Live chat on Proposal 6
 
Friday October 12, 2012
11:52
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
The event is now live, like bacon on a skillet.
Friday October 12, 2012 11:52 Lewis
11:53
[Comment From Andy JohnstonAndy Johnston: ] 
Good morning everyone. Looking forward to a lively chat.
Friday October 12, 2012 11:53 Andy Johnston
11:53
[Comment From Meegan Holland | MLive.coMeegan Holland | MLive.co: ] 
Hi everybody. I'm statewide news editor for MLive.com and will be moderating today's live chat with Jen Eyer, statewide community engagement specialist.
Friday October 12, 2012 11:53 Meegan Holland | MLive.co
11:53
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
Good Afternoon (almost) from U of M.
Friday October 12, 2012 11:53 Guest
11:54
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
Good morning, everyone. We'll get started here in just a few minutes.
Friday October 12, 2012 11:54 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
11:55
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Welcome Guest from U of M. Would you mind typing in a handle or name so we can distinguish you from other Guests?
Friday October 12, 2012 11:55 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
11:55
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
This is a moderated live chat, which means questions and comments are held for approval. We will publish comments immediately as long as they are civil and on-topic, but we will hold and pace the questions throughout the chat.
Friday October 12, 2012 11:55 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
11:56
[Comment From YonasYonas: ] 
sorry about that
Friday October 12, 2012 11:56 Yonas
11:56
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
Welcome (back?), Yonas!
Friday October 12, 2012 11:56 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
11:56
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Joining us today are Andy Johnston, vice president of government affairs for the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, and state Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville.
Friday October 12, 2012 11:56 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
11:57
[Comment From JosieJosie: ] 
Hello everyone.
Friday October 12, 2012 11:57 Josie
11:57
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Hi Josie! Welcome to the chat!
Friday October 12, 2012 11:57 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
11:57
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
Is Rep. Agema on any committees?
Friday October 12, 2012 11:57 Lewis
11:58
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
We're waiting for Rep. Agema to get on the chat. We still technically have 2 minutes.
Friday October 12, 2012 11:58 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
11:59
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
And we're talking to Rep. Agema now ... his state-issued computer must be a little slow. :)
Friday October 12, 2012 11:59 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:00
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Welcome Representative Agema.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:00 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:00
[Comment From Rep AgemaRep Agema: ] 
Hello everyone
Friday October 12, 2012 12:00 Rep Agema
12:01
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Glad to have you on the chat, Rep. Agema and Andy Johnston! Rep. Agema wrote an op ed piece in favor of Proposal 6, which challenges the need for a second Detroit Windsor Bridge.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:01 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:01
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Lt. Gov. Brian Calley wrote the other op ed saying Michigan needs a second bridge. Andy Johnston of the GR Chamber will be the one to argue for that side.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:01 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:02
[Comment From YonasYonas: ] 
What is the federal governments involvement in this "international" bridge proposal? Does it have to be approved by the state department?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:02 Yonas
12:02
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
The US State Department will issue a Presidential Permit for the project, as it does for all for all international bridges.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:02 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:02
Rep Agema: 
The more Michigan voters learn about the NITC proposal, the more they realize there are a lot of unanswered questions...A Yes vote give people the opportunity to decide - with oversight of the taxpayers
Friday October 12, 2012 12:02 Rep Agema
12:03
[Comment From Steve HendelSteve Hendel: ] 
In the event, unlikely or otherwise, that bridge tolls are insufficient to cover the repayment of Canada's debt, who will make up the difference?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:03 Steve Hendel
12:04
Rep Agema: 
Andy - how can they issue a presidential permit if the legislature restricted the parties (mdot & MSF) from signing aggreement??? right now, the Gov is acting unconstitutionally!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:04 Rep Agema
12:04
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
They just issue the permit no matter what? Or do they have to outline to costs, show its needed, etc?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:04 Lewis
12:04
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
There is no debt to Canada. Michigan has no obligation or debt of any kind. If there are insufficient tolls, Michigan has no risk. The sole risk is with Canada and the private company that will build and provide financing for the bridge.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:04 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:05
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
The proposed bridge wouldn’t cost Michigan taxpayers a nickel. Indeed, it would be a boon to the Michigan economy. You can read the agreement for yourself and find other information at michigan.gov/buildthisbridge
Friday October 12, 2012 12:05 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:05
Rep Agema: 
Who makes up the difference? it is the taxpayer - just like lost over runs at every other bridge!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:05 Rep Agema
12:05
[Comment From AudreyAudrey: ] 
The governor says Canada is paying for all of this, even loaning Michigan $550M. I guess my question is, what are they getting in return? Why are they being so generous?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:05 Audrey
12:05
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
As the agreement states, the project will be done “with funding approved by Canada, but with no funding by the Michigan Parties. The Michigan Parties are not obligated to pay any of the costs of the new International Crossing.”
Friday October 12, 2012 12:05 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:05
[Comment From YonasYonas: ] 
From what I know, Canada wants another bridge to increase traffic through Detroit and to Chicago where it conducts a lot of trade, right?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:05 Yonas
12:06
Rep Agema: 
@Andy - That's what Gov Soapy Williams said about Mackinac Br - it cost us $245 Million so far!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:06 Rep Agema
12:06
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Canada is being so generous, becauce this a critical project for both Canada and the US. We are the best two trading partners in the world.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:06 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:06
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
Isn't that website you just sent, paid for by taxpayers?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:06 Lewis
12:07
Rep Agema: 
Why does Canada Want? Execellent question - They are the prime beneficiaries and we are the debters ($550 Mil in debt to canada...compounding daily)
Friday October 12, 2012 12:07 Rep Agema
12:07
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
When the International Bridge was built at the Soo. It was Michigan that paid for everything not Canada.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:07 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:07
[Comment From Josh HJosh H: ] 
If the New International Trade Crossing is such a bad idea, why does Moroun want to build a second span to his own Ambassador Bridge? How many times will Moroun flip-flop his analysis?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:07 Josh H
12:07
[Comment From JohnJohn: ] 
While lobbying for his prized second span, Moroun argued that there was an overflow of traffic that justified the expansion—now Moroun argues that the Ambassador Bridge has more than enough capacity to handle the traffic. Which is correct? (Even O’Keefe & Associates can’t explain this).
Friday October 12, 2012 12:07 John
12:08
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
In terms of twinning the Ambassador Bridge...to rely on the promises of a twining span that may never be approved, provides no redundancy, uses the same plazas and same side streets we use today, without a freeway-to-freeway connection would be a huge mistake that actually make trade traffic worse.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:08 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:08
Rep Agema: 
Why does Amb Br want to build? It is for updating and maintenance - a third lane for pre cleared vehicles. it has nothing to do with traffic capacity and it is pursuant to the agreement with the state, approved by Canada to twin that bridge?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:08 Rep Agema
12:08
[Comment From JosieJosie: ] 
Andy - "Michigan has no obligation or debt of any kind" . Why does that seem so unlikely? Maybe because the fact that Canada's position keeps changing to whatever will get the bridge built.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:08 Josie
12:08
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
We should note, by the way, that the Detroit Windsor traffic can't accommodate truck traffic.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:08 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:08
[Comment From Concerned CitizenConcerned Citizen: ] 
Rep. Agema -- Have you recieved campaign contributions from the Moruns?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:08 Concerned Citizen
12:09
Rep Agema: 
@ Megan- traffic isn't a problem - its down 40 percent from 2000...
Friday October 12, 2012 12:09 Rep Agema
12:09
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
If it is "free" money, why is it a "loan"? What is the interest rate?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:09 Lewis
12:10
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Josie - I think because it is a great deal for Michigan. It is the reverse situation from the Int'l Bridge in the Soo.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:10 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:10
Rep Agema: 
Campaign contribution? yes, fully disclosed and fully transparant. within the limits like the hundreds of supporters I have. Look it up on line. In fact, it was lower than the Chambers's contributions to me
Friday October 12, 2012 12:10 Rep Agema
12:11
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Lewis - There is no loan or interest rate. Canada will hire a private co. to build the bridge. All at Canada's risk.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:11 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:12
Rep Agema: 
@ andy & Lewis - there is a loan -$550 Million that has to be paid back!!! Canada can walk away at any time (p. 36 of proposed agreement)
Friday October 12, 2012 12:12 Rep Agema
12:12
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Rep. Agema estimates that over 6 years, $500 from Matty Moroun and $500 from his son. "It's not like they're buying my vote."
Friday October 12, 2012 12:12 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:12
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Andy - The Province of Ontario bought $7.85 million in bonds for the Sault Ste. Marie Bridge, how is this the reverse?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:12 Lewis
12:12
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Last year Canada did $689 billion worth of trade with the United States, and about 49 percent of that passed through the Michigan-Ontario border. This is a critical crossing we need to secure with a world class bridge.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:12 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:12
[Comment From JosieJosie: ] 
The government can't just use taxpayer money without having the peoples say!!! The people should have a choice how their money is best spend to help their communities.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:12 Josie
12:12
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Meegan - Hasn't $400 million been spent on the Blue Water Bridge? $230 million for the gateway project? How much more do we need to spend while traffic is down?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:12 Lewis
12:13
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Lewis - The bonds that financed the Soo bridge were issued by MI. It was funded with MI state bonds. There will be NO MI funding for the NITC.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:13 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:13
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
Sorry...all I see is one company's attempt to protect its monopoly any way it can....I will be voting No on 6.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:13 Guest
12:13
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Lewis, even though I lived in Port Huron for several years, I don't claim to be an expert on the Blue Water or any other bridge!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:13 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:13
[Comment From JosieJosie: ] 
Andy - For all of Michigan this will be helpful? Or just whoever is running the project in Canada? Businesses thrive by investing their money. Not the tax payers.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:13 Josie
12:13
[Comment From Josh HJosh H: ] 
Why bring in a crack team of cutthroat political mercenaries from Washington (like Jack Abramoff crony Grover Norquist) if you truly believe the “The People Should Decide?” What do fat cat D.C. lobbyists and spin-doctors have to do with best interests of Michigan and Michigan taxpayers?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:13 Josh H
12:13
Rep Agema: 
Hey Why did Lt Gov Calley duck this debate? I actually agree with him - not today, but when he said in 2009 that he believed the legislatures should have oversight! Now he bypassed the elected officials...
Friday October 12, 2012 12:13 Rep Agema
12:13
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Josie - There will be no MI taxpayer money used. It is prohibited by the agreement.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:13 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:14
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@ Andy Johnston - According to MDOT, the Province of Ontario bought $7.85 million in bonds for the International Bridge. http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9618_48384-23856--,00.html
Friday October 12, 2012 12:14 Lewis
12:14
[Comment From JosieJosie: ] 
Here's the real question. Would the second span for Moroun's bridge be built with taxpayer money? Don't think so.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:14 Josie
12:14
[Comment From WayneWayne: ] 
Michigan ranks 13th worst in the nation in bridge conditions, with thousands being deemed structurally dangerous. Why isn't Snyder repairing these before building a new bridge
Friday October 12, 2012 12:14 Wayne
12:15
Rep Agema: 
@ Andy - there already is taxpayer $ in the Gov bridge! and much more to come! Name one infrastructure project that was free??? Besides, Gov expects $263 from US Customs for plaza - that is taxpayer $$$!!!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:15 Rep Agema
12:15
David Eggert: 
Rep. Agema, can you address the contention by proponents of the bridge that the Ambassador is poorly located and has too much congestion, through the streets of Windsor especially? That the new bridge will have direct links to highways for more efficient trade?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:15 David Eggert
12:15
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
This project is as private as you can get while still protecting the public interest. It will go out to bid and it is the private sector that will vet whether or not there is traffic to support this project, they will take the risk. They determine if this project makes sense.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:15 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:16
[Comment From HelenHelen: ] 
Look on p36 of the agreement. Doesn't it say Canada can terminate the agreement at any time? Then what happens?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:16 Helen
12:16
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Rep. Agema - It should be noted that federal government $230 million of taxpayer funds spent on the Gateway Project for the Ambassador Bridge
Friday October 12, 2012 12:16 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:17
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Helen, Andy says he's got to look at the agreement.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:17 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:17
Rep Agema: 
@ Eggert - Why is the Canadian Road Michigan's Problem??? They already are eliminating 14 of 17 stoplights... they can easily repair the last 2-3 km of roads to connect to existing breidge. And a lot cheaper than $3.5 billion for the Gov bridge!!!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:17 Rep Agema
12:17
[Comment From JosieJosie: ] 
I second Helen. Then what happens.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:17 Josie
12:17
[Comment From Josh HJosh H: ] 
How much Michigan taxpayer money has been wasted on frivolous lawsuits desperately trying to protect Moroun’s monopoly? Moroun and his hoard of lawyers have filed countless lawsuits that squander judicial time and waste money on administrative costs, including lawsuits that fail because they do not include substantive analysis of the legal issues in question.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:17 Josh H
12:18
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Helen - The agreement can be terminated by both Michigan and Canada in joint agreement.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:18 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:18
[Comment From Chuck DChuck D: ] 
The Detroit International Bridge Co. has been arguing that traffic does not justify the NITC and has released traffic projections that show a flat line of traffic. Yet, when the DIBC applied for financing for their second span, they used traffic figures that showed an upshot of traffic...Rep. Agema, can you speak to this?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:18 Chuck D
12:19
[Comment From JoshJosh: ] 
Can you explain how there is any analytical connection between teachers, education, and the NITC? “The People Should Decide” commercials of late imply that “we do not have money to pay for bridges.” Considering that Canada is paying for the bridge and the NITC has no connection to funds for education whatsoever, this campaign of fear mongering is egregious voter-manipulation.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:19 Josh
12:19
Rep Agema: 
It was MDOT who has filed suits... This is irrelevent when the Gov is trying to go around the legislature like Obama... If he had listed to legislature there wouldnt be the legal exposure!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:19 Rep Agema
12:19
[Comment From JosieJosie: ] 
Andy - I don't believe it won't cost the taxpayers. What happens when toll revenue doesn't cover it??? You never specified. Who foots that bill?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:19 Josie
12:19
[Comment From Chuck DChuck D: ] 
Wayne, Snyder isn't building the bridge. Canada is.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:19 Chuck D
12:20
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Josh - There is no connection to educators with Prop 6. Proposal 6 would benefit a single special interest at the expense of the rest of Michigan citizens. It does not belong in the Constitution.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:20 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:20
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 
Building this bridge is such a no brainer, it's unbelievable! I can't believe Mr. Agema wants the people to decide! Can you imagine the adds from Moroun then! Most people only get their information from tv commercials. What happens if , God forbid, something happens to the Ambassador Bridge? Our trucks will be backed up to Chicago! Talk to a truck driver about the traffic being down, I don't think they would agree.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:20 Steve
12:20
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Josie- If there are insufficient tolls, Canada makes up the difference. MI is not at risk.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:20 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:21
Rep Agema: 
@ Josh - the connection : We are borrowing $550 million from Canada for a bridge we dont need & cant afford... If we invested that much in schools, local infrastructure, etc, we could do a lot of good. Otherwise we could just vote YES on Prop 6 and let the voters decide the priorities. I bet it isn't a bridge
Friday October 12, 2012 12:21 Rep Agema
12:21
David Eggert: 
Can Andy and Rep. Agema address exactly why or why not it is a good idea to require statewide and local votes on new international bridges?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:21 David Eggert
12:22
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
As the agreement states on Page 1, the project will be done “with funding approved by Canada, but with no funding by the Michigan Parties. The Michigan Parties are not obligated to pay any of the costs of the new International Crossing.” This is verbatim out of the agreement.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:22 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:22
Rep Agema: 
@ Andy - Tjhere is NO study that shows tolls will cover the cost!!! Not the 2005 needs analysis, not the PWC report in 2007, not Wilbur smith... There is no business case or traffic case.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:22 Rep Agema
12:22
[Comment From YonasYonas: ] 
Is Rick Snyder afraid that the legislature won't approve the bridge proposal?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:22 Yonas
12:22
[Comment From JMJM: ] 
16. Isn’t it the government’s job to build and run infrastructure like bridges?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:22 JM
12:23
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
It seems like all the time Snyder has invested into this bridge, he could have solved a few other problems.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:23 Lewis
12:23
[Comment From PhizzyPhizzy: ] 
If "the people should decide" issues such as these, why is Proposal 6 only restricted to "international crossings"? Presumably, if Michigan's leaders decided to fund and build a 19 mile long bridge to Beaver Island (at a most of tens of $ billions), they could do so without a decision by the people. Isn't that odd?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:23 Phizzy
12:23
[Comment From Chuck DChuck D: ] 
Rep. Agema, this is a nonpartisan issue. This is about what is best for Michigan. This issue has nothing to do with Obama, please do not politicize the issue.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:23 Chuck D
12:23
[Comment From MaryMary: ] 
Steve. The traffic numbers are public information and are way down. Feel free to check for yourself
Friday October 12, 2012 12:23 Mary
12:23
Rep Agema: 
The reason for Proposal 6 is because the Governor by passed the legislature...this proposal allows voters to determine if they want a bridge or if there are other priorities for our scarce resources.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:23 Rep Agema
12:23
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
Isn't this proposal about giving the people a choice on if they want an international bridge? Where is the harm in that Andy?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:23 Lewis
12:23
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
@Eggert Really? Statewide and local votes on bridges? This is policy and does NOT belong in the Constitution.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:23 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:23
[Comment From AudreyAudrey: ] 
Again, I have to ask WHY Canada would do this? It seems too good to be true. There's got to be a catch.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:23 Audrey
12:23
[Comment From Richard GRichard G: ] 
It we're not at risk for the money, why is it called a loan?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:23 Richard G
12:24
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Should voters really have to approve every overpass or bridge in the entire state? As a matter of policy that makes no sense.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:24 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:24
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Even if you don’t believe a bridge is necessary, you should oppose Proposal 6 to preserve the integrity of the Michigan Constitution, which should be the organizing document of state government, not a political tool that a billionaire can buy for his own personal benefit.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:24 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:24
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
How would Agema know? Isn't he just a rep?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:24 Lewis
12:24
Rep Agema: 
Why would anyone be afraid of people voting??? We do it for school millages and for our elected representative. Voting Yes can prevent a major boondoggle!!!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:24 Rep Agema
12:24
[Comment From YonasYonas: ] 
Even if this ballot proposal passes, I am pretty sure Detroit will approve it. However, the legislature is the big question mark here
Friday October 12, 2012 12:24 Yonas
12:24
Rep Agema: 
The NITC project has the potential to profoundly impact Michigan residents and the financial health of our state. The Legislature passed two laws in 2011 that specifically prohibit the Michigan Department of Transportation from entering into any contract to build the NITC without its approval. Unfortunately, the new agreement dismissed the concerns of legislators, ignored Michigan law and proposed an agreement with Canada anyway. Taxpayers now have no choice but to take matters into their own hands. Proposal 6 gives them that power. I just don’t see why giving the people a choice on the bridge a bad idea if the legislature and governor can’t agree – especially given the magnitude of this project.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:24 Rep Agema
12:24
[Comment From Richard GRichard G: ] 
I agree Audrey. Why call it a loan? Are they going to change their mind and and demand we pay it back with interest?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:24 Richard G
12:25
[Comment From JosieJosie: ] 
I agree with Audrey. Seems too good to be true. Let's get it done now, and try and hide the consequences for as long as we can before we make an excuse to get into taxpayers pockets and blame it on those canadians!!!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:25 Josie
12:25
[Comment From Chuck DChuck D: ] 
Audrey, there is a catch, Republican lawmakers want to protect ONE billionaire instead of doing what is best for our state. So Canada and Rick Snyder said they'll get this done without them.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:25 Chuck D
12:25
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Richard G - Let me say it again. It is not a loan. Michigan has no obligation of any kind. See the language I posted from the agreement.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:25 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:25
Rep Agema: 
There is no conclusive evidence that the crossing is necessary or economically feasible with tolls alone. And despite what the governor says about the bridge being “free,” multiple studies have shown there will be costs to Michigan in lost tax and toll revenues from other crossing, in which the state has invested heavily in recent years.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:25 Rep Agema
12:25
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Andy - The Mackinac Bridge is in the state Constitution, do you have an issue with that?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:25 Lewis
12:25
David Eggert: 
Rep. Agema is chairman of the House Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, so he is involved with transportation policy. He I believe was involved in drafting budget language to prevent MDOT and the Strategic Fund from expending resources on the bridge.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:25 David Eggert
12:26
[Comment From PhizzyPhizzy: ] 
Rep. Agema, again, if "the people should decide" issues such as these, why is Proposal 6 only restricted to "international crossings"? Presumably, if Michigan's leaders decided to fund and build a 19 mile long bridge to Beaver Island (at a most of tens of $ billions), they could do so without a decision by the people. Isn't that odd?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:26 Phizzy
12:26
Let's see how our live chat audience veers. Do you favor Prop 6 or no?
Yes, taxpayers should decide on a new bridge
 ( 60% )
No, Michigan/Canada need a 2nd bridge asap
 ( 40% )

Friday October 12, 2012 12:26 
12:26
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
Thanks David
Friday October 12, 2012 12:26 Lewis
12:26
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Lewis - Proposal 6 is not about a choice on the bridge. It is an attempt to the Ambassador Bridge owners to stall an important project for the state of Michigan. It is clearly a special interest power grab that does not belong in the Constitution
Friday October 12, 2012 12:26 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:26
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
Can Canada give me a "loan" for a car? My bank makes me pay back my loans.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:26 Lewis
12:27
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
The simple truth is we need a new, modern bridge to Canada to secure our future and we have one that is moving forward. Prop 6 is a big step back, no other state has this kind of Constitutional language.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:27 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:28
Rep Agema: 
Hey Andy - it is a loan!!! The minister of Canada says so and it has interest from day one. We have to pay it back! Read the agreement!

Also, Prop 6 applies only to international crossings because we don't build them very often. Every other one that the state is involved with was voted on by the legislature. But not the Governor's NITC!!! That is only his word, no oversight and no way to recover if he is wrong!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:28 Rep Agema
12:28
[Comment From JamesJames: ] 
@ Rep. Agema - you say if we invested this (Canada's) money into local infrastructure it would do a lot of good. Isn't Michigan missing out on billions of federal matching dollars for Michigan roads if we dont' build this bridge?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:28 James
12:28
[Comment From YonasYonas: ] 
Yeah, Canada is so rich. lol.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:28 Yonas
12:29
Rep Agema: 
What about the benefits that the NITC will bring in $2.2 billion in federal highway funds?
This point deserves some clarification. In actuality, this figure does not represent any new funds for Michigan that it would not otherwise be able to obtain from the Federal Highway Administration.

I believe the stakes are simply too high, and the risks too great, for the people of Michigan to recklessly in debt themselves to a foreign power, particularly in an era of widespread government cutbacks and growing debt. And as Lt. Gov. Calley pointed out in 2008, a privately-financed crossing would also be eligible for federal matching funds: https://thepeopleshoulddecide.box.com/s/2bbff65bb1d7fb3fdf49
Friday October 12, 2012 12:29 Rep Agema
12:29
[Comment From Chuck DChuck D: ] 
Andy, Moroun is trying to trick Michigan into being the first state to put poorly written language into the Constitution to protect his commercial truck traffic monopoly.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:29 Chuck D
12:29
Rep Agema: 
Won’t Proposal 6 require a vote on ANY new bridge or tunnel project?
It’s pretty clear that’s just the opposition attempting to scare people. It’s just not true. I’ve read the proposal – it mentions the word “international” seven times. And it’s very specific, in that it applies to international crossings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have ordered it on the ballot.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:29 Rep Agema
12:30
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
MDOT has budgeted for tens of millions dollars of shortfall in MIchigan funds needed for MI highways. Without these funds MI will lose out on hundreds of millions of federal dollars for MI roads. The NITC solves this problem since federal dollar will be available based up the $550 million Canada will spend in MI.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:30 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:30
[Comment From TimTim: ] 
The fact that the Governor by-passed the legislation speaks more to me about the corruptibility of the legislation....not the Governor's overreach of authority.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:30 Tim
12:31
[Comment From HelenHelen: ] 
This is from pA-2 of the agreement. I'm no accountant, but i think "compounded" means there will be interest charged on the $550M from Canada...
Friday October 12, 2012 12:31 Helen
12:31
[Comment From HelenHelen: ] 
“Imputed Cost of Unrecouped Party Contributions” means, at each calendar year end, the aggregate amount accrued on Unrecouped Party Contributions in Canadian dollars, during such calendar year, calculated at a rate per annum equal to the Government of Canada benchmark long-term bond yield effective on the last business day of the previous calendar year end, as published by the Bank of Canada (Weekly Financial Statistics, series V39056), plus 100 basis points, and compounded annually, or at such other rate as shall be agreed upon, from time to time, by the Parties.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:31 Helen
12:31
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
Maybe Canada will give us a loan so the Tigers can get a bullpen too.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:31 Lewis
12:31
[Comment From ChadChad: ] 
Really, the people won't decide if this passes. Matty can spend all he wants on advertising, while the public does not have the funds to match his misleading messaging.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:31 Chad
12:31
[Comment From YonasYonas: ] 
Why is Moroun so greedy? He still has his bridge right? He doesn't get hurt after a new bridge is made right?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:31 Yonas
12:31
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Tim - Doesn't that mean the people should decide?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:31 Lewis
12:31
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
While the administration believes its agreement with Canada will stand even if Proposal 6 passes, but we shouldn’t take that chance. The state will be tied up in costly litigation, for months or years. There is nothing positive for Michigan in Proposal 6 — nothing. Voters should reject all the deception and vote NO.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:31 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:31
Rep Agema: 
@ Andy _ No, No, No!!! That is WRONG. We never left $$$ on the table. MDOT is not a good advocate and they are not good stewards with the resources we have. Besides the Federal $$$ is not there to give us - Obama doesn't have a budget and hasnt for 3 years!!!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:31 Rep Agema
12:31
[Comment From Chuck DChuck D: ] 
Rep. Agema is referencing The People Should Decide's website? Are you kidding me?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:31 Chuck D
12:32
David Eggert: 
Can Rep. Agema and Andy address the dispute over whether Propl 6, if passed, will even affect the new bridge in Detroit?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:32 David Eggert
12:32
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Proposal 6 is not about a choice on the bridge. It is an attempt to the Ambassador Bridge owners to stall an important project for the state of Michigan. It is clearly a special interest power grab that does not belong in the Constitution.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:32 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:32
[Comment From JamesJames: ] 
@ Andy - Do you see a downside to having this bridge built? If so, what are they?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:32 James
12:33
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
So people in GR are really excited about spending taxpayer money for a bridge in Detroit? I fail to see the logic. Detroit has bigger issues.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:33 Lewis
12:33
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
@James - I don't. Ultimately, this isn’t about government bridges or private bridges this is about doing what’s best for Michigan’s economy, for our kids and grandkids. Being a peninsula state, bridges are a good thing! They connect businesses to the global economy.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:33 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:33
[Comment From TimTim: ] 
@Lewis....I would argue the people HAVE decided.....they chose Snyder.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:33 Tim
12:34
Rep Agema: 
Of course it affects the new bridge NITC proposal...Just like Emergency Manager stops frivilous spending . Why shouldn't the NITC be subject to the constitution, if amended??? Shouldn;'t the people have a vote? Who is against that?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:34 Rep Agema
12:34
[Comment From YonasYonas: ] 
Again, who in the legislature supports this bridge and who doesn't support it?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:34 Yonas
12:34
[Comment From Chuck DChuck D: ] 
Rep. Agema, I've read the agreement. Canada's loan will be for the private operator and constructor of the bridge, NOT to Michigan.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:34 Chuck D
12:35
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Lewis, West Michigan is vitally interested in this issue. http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/09/rick_haglund_west_michigan_bus.html
Friday October 12, 2012 12:35 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:35
[Comment From Chuck DChuck D: ] 
Tim, hit the nail on the head
Friday October 12, 2012 12:35 Chuck D
12:35
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
The NITC is a bridge for the entire state. W. MI businesses will be supported by creating 21st century infrastructure with our best trading partner. It also will greatly supprt agriculutre. 30% of everything grown in this state is sold to Canada.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:35 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:35
[Comment From NicoleNicole: ] 
Proposal 6 is about giving the people a voice in this issue. The Gov already went around legislative, he should be accountable to the people.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:35 Nicole
12:35
[Comment From YonasYonas: ] 
I am guessing that some trucks from Canada will go to Grand Rapids for trade as well as Chicago.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:35 Yonas
12:35
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Tim - Go read the news articles when he decided to dust off this Granholm idea, everyone was shocked.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:35 Lewis
12:35
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
No @Nicole. Proposal 6 is to the benefit of a single special interest at the expense of the rest of Michigan citizens. It does not belong in the Constitution.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:35 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:35
[Comment From JoeJoe: ] 
Chuck, a loan to the constructor? Seems ridiculous to me.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:35 Joe
12:36
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Meegan, the distance to Toronto from GR via the Blue Water Bridge or the AB is virtually the same.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:36 Lewis
12:36
Rep Agema: 
Who supoorts in Legislatiure? Well Every year the a majority of the legislature voted for restriction on spending on the DRIC/NITC until there was an up or down vote. Every year since 2006. The Senate held hearings last year, and there were not even the votes to get it out of committee. There was no business case, no traffic case - no good justification.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:36 Rep Agema
12:36
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Lewis, I'm just saying that a coalition of West Michigan business folks have deemed a second Detroit Windsor bridge a top priority.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:36 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:37
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
The NITC is necessary. There needs to be appreciation for the fact that the Ambassador is aging. With the Canadians being our largest trading partner it's imperative that we have capability to handle increased traffic that is predicted over the next 30-40 years.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:37 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:37
[Comment From GregGreg: ] 
Does this affect a private company wanting to build a bridge in the same place as the NITC?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:37 Greg
12:37
Rep Agema: 
Traffic levels at all international crossings in the Detroit area have dropped 49.9% since 1999 Public Border Operators Association
Friday October 12, 2012 12:37 Rep Agema
12:37
[Comment From GregGreg: ] 
What if another private company wanted to build a bride? That wouldn't require a vote of the people because public funds aren't used in building the bridge, correct?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:37 Greg
12:38
[Comment From GregGreg: ] 
Does this affect a private company that goes to the legislature to get permission to build another bridge since private funds and not public funds are being used?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:38 Greg
12:38
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
@Greg - The private sector will be the builders of the NITC. It's how the agreement works.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:38 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:39
[Comment From TreyTrey: ] 
If Canada controls the tolls, couldn't they make them super expensive, especially if they are trying to recoup their loan with traffic projections not being as good as they say?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:39 Trey
12:39
David Eggert: 
Greg, are you asking specifically about the Ambassador doing a twin span?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:39 David Eggert
12:39
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 

The project will go out to bid. We would expect a consortium of companies to come together to put together a bid that would cost them millions of dollars as they compete for the project.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:39 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:39
[Comment From EmanuelEmanuel: ] 
What happens to trade with Canada if the Ambassador bridge is closed for any reason?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:39 Emanuel
12:39
Rep Agema: 
I believe the Proposal only affects projects that the Gov't would spend $$$ on - not the private rail tunnel (unless they want a subsidy) or if someone else applied to build a bridge privately (like the Ambassador did in 1927). The amendment would cover if the state is involved in the financing, construction, etc.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:39 Rep Agema
12:39
[Comment From JoeJoe: ] 
I would very much like to hear what we hope to gain by building this bridge. What kind of increase in efficiency could we expect to see?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:39 Joe
12:39
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
I personally, strongly, believe in limited government and as a Chamber we take our commitment to free enterprise seriously but believe that infrastructure particularly international crossings that are vital lifelines for commerce and our economic security are a vital role of government to protect the public interest.

Friday October 12, 2012 12:39 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:40
[Comment From PhizzyPhizzy: ] 
Rep. Agema, if "Shouldn;'t the people have a vote", why shouldn't the people have a right to vote on any spending, be it highway overpasses, filling potholes, etc.? Why is this only for "international crossings", unless it is to benefit a special interest who currently owns a bridge?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:40 Phizzy
12:40
[Comment From Concerned CitizenConcerned Citizen: ] 
Rep. Agema do you think an additional bridge will attract companies to Michigan and increase jobs? Wouldn't that increase traffic volumes? If we don't get another span, will New York build one?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:40 Concerned Citizen
12:40
[Comment From JoeJoe: ] 
We keep returning to the fact that the new bridge will support Michigan's economy, but the economy is getting no money from this. We are building a very expensive piece of infrastructure to support an economy that is not going to thrive because of five minutes less in customs.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:40 Joe
12:40
Rep Agema: 
We DONT need another bridge for traffic - traffic is down over 40% in the last decade!!! NITC proponents have relied on a 2010 forecast from Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) that implies commercial truck traffic will grow over 390% between 2012 to 2065, or more than five times the historical growth rate of the North American auto industry [O’Keefe & Associates, “Economic Issues Behind the New International Trade Crossing” (October 2012)]
Friday October 12, 2012 12:40 Rep Agema
12:41
[Comment From TreyTrey: ] 
Where is Lt Governor Calley? I thought he was supposed to be doing this live chat since he wrote that opinion piece...
Friday October 12, 2012 12:41 Trey
12:41
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Trey, he was otherwise engaged. We try to get our op ed folks to do it, but in this case, Andy Johnston graciously agreed to fill in.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:41 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:41
Rep Agema: 
Example of why we don't need a crossing - Traffic levels at the Blue Water Bridge are approximately 50% of Michigan Department of Transportation projections made before its second span opened in 1997 [State Senator John Pappageorge, PowerPoint presentation, “DRIC/NITC,” p. 13]
Friday October 12, 2012 12:41 Rep Agema
12:41
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
The need is there. Virtually every business, business group and association supports the NITC. Democrats are saying we need a new bridge; so are Republicans and the last 5 governors of Michigan. The US DOT has stated that this is a "critical" project for the United States of America. That's how important it is.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:41 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:41
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
We believe all Michiganders will benefit from a new bridge to Canada because it will promote international commerce and ensure our state’s role as a trade hub — we can’t rely on the 83-year-old Ambassador to carry a quarter of cross-border trade.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:41 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:41
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Andy - Are there any studies showing tolls will pay for the bridge?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:41 Lewis
12:42
Rep Agema: 
Why only for Govt bridges? because that is the only scenario that the Gov created by going around the legislature. All other public crossings have an authority created by the LEGISLATURE - but not NITC!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:42 Rep Agema
12:42
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
By the way, next week, we focus on Proposal 2, the "Protect Our Jobs" proposal. On Oct. 22 we'll kick off the renewable energy proposal and finish up with the home health care proposal on Oct. 29.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:42 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:42
[Comment From DanaDana: ] 
I don’t live near Detroit and don’t really understand how this bridge will affect me either way, built or not built. Why should I care about voting on Proposal 6 at all?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:42 Dana
12:43
[Comment From JacobJacob: ] 
I want to know why the state wants to build the NITC when it will clearly steal traffic from existing crossings that the state has invested heavily in - isn't Michigan shooting itself in the foot w/ the NITC?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:43 Jacob
12:43
Rep Agema: 
@ Dana - why shou out state voters care? Great question! because otherwise you'll get stuck with the bill! Voting Yest ensures we all have a say before we get into a loan from Canada!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:43 Rep Agema
12:43
[Comment From LynLyn: ] 
Independent of ownership - what are the needs, plain and simple, for another bridge? Facts. Stats.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:43 Lyn
12:43
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Andy - Where is the study that says we need a new bridge? Or is that just fancy talk?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:43 Lewis
12:43
[Comment From TomTom: ] 
Only car traffic is down substantially. Truck traffic grows as the economy grows. Truck traffic hit an all time high in 2006.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:43 Tom
12:44
[Comment From JoeJoe: ] 
Why can't we rely on the current bridge? It's not going anywhere, and supports the current traffic flow just fine.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:44 Joe
12:44
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
The CAR study is a great example. The NITC will provide direct highway-to-highway access improving traffic flow and reducing stress on local communities. This will allow more products made and grown in Michigan to be marketed and sold faster, and that’s good for our businesses and families.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:44 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:44
[Comment From TomTom: ] 
one out of every seven jobs in West Michigan relies on trade with Canada. WE need to make that trade move efficiently.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:44 Tom
12:44
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@tom - According to what data? Not PBOA
Friday October 12, 2012 12:44 Lewis
12:44
[Comment From TimTim: ] 
@ Joe....are you a commercial truck driver?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:44 Tim
12:44
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
The new bridge is not about getting rid of the Ambassador Bridge, it is about ensuring our strong trading relationship grows even stronger to support jobs in West Michigan.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:44 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:44
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Andy - The CAR study admits they don't know where the job #s come from, go read it!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:44 Lewis
12:44
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 
Lt. Gov. Calley seemed to think it was fine 4 years ago: “The Ambassador Bridge is owned and operated by a private company; as it has been for decades. By all accounts, it is a well maintained and managed border crossing.” https://thepeopleshoulddecide.box.com/s/2bbff65bb1d7fb3fdf49
Friday October 12, 2012 12:44 Steve
12:45
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
Peter: I don't see any questions from you. Could you post one again?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:45 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
12:45
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
When it comes to questions regarding traffic. Who do you believe? Folks should as themselves why one company would spend millions of dollars on TV ads ($15 million since 2011) and what is in it for them? It is clearly not in the best interest of Michigan.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:45 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:45
[Comment From Isabelle TerryIsabelle Terry: ] 
With all the things that are wrong with Detroit... it's pretty amazing that the Governor is focusing time, effort and money on something that is already working well.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:45 Isabelle Terry
12:45
[Comment From GregGreg: ] 
@Dave, I was specifically referring to another company that sees the need for a bridge and makes the investment through private resources.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:45 Greg
12:46
[Comment From EmanuelEmanuel: ] 
Rep Agema, what you leave out is that the House of Representatives did approve a bill that would allow Michigan to enter into an agreement with Canada to build a bridge.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:46 Emanuel
12:46
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 
Here's what Lt. Gov. Calley said about public v. private back in 2008: “…I don’t want an already strained Transportation Budget to be burdened by a new bridge if private capital is available to accomplish the same.” Wish he were debating so we could ask him what changed!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:46 Steve
12:46
[Comment From Isabelle TerryIsabelle Terry: ] 
Always choose the private sector over government run. It's the American way.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:46 Isabelle Terry
12:46
Rep Agema: 
Will this steal $$$ from existing crossing? Absolutely, in MDOT's own words! 76% of traffic from the Ambassador, 24% from the Det-Win Tunnel & $18% from Blue water in Port Huron. Question is why build a bridge if it canabalizes the existing, diverts resources and isn't needed??? Vote Yes on Prop 6 to put the breaks on, because MDOT's own study shows it isn't needed until at least 2035!! (Further in the future if the Ambassador twins its bridge - at no risk to taxpayers!)
Friday October 12, 2012 12:46 Rep Agema
12:46
[Comment From ScottScott: ] 
If another bridge is needed why doesn't Congress grant a franchise like they did in the 1920s and then bid that franchise out to a private company. Why involve state agencies.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:46 Scott
12:46
[Comment From JosieJosie: ] 
I second Isabelle Terry.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:46 Josie
12:46
[Comment From TimTim: ] 
@ Lewis....actually I applaud the Governor for supporting a good idea, no matter which party it originated from. The notion that any idea from the opposing aisle is somehow poisonous is one reason our country/state finds itself in the shape it's currently in
Friday October 12, 2012 12:46 Tim
12:46
[Comment From GregGreg: ] 
The private company is being paid back guaranteed payments? That's not a profit/loss scenario.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:46 Greg
12:46
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Greg - The private sector will be providing $950 million to finance the NITC. Will be privately financed.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:46 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:47
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Andy - Here is the data, read it and weep. http://www.publicborderoperators.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=18
Friday October 12, 2012 12:47 Lewis
12:47
[Comment From TomTom: ] 
Read the reports. Truck traffic has increased each of the last 3 years. And traffic takes a lot longer to process than it did before 9/11.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:47 Tom
12:47
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 
Lewis is right. This is what the CAR study literally uses as their source for those jobs numbers: "Press releases and public statements regarding the NITC project quote general figures of 10,000 to 13,000 construction jobs in Michigan."
Friday October 12, 2012 12:47 Steve
12:47
[Comment From JoeJoe: ] 
The allowance for more products made does not mean that they will.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:47 Joe
12:48
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
This bridge is about the future. Buffalo has 14 lanes and MI has 4. We need more connections to the global marketplace to support businesses in Michigan.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:48 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:48
[Comment From ChadChad: ] 
Rep Agema -- If proposal 6 fails isn't that the people saying they want the bridge? Would you then work to have it passed through the legislature?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:48 Chad
12:49
How are you feeling about the ads on this issue?
Fair and informative
 ( 62% )
Deceptive but slick
 ( 38% )

Friday October 12, 2012 12:49 
12:49
[Comment From TomTom: ] 
The largest users of the current bridge are all supporting a new modern one with freeway to freeway connection.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:49 Tom
12:49
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Good poll question on the ads. Don’t be fooled. Proposal 6 would amend the state constitution to require a public vote on any new international connection, but it’s all about the Morouns’ drive to thwart Michigan’s agreement with Canada to build the New International Trade Crossing. Proposal 6 is a blatant attempt to hijack the constitution for the narrowest of special interests.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:49 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:49
[Comment From LewisLewis: ] 
@Tom - We can all pick the lowest number from the depression and show it increasing
Friday October 12, 2012 12:49 Lewis
12:50
[Comment From MikeMike: ] 
Rep. Agema: Has Matty contributed to your campaigns? If so, how much?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:50 Mike
12:50
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Mike, Rep. Agema earlier on the chat estimated about $1000 total, between Matty Moroun and his son, over the past six years.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:50 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:50
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
The nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan Truth Squad agrees and has issue multiple fouls for their ads.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:50 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:50
Rep Agema: 
@ Tom - Truck traffic is handled differently today than before the NITC proposal...all documents have to be submitted to to Customs electronically. So there is nothing to require more crossing capacity. There would be same customs delays at a new crossing...
Friday October 12, 2012 12:50 Rep Agema
12:50
Jen Eyer | MLive.com: 
For those posting questions about campaign donations, that issue was addressed earlier in the chat. Scroll back to see it. Thanks!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:50 Jen Eyer | MLive.com
12:50
[Comment From LillyLilly: ] 
Businesses outside of Michigan are watching this very closely. If we "the people" deny such an outstanding opportunity, who do you think will want to plant and relocate their businesses here? We look like a bunch of nincompoops!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:50 Lilly
12:50
[Comment From TomTom: ] 
Our economic strategy should not be to pray that the current bridge has eternal life. It's 83 years old. It doesn't connect to a freeway ion Canada. We can get this one for free...the only one against this is the billionaire owner of the current bridge
Friday October 12, 2012 12:50 Tom
12:50
[Comment From ScottScott: ] 
The Governor wants to require prevailing wage and payment to union bosses as consultants on the government bridge. It was in the Senate legislation he supported. The bill also allowed for the authority board members he appointed to have a conflict of interest. Plus the bill had a great big exception to the FOIA laws. http://tinyurl.com/94bc8mj
Friday October 12, 2012 12:50 Scott
12:51
[Comment From TomTom: ] 
I think they were flagrant fouls Andy
Friday October 12, 2012 12:51 Tom
12:51
[Comment From JoeJoe: ] 
So it has come down to the fact that we are seriously considering building a very expensive bridge in hopes that the sliding economy will rise to the occasion?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:51 Joe
12:51
[Comment From ScottScott: ] 
Canada ignores Freedom of Information laws in New York so why would anyone believe they wouldn't ignore FOIA laws of Michigan?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:51 Scott
12:51
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
We can’t rely on the 83-year-old Ambassador to carry a quarter of cross-border trade between the US and Canada. New bridges are good for economic development.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:51 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:51
David Eggert: 
Mike - Rep. Agema was asked something along those lines earlier in the chat. Here is what he said.

Rep Agema:
Campaign contribution? yes, fully disclosed and fully transparant. within the limits like the hundreds of supporters I have. Look it up on line. In fact, it was lower than the Chambers's contributions to me
Friday October 12, 2012 12:51 David Eggert
12:52
[Comment From HelenHelen: ] 
"We can get this one for free..." Come on people, wake up! There's no such thing as a free lunch!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:52 Helen
12:52
[Comment From MikeMike: ] 
As a republican, it is very disappointing to see the Michigan GOP so far on the wrong side of this issue.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:52 Mike
12:52
[Comment From Isabelle TerryIsabelle Terry: ] 
The Ambassador Bridge Co. is an American success story and should be celebrated. Instead, the state of MI and Canada are greedily salivating over using taxpayer $$ to compete with the private sector. Who's to say that the State won't stop there?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:52 Isabelle Terry
12:52
[Comment From JoeJoe: ] 
We already have 4 border crossings with Canada. Why do we need another one?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:52 Joe
12:53
[Comment From TomTom: ] 
Scott, we are not paying for it. Why do we care if union or non union employees build it. As long as it's Michigan workers on the Michigan side...let's build it.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:53 Tom
12:53
Rep Agema: 
What if there isn;'t a Yes vote on proposal 6 - will that change my position? My position has been that we need legislative oversight. This boondoggle uniquely wouldn't have any oversight!!! No FOIA, no open meetings, no ability if Canada changes the agreement or walks away (as the proposed agreement allows) Just like Mackinac Bridge, we need oversight and need the ability to manage the finances so don't end up like cities under an Emergency Manager
Friday October 12, 2012 12:53 Rep Agema
12:53
[Comment From TomTom: ] 
Americans for Tax Reform has endorsed Proposal 6
Friday October 12, 2012 12:53 Tom
12:53
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Again, even if you don’t believe a bridge is necessary, you should oppose Proposal 6 to preserve the integrity of the Michigan Constitution.

This is organizing document for our state government, not a tool for special interests to protect their monopoly.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:53 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:53
[Comment From YonasYonas: ] 
If it is this obvious to US DOT and the last 5 governors, how come it hasn't been built yet?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:53 Yonas
12:54
[Comment From JamesJames: ] 
@Helen, no one said it would be free. We understand the tolls collected will go to Canada. Decreased revenues could happen at the other crossings. Got it.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:54 James
12:54
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Yonas - Because we have a unique situation where a private co. owns and international crossing and they are using their vast resources to hamper the trade between two G7 countries.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:54 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:54
Rep Agema: 
@ Andy - the CAR report was simply a summary of "favorable stats" not the actual DRIC/NITC documents... Not one MDOT study shows the traffic need, or has met their own traffic projections in the short term... If the traffic isn't there, the toll revenue isnt there and somebody has to subsidize...
Friday October 12, 2012 12:54 Rep Agema
12:54
[Comment From TomTom: ] 
Because Moroun has paid off everybody along the line.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:54 Tom
12:55
[Comment From MikeMike: ] 
If Proposal 6 passes, the construction of ALL bridges in this state will be put at risk. We cannot afford that risk.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:55 Mike
12:55
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
We're about to wrap up. Let's allow Rep. Agema and Andy Johnston closing statements.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:55 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:55
[Comment From ScottScott: ] 
Why does Governor Snyder act like a dictator by ignoring the legislature on this issue and is know ignoring the legislature on creating state based healthcare exchanges to implement a national healthcare takeover? Seems he doesn't want to follow the democratic process. Respect for the process is the foundation of our government (state and federal). Governor Snyder appears to have no respect for the process.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:55 Scott
12:55
[Comment From JosieJosie: ] 
Tom - We have no idea whether or not the construction workers will be from michigan. Its canada's loan. Im guessing they'll have the workers too.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:55 Josie
12:55
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 
In 2008, Calley wanted legislative oversight too... “I, and others, simply want language inserted into the transportation budget that says MDOT can’t start building a new international bridge without first coming back to the Legislature for permission.” https://thepeopleshoulddecide.box.com/s/2bbff65bb1d7fb3fdf49
Friday October 12, 2012 12:55 Steve
12:56
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
We believe all Michiganders will benefit from a new bridge to Canada because it will promote international commerce and ensure our state’s role as a trade hub — we can’t rely on the 83-year-old Ambassador to carry a quarter of cross-border trade.

Proposal 6 is not about a choice on the bridge. It is an attempt to the Ambassador Bridge owners to stall an important project for the state of Michigan. It is clearly a special interest power grab that does not belong in the Constitution.

For neutral information on Prop 6 and the other proposals, I would encourage people to look at Citizen’s Research Council of Michigan’s website: www.crcmich.org

For more information on the NITC, visit: http://www.michigan.gov/buildthisbridge
Friday October 12, 2012 12:56 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:56
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Thanks Andy for your closing. Let's see what Rep. Agema has to say, and then we'll wrap up.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:56 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:57
Andy Johnston | GRACC: 
Thank you everyone for a lively chat on an important issue for the State of Michigan! Vote NO on Prop 6 and for the rest, remember: 1 is a YES, VOTE NO ON THE REST!
Friday October 12, 2012 12:57 Andy Johnston | GRACC
12:57
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Join us next week for Michigan Decides 2012's exploration of Proposal 2, the Protect Our Jobs proposal. We hope you all come back for our live chat on that next Friday.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:57 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:57
Rep Agema: 
Here is my reaction and summary of key issues...KEY POINTS:
1.The more Michigan voters learn about the NITC proposal, the more they realize there are a lot of unanswered questions
2.The rhetoric coming out of the governor’s office simply doesn’t match the facts
Lt. Gov. Calley himself expressed serious concerns about the state spending billions on another crossing in two 2008 op-ed. LINK: https://thepeopleshoulddecide.box.com/s/2bbff65bb1d7fb3fdf49
3. The Legislature has not supported construction of the NITC because there is no conclusive evidence that the crossing is necessary or economically feasible with tolls alone.
4. The stakes are simply too high, and the risks too great, for the people of Michigan to recklessly indebt themselves to a foreign power, particularly in an era of widespread government cutbacks and growing debt.
Since the governor went around the Legislature, it’s up to the people to decide.
5. Why put a private company out of buiseness that pays taxes and operates a good facility?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:57 Rep Agema
12:57
Rep Agema: 
QUESTIONS TO ASK OF OPPONENT:
Why has there been no detailed analysis of less-expensive alternatives using existing capacity and improving crossing efficiency?
Will Canada cover cost overruns beyond the promised $550 million?
Canada is charging interest in its “contribution” – how is that free?
What happens if the project goes over budget – will Canada continue to bear the entire financial burden?
Doesn’t the Crossing Agreement (on p37) give Canada the ability to walk away at any time?
Why is a Republican administration supporting a large public works project at the expense of a private, tax-paying, Michigan-owned business?
The Governor has requested a waiver to FHWA Buy America requirements and Canada has final say over who gets what jobs. If foreign steel and workers are used, how does the construction of the bridge create jobs in Michigan?
Friday October 12, 2012 12:57 Rep Agema
12:57
Meegan Holland|MLive.com: 
Thanks very much to Rep. Dave Agema and the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce's Andy Johnston for taking our questions on Proposal 6.
Friday October 12, 2012 12:57 Meegan Holland|MLive.com
12:58
 

 
 
Powered by google translate
English  English
简体中文  简体中文
Dansk  Dansk
Deutsch  Deutsch
Español  Español
Français  Français
Italiano  Italiano
日本語  日本語
日本語  한국어
Nederlands  Nederlands
Norsk  Norsk
Português  Português
Русский  Русский
Svenska  Svenska
Close