to do so. I took Stamper’s comment in the Star and earlier ones in almost the same terms in a Canadian and American publication as a reminder to the Governments that the Bridge Company cannot be stopped by bureaucratic foolishness in breach of their legal obligations.
What is interesting to me is the timing. It is very clear from the Cropsey hearings that something is going on in the background. Senator Cropsey’s hints about agreements suggest to me that the Senate was provided with information that they had never seen before.
It was certainly not provided by MDOT, over whom the Legislators are supposed to have oversight. Aren't the Legislators supposed to be kept properly informed by MDOT when their representatives appear in front of them?
That did not happen. Is it a game in which certain information is not to be provided unless specifically asked for? Isn't MDOT supposed to provide them with complete and proper information so that informed decisions can be made?
It took Dan Stamper to tell the MDOT and FHWA representatives as well as the Senators what the contractual rights were, as an example, with respect to maintenance reports and inspections. It was a shock to me that the MDOT representative would make the outrageous remarks that he did in the previous hearings. Either he did not know, which is absolute negligence, or he was deliberately keeping information from the Senator. In either case, MDOT ought to be embarrassed or worse.
Frankly, this echoes what Stamper told the Canadian Senate in their hearings:
- “There are numerous pieces of legislation governing the Ambassador Bridge, not only in Canada but in the U.S. as well. This legislation in both countries has been created and together they govern the Ambassador Bridge as an international border crossing. Any unilateral change may disrupt the meaning and application of these international agreements.”
I wonder if the Canadian polticians are just as in the dark as their American colleagues or has Transport Canada told them everything? Wouldn't that be a scandal! I have a suspicion that the Senators do not know everything based on this language:
- "Senator Dawson: At the beginning, when this bill came in we were led to believe, and I am not saying there was any bad faith, it was going to be a bill that would pass easily...
All of a sudden we understand that there is an adverse effect for one of the strong participants in the bill." - "Senator Munson: I wish to echo the sentiments of Senator Dawson and Senator Mercer. This seemed to be slam dunk before."
Suggestions of litigation are hardly new either:
- “The key elements of Bill C-3 are designed to give bureaucrats the opportunity to take business away from our border crossing and send it to a government-sponsored new bridge… Accordingly, it should not come as a surprise to anyone when we say that we will protect our business.”
Like it or not, and obviously the bureaucrats do not like it, Bridge Company has its protected rights in the Windsor/Detroit corridor. Let me remind you again of what the Department of State said in the United States. That Department issues Presidential permits that would be needed for a DRIC bridge but not by the Ambassador Bridge Company. In a letter dated November 4, 2005 we learned that DRIC in a “closed-door session,” sought
- “State Department concurrence in the conclusion that the centrally-located alternatives are the only practical alternatives for a new Detroit River International crossing.”
Not only was that concurrence not granted but the State Department stated
- “Lastly with respect to the conclusion that the only practical alternatives for a new crossing are those that are centrally-located [ie the DRIC proposal], we would point out that the proximity of any new crossing to the existing crossings may mean that a problem at any one crossing may affect all the centrally located crossings.”
By that, State effectively rejected the DRIC proposal due to the damage that it could cause and preserved the Bridge Company's rights conclusively.
I have never understood why millions of dollars and several more years of time has been wasted on the DRIC process when the clearest possible language has been used by the State Department on behalf of the President. Don't the Canadians understand it either?
Interestingly, Stamper’s language in the US publication is consistent with what he said in the Star:
- “Dan Stamper, president of Detroit International Bridge Co., which owns the Ambassador Bridge, said in an interview that with or without approvals from U.S. and Canadian officials, he would move ahead with plans to construct a new, six-lane twin span.
"We are going to build that bridge," he said…”
I assume that what Stamper is saying is that, if it is needed, the Bridge Company will take the appropriate legal action to protect their business and to ensure that the Governments live up to what they have agreed to do. They would the appropriatge steps to prevent the Governments from continuing to promote DRIC and from using the Environmental Assessment process as the means to try to stop them:
- “Stamper said legal action by the bridge company remains an option to push forward with its plans or stop DRIC, but hopes it will not be necessary.
"We have not yet threatened to sue anybody, but we reserve all our rights including legal," he said. "I've had plenty of opportunities, but have not sued anybody. We believe rational people will come to rational decisions.”
We are in a state of limbo right now. With the Canadian election coming up within a few weeks to be followed by the elections in Michigan and United States, not very much is going to happen from the political perspective until we know who is in power.
To me, what Stamper is doing is positioning his Company for the new political regimes on both sides of the border. The Ambassador Gateway project has moved forward and it should finish on time and on budget. The next step obviously is to start construction on the Enhancement Project. That was part of what the Ambassador Gateway was designed for as MDOT has conceded.
There is a touch of frustration and annoyance that comes through loud and clear in what Stamper is saying. Well, you would be concerned too if your billion-dollar project is being delayed improperly! Stamper is telling them that he has no intention of being delayed any longer.
As for lawsuits, the American publication reminded us:
- “Moroun has a long history of suing governments. One case with Canada lasted 11 years, another, against the U.S. General Services Administration, stretched 25 years.”
We are rapidly moving to decision-making time. The plan of the bureaucrats crashed in flames with the first Michigan hearings and with the Globe and Mail article. Those two incidents on their own finally taught them that they had completely misjudged what the Bridge Company was prepared to do. They never expected that the Bridge Company actually wanted to build their Enhancement Project. They were expected to sell out and at a cheap price.
Anyone who has driven through the Ambassador Gateway project construction should get the message by now wouldn't you think!
Now they know the reality. Their rationale for a DRIC bridge has been shot down as summarized by the comments made by Senator Cropsey in a very nice package. The comments made by Transport Canada during the Parliamentary Hearings and the Observations made by the Canadian Senate will make it extremely difficult for Transport Canada to move forward with a DRIC bridge as they have described it. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
When we finally find out what is going on behind the scenes, I expect that a number of people will be deeply embarrassed about the waste of taxpayer money on the DRIC project to say the least. I wonder what my personal pro-rata share of the DRIC costs are so I can ask for it back just like my $25 for Estrin legal fees.
For myself, I will be interested in reading what the Bridge Company is relying upon and what the political decision-makers seem to know little about. It will be interesting once it is revealed to see how the bureaucrats would try to justify what they have done for so long and at such an outrageous price.
M. Fortier, assuming that he is elected, (but according to the pundits that seems doubtful), and the Conservatives form the Government, may have a very challenging time with Mr. Stamper.
No comments:
Post a Comment