Ambassador Bridge

[dik]

From the CBC news, "Wayne County, Mich., Circuit Judge Prentis Edwards ordered billionaire Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel (Matty) Moroun to serve jail time Thursday morning.

The ruling came in a contempt of court case surrounding the Detroit International Bridge Company’s refusal to finish court-ordered roadwork and other construction on the U.S. side of the Ambassador Bridge, which connects Detroit and Windsor, Ont."

I guess when the judge says so... ya gotta fix it!

Dik

 

[MikeHalloran]

Google it and read the owner's position statement.
It's not a simple mess.


Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[GregLocock]

Al Capone's demise comes to mind. Never argue with the jurisdiction, they will always find something to get you with.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Teguci]

Very interesting. At first glance I was thinking the judge is out of order but I did some further research and now I think the judge should have thrown the company in jail 2 years ago (he actually did 1 year ago for a couple of hours). Considering the options, I think a more progressive solution is to condemn the company's property, and have MDOT finish the project themselves. Costs should be covered by the bridge owner for failure to complete their end of the contract.

There are some misleading issues though. Traffic from the highway doesn't travel on local roads. The bridge company has it rerouted from direct access to looping around duty free gas and goods (at considerable profit - no doubt - I wouldn't want to get rid of that business either if I owned it).

 

[swall]

I'm an engineer, not a legal beagle, but it appears we have a simple contract dispute here. Judge Edwards found Ambassador Bridge not in compliance with the terms of the contract with MDOT. There were probably a number of remedies he could have chosen, but compelling Ambassador Bridge to complete the contract was probably the wrong path. Hard to compel a party to a contract to do something when he has already demonstrated that he chooses not to comply. Maybe the judge should have just voided the contract and awarded MDOT damages.

 

[dik]

I see it as 2 issues... one being contractual, and the option for this is to rule on the contract.

The other issue, and the one the judge addressed was the contempt shown for the legal process... and the judge was correct, IMHO, that the dude was in contempt...

Dik

 

[Hacksaw82]

I live in the area, and cross the bridge almost everyday. This whole thing is a disaster, and is fueled by greed, politics, and oh ya, greed. The Feds want a second, publicly owned bridge. Matty wants to keep his monopoly on the crossing, and duty free gas sales (estimated in the tens of millions per year). Matty stopped playing nice when he realized the Feds were not going to allow him to twin the Ambassador. That's when he decided to screw the contracts and build whatever suits his needs.

He's the biggest slum lord in Detroit, and has paid millions to influential political campaigns for years. That includes Kwame Kilpatrick, one of Detroits worst corrupt mayors, who was in office when Matty built his duty free store, on city property, and without permit.

Funny thing someone above should mention Capone....they have a lot in common, if you know what I mean....

Anyway, the whole thing is truly fastinating, it's too bad it's having such an adverse affect on the good, hard working oeople trying to turn things around in Detroit.

 

[swall]

Thanks for the interesting background, Hacksaw82. One thing I'm not clear on--why is this a federal case? Is it because MDOT used fed funds for their part of the project?

 

[hokie66]

Not Federal. Michigan state court. And the Michigan Court of Appeals has released the old guys pending appeal. There is another case where the bridge owners are suing the US and Canadian governments about another crossing, and that may be in Federal court.

 

[Hacksaw82]

That's correct Hokie, the federal case surrounds blocking a twin span. While the state case is about the failure to meet contractural obligations while rebuilding the approach ramps to the Ambassador.

The real interesting is how the bridge companies lawyers are interpreting the law which was passed in the 1920s when the Ambassador was first built. They claim this law gives them full legal clearance to build what ever they wish, as long as it is in the interest of the crossing. They are using this claim to justify a twin span, built without the governments approval.

Both Homeland Security and the Coast Guard have rejected the proposal for a twin span, as it doesn't provide enough redundancy in the eyes of the Homeland folks, and the coast guard won't approve any crossing without an environmental assessment. The EA won't pass on the Canadian side, so the twin is basically blocked (thus the federal suit).

Gotta love lawyers.....

 

[bridgebuster]

Sounds like a case for the US Supreme Court