Michigan Votes Forum

No toll roads in Michigan.  Interchange tolls consume real estate and implementation will reduce highway access, both not good for the public.  Interchange tolls themselves require maintenance, staff to operate, and the added revenue stream requires accounting staff and processes.  All these new activities have costs and do nothing for the public.  If electronic reading and billing is applied, then we have "Big Brother" knowing where we are more of the time, which is not good for a free people. 

Do not privatize the high ways.  When the private firms fall into trouble, we cannot afford to have to deal with them the way the federal government had to deal with the banks and AIG. 

If the problem is having enough revenue to maintain the roads and bridges, raise the gasoline tax.  The processes are already in place; collecting the added revenue will cost no more.  Higher gasoline tax also will provide more incentive to conserve gasoline, which is good for the environment.  If I-94 becomes a toll road, I'm taking the back roads, which will require the use of more gasoline, which is bad for the environment.

It would be much better for our leaders to raise the gasoline tax and admit they are raising taxes, than to sell an asset, let the new owner raise our costs, and then blame the new owner for charging us too much--all so our leaders can say they did not raise taxes.  That is cowardly and not leadership.  Let state leadership protect our state and the interests of its citizens.  Toll roads and privatization of highways does no good to the state of Michigan, its environment, and its citizens.  Such a strategy only benefits our leaders, and that is abusive leadership at its best.

None of the privatized toll roads so far have provided enough money to fully cover the loss of tolls for maintenence over the life of the partnership. Look at the Indiana Toll Road-already maintenence is down, employees have been terminated and tolls raised. And, the state govt already realizes they are going to run out of money on it well before the 75-yr lease is up! Additionally, privatizing and tolling existing roads is essentially a 'taking' from the people of the State: they already paid for those roads! This amounts to double taxation of commercial users who already pay highway taxes in the form of licensing and fuel tax.The 'non-compete' clauses in these leases prevents the state from upgrading adjacent roads in an effort to FORCE use of the toll road, leaving roads in even worse shape! This is simply dumb, short-term thinking and solves no problems . . only puts them off til they can be blamed on a later administration.

Mr. Mark Gaffney, President of the Michigan AFL-CIO, claims he does not understand why the bill (HB 4961) to authorize Public Private Partnerships (PPP) to build new roads and bridges is stalled in the legislature.   http://detnews.com/article/20100519/OPINION03/5190319

Senator Basham’s first statement is as follows:

There are a number of reasons why we should discharge the DRIC legislation. The DRIC is a project about maintaining jobs and creating jobs in the heartland of the world’s most important trading relationship since 1988’s free trade deal was implemented. Two-way trade has tripled, the local border handles 30 percent of Canada-U.S. trade, and $130 billion moves through Windsor and Detroit. That is about as much as the next three busiest bridge crossings combined.

Bilateral trade supports more than 8 million U.S. jobs, including 220,000 Michigan jobs. Canada is Michigan’s largest trading partner. They purchase 28 percent of Michigan’s foreign-bound goods. In 2008, trade between Canada and Michigan reached $67.4 billion. Commercial truck traffic will increase by more than 100 percent by 2035.

The DRIC bridge is the only project that is literally ready to roll. Both the Obama and Harper governments have made it clear that they are committed to protecting and fostering what is the world’s closest and most expensive trading partner. Another reason to discharge this bill.

Unemployment benefits ran out yesterday. There are plenty of unemployed people who would love those good-paying, prevailing-wage jobs building a new bridge between Michigan and Canada. Another reason to discharge this bill.

There have been comments about not enough knowledge about the complexities of this DRIC project. This issue has been vetted for seven years. I know I can’t have a prop here at the podium, but if you look over to my desk, you will see books and books of briefs MDOT has submitted to this legislative body, including 2006, 2008, and May 1, 2010. Another reason to discharge this bill, Mr. President.

Also there were arguments made about Canada. First of all, that it wasn’t going to take taxpayer dollars. Canada said that it will pay up to $550 million for this project.

Another reason to discharge this bill is homeland security reasons. The idea of floating a bridge across the Detroit River has been vetted. Again, another reason to discharge this bill.

There are many court cases about this piece of legislation. One of the federal court judges said in his more than 33 years as a judicial officer, the DIBC may be entitled to its recognition as a party who has devised the most creative schemes to delay compliance with the court order. The DIBC schemes failed, as they lacked support in the law of U.S. Federal Circuit Court; therefore, DIBC is not entitled to receive the court’s jurisdiction. So it’s another reason to discharge this bill here today in this legislative body. Members should vote on this most important issue.

Senator Basham’s second statement is as follows:

I would like to speak to the comments made by my good colleague and friend across the aisle. On a previous legislative day, I made a comment about never wanting to rush an undertaker. I think today it is time to start the undertaker to do, in fact, what he is sent up here to do and support his colleague across the aisle. We have worked on this legislation bipartisanly, and we do have a substitute bill for the House bill that addresses all those concerns that he mentioned. If we have a chance to have up-or-down votes on this legislation and add the substitute language that he had done with members who had concern with this legislation; if we are allowed to add that to the House bill, this would complete a process that has been worked on for many years with his office.

I would ask him to think about working across the aisle just a little bit more and that we actually rush this job and put people back to work.

Senator Kahn’s statement is as follows:

I appreciate the good Senator from the 8th District’s passion for this subject. He and the chamber need to recognize that a last-minute substitute on the last day of session without a hearing and without members having an opportunity to examine it is bad precedent for legislation, particularly of this magnitude. That ignores all the inherent weaknesses of the entire concept. There is no way that something of this manner should be voted for. I urge that it be rejected.