The Bridge As A Federal Instrumentality
This Court decision in the United States will not make our Mayor very happy since he has already conceded federal jurisdiction over the Ambassador Bridge to the Canadian Federal Government during the Senate hearings in Ottawa when Bill C-3 was being discussed.
I wanted to provide some additional information as well to Councillor Jones about legal terms. He already knows what a "Black Letter Law" means. Now I want to teach him a US term: "federal instrumentality."
There was a case in the City of Detroit as outlined below that is very similar to what Windsor is trying to do to the Bridge Company by passing zoning bylaws to prevent them from carrying out their duties as an international border crossing and not allowing them to do repairs as required, even to closing roads on a temporary and intermittent basis in order to do so.
The laws in Canada and the United States seem to me to be very similar with respect to the powers of the Bridge Company to carry out their responsibilities under their incorporating statutes.
While the legal language in the two countries may be different, the end result would be the same in my opinion if the City decided to challenge the Bridge Company.
May I ask the Councillor to provide a copy of this BLOG to the Mayor for his legal education as well. I would be quite pleased to provide the full opinion if needed.
FILED MAY 7, 2008
CITY OF DETROIT,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee,
v
AMBASSADOR BRIDGE COMPANY,
a/k/a DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE COMPANY,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Appellant.
CAVANAGH, J.
This case presents us with an invitation to second-guess the trial court’s factual findings that construction projects on the Ambassador Bridge Plaza would alleviate traffic congestion and facilitate interstate and foreign commerce. Because the trial court, after conducting a four-week bench trial and delivering a 20-page opinion, did not rely on clearly erroneous facts, we decline that invitation.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because the Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC) is a federal instrumentality for the limited purpose of facilitating traffic over the Ambassador Bridge and, as such, is immune from the zoning regulation of the city of Detroit that would preclude construction projects furthering this limited federal purpose.
The city of Detroit seeks to enforce its zoning ordinance on the DIBC to stop the DIBC’s construction projects located in and around the Ambassador Bridge’s footprint. Part of the Ambassador Bridge sits on land owned by the DIBC that is within the city’s geographical boundaries. The DIBC is a for-profit, private company that has a unique relationship with the federal government. In 1921, Congress gave the DIBC the authority to construct, maintain, and operate the Ambassador Bridge and its approaches. This authorizing statute requires that the bridge’s private operator (the DIBC) also comply with the Bridge Act of 1906. The Bridge Act of 1906 applies to all bridges over navigable waters, and it requires all bridge operators to obtain the approval of the United States Secretary of Transportation regarding the “plans and specifications and the location of such bridge and accessory works” before commencing construction of a new bridge or construction on an old bridge or its accessories...
the DIBC requested the city’s approval to begin construction. The city denied the request, citing its zoning ordinance, and refused to issue variances, citing concerns regarding increased truck exhaust and noise. Nonetheless, the DIBC went forward with its projects. As a result, the city’s building inspectors visited the DIBC’s construction sites and issued several citations for violations related to the construction.
In February 2001, the city filed an injunctive action against the DIBC to stop the construction. After a four-week bench trial, the trial court orally ruled that the DIBC was immune from the zoning ordinance because of its status as a federal instrumentality. The trial court planned to prepare a written decision, but, given the events of 9/11 and border security concerns, the court suggested that the parties enter extended negotiations, to which they agreed. After the negotiations failed, the court delivered a written decision in July 2004. The court again ruled that the DIBC was immune from the ordinance as a federal instrumentality. In addition, the trial court held that the city’s zoning ordinance was preempted by the federal government’s demonstrated intent to control the entire bridge complex.
The city appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed on both grounds...
After accepting the facts established by the trial court, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and hold that the DIBC is a federal instrumentality for the limited purpose of facilitating traffic flow across the Ambassador Bridge and is, therefore, immune from any state law or local regulation that directly inhibits that purpose. Further, we affirm the trial court’s holding that this particular application of the city’s zoning ordinance inhibits the DIBC’s federal purpose.
I wanted to provide some additional information as well to Councillor Jones about legal terms. He already knows what a "Black Letter Law" means. Now I want to teach him a US term: "federal instrumentality."
There was a case in the City of Detroit as outlined below that is very similar to what Windsor is trying to do to the Bridge Company by passing zoning bylaws to prevent them from carrying out their duties as an international border crossing and not allowing them to do repairs as required, even to closing roads on a temporary and intermittent basis in order to do so.
The laws in Canada and the United States seem to me to be very similar with respect to the powers of the Bridge Company to carry out their responsibilities under their incorporating statutes.
While the legal language in the two countries may be different, the end result would be the same in my opinion if the City decided to challenge the Bridge Company.
May I ask the Councillor to provide a copy of this BLOG to the Mayor for his legal education as well. I would be quite pleased to provide the full opinion if needed.
FILED MAY 7, 2008
CITY OF DETROIT,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee,
v
AMBASSADOR BRIDGE COMPANY,
a/k/a DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE COMPANY,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Appellant.
CAVANAGH, J.
This case presents us with an invitation to second-guess the trial court’s factual findings that construction projects on the Ambassador Bridge Plaza would alleviate traffic congestion and facilitate interstate and foreign commerce. Because the trial court, after conducting a four-week bench trial and delivering a 20-page opinion, did not rely on clearly erroneous facts, we decline that invitation.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because the Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC) is a federal instrumentality for the limited purpose of facilitating traffic over the Ambassador Bridge and, as such, is immune from the zoning regulation of the city of Detroit that would preclude construction projects furthering this limited federal purpose.
The city of Detroit seeks to enforce its zoning ordinance on the DIBC to stop the DIBC’s construction projects located in and around the Ambassador Bridge’s footprint. Part of the Ambassador Bridge sits on land owned by the DIBC that is within the city’s geographical boundaries. The DIBC is a for-profit, private company that has a unique relationship with the federal government. In 1921, Congress gave the DIBC the authority to construct, maintain, and operate the Ambassador Bridge and its approaches. This authorizing statute requires that the bridge’s private operator (the DIBC) also comply with the Bridge Act of 1906. The Bridge Act of 1906 applies to all bridges over navigable waters, and it requires all bridge operators to obtain the approval of the United States Secretary of Transportation regarding the “plans and specifications and the location of such bridge and accessory works” before commencing construction of a new bridge or construction on an old bridge or its accessories...
the DIBC requested the city’s approval to begin construction. The city denied the request, citing its zoning ordinance, and refused to issue variances, citing concerns regarding increased truck exhaust and noise. Nonetheless, the DIBC went forward with its projects. As a result, the city’s building inspectors visited the DIBC’s construction sites and issued several citations for violations related to the construction.
In February 2001, the city filed an injunctive action against the DIBC to stop the construction. After a four-week bench trial, the trial court orally ruled that the DIBC was immune from the zoning ordinance because of its status as a federal instrumentality. The trial court planned to prepare a written decision, but, given the events of 9/11 and border security concerns, the court suggested that the parties enter extended negotiations, to which they agreed. After the negotiations failed, the court delivered a written decision in July 2004. The court again ruled that the DIBC was immune from the ordinance as a federal instrumentality. In addition, the trial court held that the city’s zoning ordinance was preempted by the federal government’s demonstrated intent to control the entire bridge complex.
The city appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed on both grounds...
After accepting the facts established by the trial court, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and hold that the DIBC is a federal instrumentality for the limited purpose of facilitating traffic flow across the Ambassador Bridge and is, therefore, immune from any state law or local regulation that directly inhibits that purpose. Further, we affirm the trial court’s holding that this particular application of the city’s zoning ordinance inhibits the DIBC’s federal purpose.
posted by JoeBlog at 11:25 a.m.
<< Home