Expropriating The Ambassador Bridge

Does someone on the American DRIC team really want to expropriate the bridge or rather is this a trial balloon that some clever person thought should be tried out to see what the reaction would be. It came out of the blue to me!

Wow, I thought, those Americans are even more "socialist" than we Canadians. Heck, we are merely talking about a "public" bridge for the new crossing. We have never dared talk about expropriating the Bridge Co.'s existing bridge crossing. We know it would cost billions of taxpayer dollars to buy them out! The Americans were now talking about expropriating the assets not only of the Bridge Co. and but also of National Steel as well. I do not remember that being part of the DRIC mandate.

This was bizarre.

The reason I say this is because I read in a "Vision Statement of Future" prepared by the Americans a comment about "Public Ownership of Ambassador Bridge." That comment was part of a process by which participants in a workshop on the other side were to vote for three vision statements for the community. That comment was one of the statements to be voted on. Not only that, another comment was to turn Zug Island into a state park. Accordingly, the assets of National Steel would have to be expropriated as well.

I wrote a letter to the Americans asking:

• "Is the US side now considering expropriating the assets of the Ambassador Bridge Co.? I noted the comment in the Vision about "Public Ownership of Ambassador Bridge."
  
  Is this now an option and what is the cost price estimated to buy out the Bridge Co.?"

The answer back was:

• "In response to your question: The information to which this refers was developed as part of a community workshop on "visioning" conducted by MDOT as part of the Detroit River International Crossing Study. It was one of many thoughts expressed by the workshop participants."

Well what do I know about these kind of exercises. "One of many thoughts"...obviously. But to be made part of the final list to be voted on by participants....The whole episode seemed so peculiar to me. It just seemed so out of the ordinary.

There was only one thing to do. I asked an expert on these types of sessions to comment on what was done. His opinion is quite disturbing. Here is part of what he wrote:

• "Notes Re: DRIC Visioning Process
  
  The Visioning Exercise involves small groups identifying as many issues as they can come up with and then voting to identify their top three or five issues as the case warrants. The Top 3 from each group is then placed on a board or a wall and each person participating is permitted to record three votes from among the entire list. The long list (all items on the board) then becomes the list of issues. The emerging Top 3 or Top 5 as identified by the entire group of participants then becomes the Top Issues for the group.
  
  In the materials provided I find a long list from each of ten tables (each table had 4 to 6 participants). There is no indication of the Top 3 or Top 5. Consequently, every item that was mentioned by even one person is listed on the list of issues. There seems to be no attempt to identify major issues from minor, nor to identify the issues that really matter to each of the ten tables. This permits an item that is listed by one person to make the list even if all of the others at the same table disagree with it. This is a kind of visioning anarchy.
  
  Nevertheless, I noticed that only 11 of the 526 items mentioned by all participants that evening suggested public ownership of a new bridge. Yet public ownership of a bridge is included in two of the seven choices being distributed for a wider group to now vote on.
  
  The “VOTING FORM” that is being sent out to a larger group for the purpose of obtaining a community list of issues contains 23 items under 5 headings. Two of the items under “Transportation” require the voter to choose public ownership of a bridge. The very first item listed under “Transportation” in the “VOTING FORM” is
  
  “ New Bridge Publicly Owned/Operated and with Minimal Footprint.”
  
  This is an outrageous distortion of the issues from the Visioning meeting. Two mentions are made of a “minimal footprint” and they are contained in items as:
  
  “24-hour efficient operation with a minimum footprint”
  “Keep small footprint of bridge (so neighborhood can rebuild)”
  
  Another item is:
  
  “Minimum-sized plaza with direct access to interstate”
  
  The VOTING FORM is set up so that if one prefers a “minimal footprint” then one must choose to also prefer “publicly owned/operated.” This distortion will artificially inflate the vote for public ownership.
  
  A second item under Transportation is :
  “Public ownership of Ambassador Bridge”
  
  This issue was listed by Table 1 under “Visions of Community WITHOUT a Crossing” and then at the same Table under “Visions of Community WITH a Crossing.” It is VERY LIKELY that these two mentions were by the same person and there is no indication that anyone else agreed with this. And yet this item becomes one of the choices on the list being submitted for a much larger group to vote on! Absolutely unconscionable! One mention out of 526!!
  
  There were many concerns identified by the participants. The vast majority were community development or governmental activity concerns. Almost none (2.1%) mentioned public ownership of a bridge."

What should one conclude by all of this? One just has to take to shake one's head with disbelief. After all, how different is this from rejecting the Bridge Co.'s Twinned Bridge proposal on the Canadian side by suggesting a route to the crossing that they never did and suggesting a plaza where they never wanted it located.

I wish I knew what was really going on. {Sigh}