Billionaire wants Michigan to reject free bridge to Canada & use his bridge

I live in Windsor, so it's pretty cool to see this make HN. I don't know what will happen if they do strike this down, because we've already been working <i></i>heavily<i></i> on the infrastructure for this for a year.<p>The fact that a single person is allowed to own an international crossing is laughable. I know they probably can't take it away from him, but that it happened in the first place is a joke. I hope that this never happens again.<p>Edit: especially an international crossing that accounts for 25% of US-CAD trade.

Canada's not only paying for Michigan's $550 Million share, but also financing them and collecting back via tolls. The bridge will connect directly into motorways (the current bridge dumps you downtown) check out <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21563756" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/node/21563756</a>

So, this is the first I've heard of this. Are there any interesting economic details as to why the Canadians are willing to pay for the whole thing?<p>Growing up in Hamilton, having family in Windsor, and frequently visiting the Detroit area, it was clear that the U.S. bound truck traffic heading over the Ambassador produced totally insane backups. (Similar backups regularly exist for the Blue Water Bridge a little further north in Sarnia.)

A common question for anarchists (people who argue that government is unnecessary) is "Who will pay for the roads?" Here we have an entrepreneur who has paid for a bridge, and the government is trying to compete with him. Government should not be in competition with business because it's based on coercion and it's inefficient. Coercion should be used only as a last resort.

Why on Earth was "greedy" in quotes in the title?