Detroitman
Member Username: Detroitman
Post Number: 996 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 11:21 am: | |
Court: Ambassador Bridge subject to local zoning The Michigan Court of Appeals last week reversed a 2004 Wayne County Circuit Court decision that designated the Ambassador Bridge a “federal instrumentality.” The Detroit International Bridge Co. had argued that it was not subject to city zoning laws regarding its construction of new customs booths because of the federal designation. The reversal now makes Detroit International subject to local ordinances “in areas that aren’t within exclusive federal control,” such as the actual customs booths, said Dan Share, a real estate lawyer with Detroit-based Barris, Scott, Denn & Driker P.L.L.C. that filed a 2005 amicus brief to the case on behalf of various community groups. Detroit International President Dan Stamper said that the company was “reviewing the decision.” http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a pps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2006 0918/SUB/60915038/-1/toc |
Gannon
Member Username: Gannon
Post Number: 6797 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 12:02 pm: | |
Cool, so now Kwame can use that variant of eminent domain to acquire the toll booths for the city? Revenue-enhancement-atcha! He's going to LOVE the cream on top of those income figures...his next election will be paid for in advance, and the 'non-profit' funding will be phat! |
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck
Post Number: 373 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 12:24 pm: | |
Good catch, DetroitMan -- missed that brief 'buried' on the front page, doh. Nice to see the good guys (Rep. Steve Tobocman, Maria Elena Rodgriguez/Margaret Garry at Mexicantown Development Corp. + others) win one in SW Det. This fight started in 2001 when the city issued a stop-work order + slapped the bridge company with 37 zoning violations when it enlarged a truck plaza on residential land. Matty Moroun's lawyers claim the bridge company is "an instrument of the federal government" 'cause the Ambassador was federally chartered when built in '29. (That doesn't mean they consider themselves subject to FOIA requests for inspection records, though.) Don't be surprised to see 'em drag it out some more with a state Supreme Court appeal. Why is this man celebrating? (Message edited by RealityCheck on September 18, 2006) |
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto
Post Number: 2486 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 6:56 pm: | |
good catch, Detroitman! We may have won this one, but the agents of Maroun, vampire, never sleep. As Realitycheck suggests, this will probably go to a higher court. |
Psip
Member Username: Psip
Post Number: 1186 Registered: 04-2005
| Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 10:19 pm: | |
Don't know if this was posted before, but here is a Forbes article titled: "The Troll Under The Bridge" http://www.forbes.com/business /free_forbes/2004/1115/134.htm l |
Bvos Member Username: Bvos
Post Number: 1996 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 10:26 pm: | |
It's been posted on DetroitYES before, but it's an article worth repeating. Gannon, the Eminent Domain (ED) that KK has to go through is the same ED than any municipality has to go through to condemn land for a public purpose. The fact that it has to go through the city means that a lot of opportunities for public input will happen before it could get close to the point of being a reality. (ie. any smart politician will stay away from it with a 10 ft. pole). It could happen since it would be for a legitimate government purpose of roads and/or bridges but the city processes, no matter how monied and connected Moron is, will at least temper the ED powers Moron thinks he has through the bridge and/or rail roads. |
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck
Post Number: 375 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 8:44 pm: | |
Detroitman's thread sparked my curiosity to see what the judges said in their 3-0 opinion last Thursday, which took just a few clicks at the well-designed Court of Appeals site. It's truly shameful that the dailies kiss off the city's victory in a appeal that says municipal law apply even to Matty Moroun. Big ups to these SW Detroit groups that hired a NY law firm to file a brief supporting the city's position: Bagley Housing Assn., Bridge Watch, Mexicantown CDC, Ste. Anne's Catholic Church, SW Det Biz Assn., People's Community Services. Excerpts are followed by a link to the 13-page opinion for other legal/public policy wonks: * "DIBC has not presented evidence of any federal law, regulation or rule that requires DIBC to violate Detroit zoning ordinances." * "While we agree with the circuit court that the Bridge was constructed to facilitate interstate and international commerce, we cannot agree with the circuit court that DIBC was constructed to facilitate interstate and international commerce. Rather, DIBC merely owns, maintains and operates a bridge between Michigan and Canada." * "Congress granted consent to DIBC's predecessor to construct, maintain and operate a bridge and approaches of the bridge. . . . DIBC conveys no persons across the international boundary line. It merely collects tolls from such persons." * "Thus, the circuit court's finding that DIBC was constructed for the purpose of facilitating interstate and international commerce is clearly erroneous." * "In addition, we conclude that the circuit court clearly erred in finding sufficient federal government control over DIBC to designate it as a federal instrumentality." * "Further, the only witnesses for the federal government . . . did not support DIBC's claim." * "Federal law does not preempt the City from enforcing Detroit zoning oridnances to construction projects within the Bridge Plaza." Skim it all at http://courtofappeals.mijud.ne t/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA /20060914_C257369_64_257369.OP N.PDF (Message edited by RealityCheck on September 20, 2006) |
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto
Post Number: 2494 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 1:17 am: | |
Great groups, all of em. I wonder why Detroit Hispanic Development Corp is not listed above... |
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck
Post Number: 382 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 6:56 am: | |
As expected, Metro Times picks up the latest chapter of a saga it has been he only Detroit paper to follow. ('News Hits' returns after a 1-week absence. Curt Guyette evidently earns an occasional break.) Reined in Little notice was paid to a big court decision handed down two weeks ago by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which overruled a lower court decision in determining the Detroit International Bridge Co. (DIBC) has to abide by the city of Detroit's zoning and building ordinances. The company, owned by transportation mogul Manuel "Matty" Moroun, had claimed it didn't need no stinkin' permits from the city to expand operations at the truck plaza it operates on this side of the river. The reason? It claimed to be an instrument of the federal government, and therefore above and beyond the reach of local regs. The lower court agreed with that assessment, but a three-judge appellate panel saw things differently. It's easy to see why. As pointed out in the opinion, the appeals court judges noted that the only witnesses from the federal government to testify in the original trial "did not support" the bridge company's claim. Twelve days of hearings "produced no evidence that federal agencies actually encouraged DIBC to undertake any of the projects." But the work — installation of toll booths, fuel pumps and the like — has already been completed. The necessity of receiving city permission was never taken seriously. As a bridge company official testified, work began "around the same time" it applied for the required building permits. Go ahead and try that one the next time you put an addition on your house and see how far you get. The city Law Department wouldn't comment because there's a chance the bridge company will appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. But it seems highly unlikely the city would try to get the work undone. As it stands now, though, the ruling has to provide comfort to southwest Detroit residents. As we said, there's little chance the DIBC is going to have to engage in any deconstruction. But the ruling is nonetheless crucial because the company will continue to be a major player along Detroit's riverfront. If the appellate court ruling holds, it means any future projects will have to withstand local scrutiny, and the bridge company will have to play by the city's rules — and not the ones it makes up. ©2006, Metro Times, Inc. |
|