Anybody know who is behind this "Bridge to Nowhere" stuff?

[IdaBriggs]

And what's the story - I just don't understand why someone concerned with saving "taxpayer dollars" would spend this much money advertising *against it* unless they have something to gain - or am I being cynical?

Anyone know the "real" story? :)

[blue_onyx]

1. Well....

The Detroit International Bridge Company (owners of the Ambassador Bridge) is behind the ads against the new bridge. They don't want competition for their own bridge. They say we don't need another bridge yet plan to build another bridge of their own. It has nothing to do with saving taxpayer money.

[SharonRB]

2. Matty Maroun is paying for the ads

He wants to build his own bridge.

[Bozita]

3. The Koch Bros. have joined Maroun in his battle for the new bridge.

The sparsely attended Teabagger demonstration in Lansing two weeks ago showed folks carrying prepared signs against the public bridge.

Why else would Teabaggers even care?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

4. Yep, he doesn't want competition

he likes his monopoly on the Ambassador Bridge, and he'll grease Lansing politicians generously in order to keep it.

At least the ads are open about who's paying for the ads. Not hiding behind an ad-hoc new group name like "people who like detroit" or something dumb like that. So many political ads are paid for by groups with names so obscure you can't tell who bought them. This one sort of says "I'm Matty. This is my bridge. You can't have a bridge."

Another bridge is fine, as long as it's another "Matty's bridge".

[GKirk]

5. Not truly a monopoly...

...there is a tunnel, too.

[wobblie]

10. tunnel is not competition

you can't drive an 18 wheeler through the tunnel. The real money is in all the truck traffic between the US and Canada. They get backed up for miles waiting to cross his bridge.

[maddogesq]

8. All kinds of nice fellas trying to sell us bridges.

Isn't life just grand? And one way or the other, you and I will get stuck paying for another bridge we don't need at all. And does anyone talk about environmental impact? No, they don't need no stinkin' environment!

This whole bridge thing is an ad campaign between two evil forces. This is clear, living proof that private ownership of public roadways and bridges is a really, really bad idea.

[mk2guy7355]

11. +1

[Crowman1979]

6. We need a constitutional amendment against the private ownership of public infrastructure.

[maddogesq]

9. Right on, right on, right on.

This cannot be stated enough!

[demmiblue]

7. Americans for Prosperity are in on the act:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1249182&mesg_id=1249182