Vote ‘no’ on State Proposals 5 and 6 on Tuesday, November 6
To the Editor,
The Ambassador Bridge must earn a pile of money. Otherwise, why would the family that owns the bridge spend millions of dollars, first, to collect names to put Proposal 6 on the ballot, and second, to run TV ads pretending that the bridge would take money from police, fire and education spending?
Canada is our largest trading partner. Canadian transportation authorities are so eager to improve the movement of goods across the border that they have agreed to pay for all costs of a new bridge. This includes costs on the Michigan side, including freeway connections, land, utilities and maintenance. They will design and build the bridge and operate it. The agreement that Governor Snyder signed for the new bridge has the backing of the U. S. highway authorities and the approval of environmental authorities.
The Ambassador Bridge dumps millions of vehicles a year into a residential area of Windsor, and makes them pass more traffic lights than they pass the entire trip from California or Texas to Michigan. Small wonder that the new bridge is supported by Michigan’s manufacturers and union workers.
Putting the language of Proposal 6 in the Michigan Constitution to protect the profits of a competing bridge is an underhanded attempt to miss-manage the rights of Michigan citizens.
It removes our elected representatives from any voice in such construction projects, and forces us to have the expense and delays of repeated elections.
Adding insult to injury, the same family financed and has ads supporting Proposal 5, putting into Michigan’s Constitution a requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in both House and Senate for any increase in a state tax rate or the base on which it was collected.
This would pretty well end any chance of a repeat of the current legislature, which altered Michigan’s tax code to close loopholes, which increased the tax base, but cut other taxes to more than offset the increase. It also is aimed at preventing a new bridge, in case Proposal 6 is defeated.
Both Proposal 5 and Proposal 6 deserve a “NO” vote November 6.