Is this a big enough issue (a $2.3 billion dollar-sized one) that the government should be the only ones handling it? Or should they not even think to have the responsibility of using taxpayer dollars to execute such a plan? Should they allow a single man, Matty Maroun, who right now holds a lucrative monopoly on the largest border crossing in North America, to have the bridge built under his control? It could be made a much bigger argument on the basis of what you feel the role of government is; How does this compare with the opinions of fundamentalist "social contract" theorists?
Hobbes was the more authoritarian of the three primary theorists who we've discussed in PolSci 101, with viewpoints indicating that the responsibility of the state was to protect its constituents. He was rather absolutist and his stances sometimes reflected that of dictators. In the state of Nature, he believed that man worked only in his own interest with no morality. Locke was on more mild ground in that he thought man would indeed operate with morality in mind, as well as work toward the public good. He agreed with Rousseau in this aspect. Within this scope, each of two men would undoubtedly favor a bridge owned by the public rather than one man who holds all the power. Even Hobbes, who argues that we operate in our own interests would agree that it is the government's role to protect us in the event that a tyrannous businessman, e.g., Matty Maroun, attempt to undermine our society. All three men would argue that it is in the general will of the public that they would wish to be protected from such overbearing, menacing figures.
Matty Maroun and his company, the DIBC (Detroit International Bridge Company) have done everything in their power to sell off this potential new bridge as a freedom-inflicting and tax-payer robbing piece of steel. His constant belittling of the democratic process has even resulted in jail time for being found in contempt of court. His company had not completed its share of the southwest Detroit Gateway Project in the two years it was given, even though funds had been appropriated, and the 85-year-old spent a few hours behind bars. His manipulation hasn't stopped there. He went so far as to begin construction of a ramp to build a new bridge alongside his Ambassador bridge, without government approval.
He rejects this idea of a new bridge because it will mark the end of his monopoly on transportation to Canada in the industry-heavy Detroit metro area. With the Ambassador Bridge's aging 82 year-old structure, a replacement will definitely be necessary in the near future. Manufacturing and commerce are the heart and soul of the Metro Area, and according to multiple high-level officials, including UAW president Ray LaHood, this new bridge is projected to directly coincide with an increase in said sectors. The area hasn't had the best luck in generating a thriving economy in this post-recession era, but it seems the recovery is occurring. With the addition of this bridge, there are not only jobs created throughout the construction, but also long term options for businesses and companies to open, grow, and flourish, with at large companies receiving new transportation options, and small business gaining from increased traffic influx new to the area.
The area in which it will be built is known as Delray, and hasn't seen much investing within its borders as of late. Within the last few decades, the property values in the southwest Detroit neighborhood have plummeted as they have continually been pushed around by whichever entity believed it had the rights to do so, whether business or government, and leaving it more barren and inferior with every careless decision made. Now both entities have come together to form everything around building this new bridge, and the community hopes this will run parallel with the ideas they have in mind for improving the area. The Delray Community Benefits Coalition has seen to it that they represent their diverse body of constituents in seeing that they get infrastructure improvement for the area, potential opportunities for jobs, and at least a sign that the community hasn't been forgotten. Nobody actually wants to see a $2 billion dollar bridge alongside a suffering site of urban sprawl and despair, except maybe Matty Maroun.
Recently, with state-formulated plans to carry forth with the construction of the new bridge (named the NITC, the New International Trade Crossing), slated to begin sometime next year in Delray, a neighborhood in Southwest Detroit about a mile south of the existing bridge, Maroun has gone so far as to essentially create a ballot proposition in order to stop the construction before it begins. His funding of this campaign has created a spectacle of misleading and deceiving ads that construe the issue to be one of dire importance to the well-being of our state. Arguments in favor of prop 6 have been fabricated from the start. They have ranged from using taxpayer dollars. It has all been about one thing: Maroun keeping his money safe.
The type of "all-in-this-together" mentality that the latter two theorists mentioned demonstrate ties in directly with the idea that this multi-billion dollar project is much more significant than the price tag it boasts. Would we really be better off allowing a man who has continued to exercise his right to whip out a checkbook to continually subvert the democratic process and insult the community in which his business has thrived for decades? Or should we leave it up to the government to ensure that it gets done the right way? Regardless of Maroun's almost incomprehensible antics and spending blitz to keep his monopoly alive, he has somehow through his fortune, remained a huge figurehead in this struggle for control.
Freedom cannot be obstructed due to one man's greed. Promoting the public good should always be favored over the interests of one's own wishes. We must remain clear about what the issue at hand is, which is that of allowing wealth to corrupt our institutions, rather than look past it. While our freedom to build a bridge may be given up, what are the consequences of this? Can we advance past it? Will we be devastated one day when we gather multiple billions of dollars only to be rejected in our wishes to build a bridge? No, because we can use the one that the state will build in order to appease the wishes of people of new route to Canada. With a proper documentation and a minor toll only on the Canadian side of the border, as well as $550 million in funding from Canada so that Michigan doesn't have to drop any money on this massive piece of infrastructure, I think this might be the better option.
I would advocate a vote of NO on Prop 6. Don't let vile individuals manipulate the role of government.
Images from BuildTheDRICNow.com and Detroit Free Press. Material not designated by link is courtesy of archives belonging to the CBC research group within the UM School of Social Work.
No comments:
Post a Comment