|
|
May 21, 2007
· The busiest border crossing between the United
States and Canada — the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit — is privately
owned. It carries one-quarter of all trade between the two countries,
worth about $100 billion a year. But government inspectors have limited
access to the bridge, and it's not clear who is in charge of making sure
it doesn't become a terrorist target.
The bridge is owned by Manuel "Matty" Moroun, a reclusive billionaire
distrusted by many people on both sides of the border. Moroun is now in
a fierce battle with a government-run group over who gets to build the
next crossing.
One of the big issues is security. Gregg Ward, who runs a nearby ferry
for trucks that carry hazardous materials, is disturbed that uninspected
trucks are allowed to park underneath the base of the Ambassador. They
park there while truckers shop at the bridge's duty-free store on the
American side. Trucks and cars can also fill up their tanks with
discounted fuel. Ward says fuel trucks park under the bridge when
they're filling up the underground storage tanks.
Ward recalls a fuel truck accident earlier this year, which caused a
major highway to collapse in California. He says an explosion underneath
the Ambassador could be disastrous — shutting down one of the most
important trade arteries in the nation.
The Detroit International Bridge Company, which operates the Ambassador,
denies there's a security risk and says it keeps the area patrolled. But
no government agency appears to be responsible for making sure the area
is safe.
Jurisdiction Unclear
Shown a picture of the parked trucks, Jay Ahern, assistant commissioner
of Customs and Border Protection, says it's not his agency's
responsibility. His officers are on top of the bridge trying to make
sure nothing dangerous enters the U.S.
"That would be more of a transportation responsibility — either at the
state or the federal level for those agencies — but that would not be a
Customs and Border Protection responsibility," Ahern says.
But transportation officials say it's not their job, either. A spokesman
for the Federal Highway Administration says his agency has raised
concerns about the trucks with Moroun, but it doesn't have jurisdiction.
Neither does the federal agency that oversees the transportation of
hazardous materials. Nor does the Coast Guard. Nor does the Michigan
State Police.
Ahern says many different groups have responsibility for bridge
security.
"Certainly, you have state entities that are responsible for it. You
have some federal responsibilities as well. You have Canadian
authorities on their side of the bridge. And certainly, the bridge owner
has some responsibility to a degree as well," Ahern says.
Critics say that's the problem with having such an important border
crossing in private hands. Government officials can't go on the bridge
to inspect it themselves, and have only recently gained access to the
bridge company's inspection reports. The bridge also allows some trucks
carrying restricted hazardous materials to cross. Federal officials tell
NPR there is little they can do other than to go after the trucking
companies.
"It's called 'critical infrastructure' because it's critical, and this
is the crossing for billions of dollars of U.S. trade, and it's
controlled by somebody who isn't controlled by the government," ferry
operator Ward complains.
Security Concerns a Red Herring?
Dan Stamper, president of the Detroit International Bridge Company, says
his firm doesn't control the border.
"U.S. federal agents control the border," Stamper says. "They decide who
comes, who goes. All I do is build a piece of roadway, manage it,
protect the roadway and help with traffic directing and traffic control.
That's what I do, and I do it very well."
Stamper says the security issue is a red herring put forth by those who
want a new, government-run bridge to be built downstream. He doesn't
think that makes sense just because a terrorist might try to attack his
facility.
"We didn't build a new Capitol in Washington a mile west of our current
Capitol. We didn't build a White House a mile west. What we did was
protected them," he says. "I'm the only bridge, the only piece of
infrastructure that, at its own cost, has armed security protecting the
bridge. That's what we need to do. That's what we're doing."
Federal officials say they do think the Ambassador Bridge is generally
well-run and safe. But many people in the region want another crossing,
just in case — not only as backup for the 78-year-old Ambassador, but to
handle future growth in trade. A bi-national group, representing the
Canadian and U.S. governments, is studying the options.
But at the same time, the Detroit International Bridge Company has its
own plans. It wants to build a new six-lane span right next to the
existing bridge. Stamper says the company has already spent more than
$400 million on the project.
"Some people believe only government can do these things," he says, "and
that's the real issue at hand — should government build this next
bridge, or should private industry build it?"
A Question of Clout
The bridge company has some key support: Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
has called the government-backed effort "an unnecessary project to
remedy a non-existent problem." Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has said
a new Ambassador span would be cheaper for taxpayers, but she thinks the
bi-national study should also proceed.
Critics attribute some of this support to Moroun's influence. The
79-year-old businessman has built a powerful business empire in the
region. He also owns trucking companies that serve the auto industry and
is a big campaign contributor.
Michigan state Rep. Steve Tobocman, who represents communities near the
base of the Ambassador, says that's all the more reason to keep Moroun
from controlling the next crossing.
"That's one of the benefits of having a publicly owned crossing, and of
having units of government who have much broader public-policy concerns
than a private company look at the border situation and determine the
best crossing," Tobocman says. "The public has worked very hard with the
local community to minimize the impacts."
But ferry owner Ward isn't optimistic that the government will win the
battle. As trucks board his small ferry for the trip to Canada, he
points to huge plots of land along the river owned by Moroun. Ward
thinks some of them could be used to block another bridge.
"I think he's going to have the government in checkmate pretty soon,"
Ward says. " They're going to fall asleep at the wheel. You know, you
always hope the public process works, but it's a very slow public
process."
In fact, the bi-national group envisions a new bridge by 2013. Stamper
says the new Ambassador span could be ready by 2010 — if the company
gets the permits it needs. Some people here think that won't happen, in
part because opposition on the Canadian side of the bridge is especially
strong.
The Origins of the Ambassador
Workers Building the Sign for the Ambassador Bridge
Enlarge
Construction on the sign for the Ambassador Bridge Courtesy Detroit
International Bridge Co.
Construction Work on the Ambassador Bridge
Enlarge
Construction work on the bridge. The Ambassador was finished nine months
ahead of schedule, and it opened with great fanfare on Nov. 11, 1929.
Courtesy Detroit International Bridge Co.
Early View of the Ambassador Bridge
Enlarge
An early view of the bridge Courtesy Detroit International Bridge Co.
Automobiles on the Ambassador Bridge
Enlarge
A fleet of Lincoln Zephyrs lines up for an automotive promotion on the
Ambassador in 1939. Courtesy Detroit International Bridge Co.
NPR.org, May 20, 2007 · Its name evokes diplomacy and etiquette. But
when the idea of the Ambassador Bridge was first conceived, things
weren't exactly genteel.
At the close of the 19th century, the entire Great Lakes region was
scrambling to capitalize on the fur trade. Railroads clashed with
steamboat companies. Cities fought with businesses. Nobody could agree
on the logistics for bridging waterways between the U.S. and Canada, or
whether such a venture should be municipal or private.
In 1903, the Detroit Board of Commerce assembled an International Bridge
Committee to try to find consensus.
But in the end, it was a paint guy and a banker who made it all happen:
John Austin, of the Detroit Graphite Co., persuaded Detroit native and
New York financier Joseph Bower to privately fund the $23.5 million
project (along with a promise to let Detroit Graphite paint the bridge).
In 1924, Bower arranged financing for the bridge and got approval from
Congress. He also managed to get all the stakeholders — railroads,
waterways, towns and cities — on board. But after the Detroit Common
Council approved the deal, Mayor Johnny Smith cast a veto — he had
envisioned a bridge financed by the cities of Detroit and Windsor,
Ontario. In response, Bower funded a $50,000 referendum to put the
question to voters.
While the political feud played out, Bower faced a looming deadline to
build the project: His franchise from Congress would expire unless
construction started by May 12, 1927. Five days before the deadline,
Bower had his 16-year-old daughter, Helen, break ground. And on June 28,
1927, voters backed private construction of the bridge by a margin of
eight to one.
Construction finished nine months ahead of schedule, using 21,000 tons
of steel to produce a 7,490-foot bridge with a center span of 1,850
feet.
With great fanfare, the Ambassador Bridge opened on Armistice Day — Nov.
11, 1929. The bridge faced financial difficulties during the Depression,
but Bower weathered the storm by issuing public stock in his company,
Detroit International Bridge Co.
Over the decades, the Ambassador has become a crucial link between the
United States and Canada, the main transit point for one-quarter of the
trade between the two countries — worth $100 billion a year.
In 1979, Manuel "Matty" Moroun, owner of a trucking empire, bought out
Warren Buffett, who owned one-quarter of the stock, then purchased the
rest of the bridge company and took the Ambassador private.
Moroun, a billionaire, has been highly controversial among both
Michiganders and Canadians. Critics eye with suspicion his rising toll
prices, mushrooming profits and monopoly on real estate around the
bridge. Critics say Moroun is not accountable to government regulators,
making the bridge a potential security risk because it could become a
terrorist target.
But Moroun says his bridge is well-run and safe, and is vital to the
economic health of the region. Moroun now proposes to build a second
span of the bridge.
Sources: Ambassador Bridge Web site; Detroit News.
After a night of dancing, Chiara Levin was shot in the
head by a stray bullet from a gunfight as she sat in a Cadillac sport
utility vehicle. Hours later she was dead.
ADVERTISEMENT
The killing of the 22-year-old Kentucky native, who recently graduated
university with honors, in a tough neighborhood in Boston's Dorchester
district on March 24 sparked weeks of outcry in a city where the murder
rate neared a 10-year high last year.
Like Boston, many U.S. cities are struggling to stem a wave of violent
crime and murder that has raised questions of whether police are
fighting terrorism at the expense of street crime, and whether a
widening wealth gap feeds the problem.
"We're at a tipping point in violent crime in many cities," said Chuck
Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a
Washington-based law enforcement think tank that released data in March
showing the murder rate rising by more than 10 percent in dozens of big
U.S. cities since 2004.
"What we're seeing over the past 24 months is a new volatility. In some
big cities violent crime and murder are up. Some are seeing a reduction.
It's a dramatic shift from the past 10 years when it was mostly all
decreases," he said.
Criminologists are worried. Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows
murders and shootings hitting smaller cities and states with little
experience of serious urban violence. The last similar period of
volatility was right before the big crime wave of the 1980s and 1990s.
Explanations vary -- from softer gun laws to budget cuts, fewer police
on the beat, more people in poverty, expanding gang violence and simple
complacency. But many blame a national preoccupation with potential
threats from overseas since the attacks of September 11, 2001.
"Since 9/11, police obligations have increased substantially above and
beyond decreasing street crime," Jens Ludwig, a criminal justice expert
at Georgetown University.
"So even if police resources were held constant, there is this growing
obligation on their part, so the resources available to fight street
crime have gone down."
POLICE ON THE BEAT
Some police departments have seen staff reduced as police officers fight
in
Iraq, while resources that could be used to fight street crime get
channeled into security at airports and other transit points seen as
vulnerable after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Jack Levin, director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict at
Northeastern University, said many U.S. cities cut programs that
emphasized prevention, community-oriented policing and controls on the
spread of guns, often citing budget cuts. Boston is now reviving some of
those ideas.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick announced on May 10 a $15 million
anti-crime plan to add more police as Boston grapples with 22 murders
reported this year, on pace with last year's tally, which was one murder
shy of a 10-year high hit in 2005.
Boston stands out because it was seen as a national leader in halting
violent crime in the late 1990s, when politicians basked in what became
known as the "Boston Miracle." Homicides collapsed 77 percent from 1990
to 1997 and the city went for almost two years without a homicide
against anybody under 18.
"The violent crime rate started to rise again nationwide during the
recession of 2001 and 2002, when many state governments, local city
governments and the Feds cut back on their crime-fighting efforts," said
Levin.
"In Boston, we are now putting more police on the streets in crime hot
spots and we are also increasing the number of after-school programs and
summer jobs. They are not up to the level that they were in the middle
1990s. But we're doing a better job than we did two years ago," he said.
One sign that future crime rates could worsen is an uneven economy and
frail consumer sentiment, said Richard Rosenfeld, a criminal justice
expert at University of Missouri-St. Louis.
He tracks crime rates in big U.S. cities against the Reuters/University
of Michigan Surveys of Consumers, which fell to an eight-month low in
April on rising gasoline prices and troubles in the housing market.
The index, he said, is emerging as a "comparatively potent predictor of
property crime and robbery."
"Just as the economy is sending out mixed signals, that's what were
getting in the crime statistics right now," he said.
Wexler's data at the Police Executive Research Forum, compiled from 56
police jurisdictions, showed murder up 2.89 percent in 2006, robberies
climbing 6.48 percent but aggravated assaults down 2.2 percent. Some big
cities -- Dallas, Denver and Washington -- posted sharp declines in
murder rates.
The
FBI's latest report, in December, showed violent crime up 3.7 percent in
the first six months of 2006 after gaining 2.3 percent in 2005 -- the
first rise in four years. Robbery, an important indicator of crime
trends, was up nearly 10 percent.
Ludwig at Georgetown blames part of the problem on cuts to former
President
Bill Clinton's signature COPS Program that put thousands of police on
the streets. Its funding fell to $102 million in fiscal 2007 from $487
million in 2004 and $1.5 billion in 1998, according to the U.S.
Conference of Mayors.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is running into trouble --
potentially very serious trouble -- in Iowa.
ADVERTISEMENT
The latest and best poll of likely Democratic caucus goers in the first
state that will weigh in on the 2008 nomination race has Clinton falling
to third place. And that's not the worst of it. As Clinton stumbles, a
new contender with potential to eat into her base it rising rapidly.
The Des Moines Register survey has former North Carolina Senator
John Edwards solidly in first. Edwards, who ran second in the 2004 Iowa
caucuses and has worked hard to maintain his organization in the state,
is at 29 percent. That's about where he has been for some time in Iowa,
where caucus goers will do much to define the direction of the 2008 race
as it hist full speed next January.
In second place is Illinois Senator Barack Obama (news, bio, voting
record) with 23 percent.
Clinton musters a mere 21 percent -- down significantly from her
position in several previous polls -- to secure the No. 3 position.
But Clinton, the presumed frontrunner nationally, does not just have to
worry about who is ahead of her in the first-caucus state. She's also
got to watch who is coming from behind.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the former congressman, cabinet
secretary and UN ambassador who only formally announced last week, is
gaining 10 percent support among likely caucus goers. As in New
Hampshire, where a new poll has Richardson breaking from a pack of
weaker contenders to enter the second tier in the crowded 2008 contest,
the governor is moving up rapidly in Iowa.
The next strongest candidate, Delaware Senator Joe Biden, was at 3
percent.
Richardson, who is campaigning in Iowa small towns this weekend, was
making the most of his improving position.
"We have a lot of good candidates running for president," he told
friendly crowds. "A lot of them could be in the White House - as my vice
president."
|
