greg334
Veteran Expediter
What risk?
He has no risk, the bridge makes money, and the money is put back into the bridge to keep it up in the air.
Under the proposals, he still would keep the bridge, it would be still operational for some reason and not neglected by the users.
I think we need to look at things a bit differently. Here is a guy who has pushed the limits, threaten the state and the country and something needs to be done to actually improve things, not let him walk over us. Because it is one of the busiest ports of entry in the country, we need to take it seriously enough to say "ok if he is going to play games, we need to find someone else to take it" and then take it from him - pay him his half of scrap value. Then build another one to replace it.
This has been done in the past, and even recently with GM and Chrysler.
He has no risk, the bridge makes money, and the money is put back into the bridge to keep it up in the air.
Under the proposals, he still would keep the bridge, it would be still operational for some reason and not neglected by the users.
I think we need to look at things a bit differently. Here is a guy who has pushed the limits, threaten the state and the country and something needs to be done to actually improve things, not let him walk over us. Because it is one of the busiest ports of entry in the country, we need to take it seriously enough to say "ok if he is going to play games, we need to find someone else to take it" and then take it from him - pay him his half of scrap value. Then build another one to replace it.
This has been done in the past, and even recently with GM and Chrysler.