Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05TORONTO3042
2005-11-23 15:10:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Consulate Toronto
Cable title:  

PROPOSED DETROIT WINDSOR TUNNEL TAKEOVER EXCITES

Tags:  PREL PBTS ELTN PGOV CA 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

231510Z Nov 05
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 TORONTO 003042 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/23/2015
TAGS: PREL PBTS ELTN PGOV CA
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DETROIT WINDSOR TUNNEL TAKEOVER EXCITES
SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION

REF: TORONTO 2778

Classified By: Consul General Jessica Lecroy for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d
).

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 TORONTO 003042

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/23/2015
TAGS: PREL PBTS ELTN PGOV CA
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DETROIT WINDSOR TUNNEL TAKEOVER EXCITES
SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION

REF: TORONTO 2778

Classified By: Consul General Jessica Lecroy for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d
).


1. (C) SUMMARY: Serious opposition on both sides of the
border has been sparked by the Detroit International Bridge
Company (DIBC) late October proposal to give Detroit $30
million in exchange for control of the U.S. side of the
Detroit Windsor Tunnel and purchase of 10 acres of land to
construct a new super plaza for border inspections at the
foot of the Ambassador Bridge. The Detroit and Canada Tunnel
Corporation has been working behind the scenes with Detroit
City Councilors to derail the proposed operational takeover
of the tunnel. The Canadian federal government has formally
expressed concerns about the proposed super plaza and tunnel
takeover. On November 18 the Detroit City Council passed a
resolution also expressing serious reservations about the
proposal. It is not clear how serious the DIBC was about
gaining operational control of the U.S. side of the tunnel.
It seems likely, however, that bridge owners will continue
their push to construct a twin bridge span across the Detroit
River, which would present serious challenges to officials on
the Canadian side of the border. END SUMMARY.


2. (C) The chess game to control the primary border
crossings between Detroit and Windsor has continued behind
the scenes for the past few weeks. Reftel described the
offer by the Ambassador Bridge owners to give the City of
Detroit $20 million for the right to control the lease for
the U.S. side of the Detroit Windsor Tunnel beginning in
2020, and $10 million to purchase from the city 10 acres at
the foot of the bridge that would enable construction of a
200-acre super inspection plaza for U.S. and Canadian border
enforcement officials (with capacity for 100 U.S. and 100
Canadian inspectino booths). The proposal, which reportedly
also includes construction of some new "big box" retail
outlets in Detroit, was publicly unveiled a few weeks before
the Detroit City Mayor election, though Ambassador Bridge
officials have reportedly been discussing the super plaza

proposal since June.


3. (C) On November 22, Neal Belitsky (protect),Executive
Vice President and General Manager at the Detroit and Canada
Tunnel Corporation (DCTC),told the Consul General that his
company, which manages tunnel operations for the cities of
Detroit and Windsor, has been quietly working with the
Detroit City Council to derail the Ambassador Bridge
proposal. He noted that the council had not been informed of
the proposal before its public release.


4. (SBU) In late October Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, Anne
McLellan, sent a letter to Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis
expressing concerns about the proposed super plaza. McLellan
wrote that Canadian Customs and Border Services Agency
personnel could not operate at the proposed super plaza on
U.S. soil under current Canadian law or agreement with the
U.S. She added: "We are not seeking such an arrangement in
Windsor-Detroit.8


5. (C) Belitsky outlined the DCTC,s six basic concerns with
the Ambassador Bridge proposal. He:

--questioned whether a private entity should exercise virtual
control over the primary border crossings between Detroit and
Windsor;

--noted that having one &super8 plaza for border
inspections eliminates redundancy;

--acknowledged that the City of Detroit can decide what to do
with the lease on the Detroit Windsor Tunnel, but argued that
decision-making process should be transparent, not made
behind closed doors;

--observed that no details have yet been provided for traffic
flow between the tunnel and the proposed super plaza at the
foot of the Ambassador Bridge;

--noted that the tunnel currently connects downtown Detroit
and Windsor (NOTE: Forcing tunnel traffic to travel directly
to the proposed super plaza and exit into the U.S. from there
would isolate downtown Detroit. END NOTE);

--argued that, for life safety reasons, it is important for
the tunnel to be operated by a single entity (NOTE: The City
of Windsor vehemently opposes the Ambassador Bridge,s plan,
which makes it likely that, if Detroit agrees to give the
tunnel lease to the Ambassador Bridge Company, the tunnel
would end up being managed by two separate operators.
Belitsky observed having multiple tunnel operators has
contributed to delayed public safety reactions during
emergencies such as recent tunnel fires in Europe. END
NOTE).


6. (C) On November 15, Belitsky said the Detroit law firm of
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz, and Cohn, L.L.P., on behalf of
the Canadian government, sent a letter to the Detroit Mayor
and City Council expressing concerns with the Ambassador
Bridge proposal and requesting consultations before the
Council formally considers the Ambassador Bridge proposal
(text contained in para 9).


7. (C) On November 18, the Detroit City Council passed a
resolution expressing serious reservations about the
Ambassador Bridge proposal. The resolution says:

&...the Detroit City Council stands united against this and
any future proposal that is not in the best economic
interests of the City of Detroit and that fails to recognize
and take into consideration the critical implications such an
agreement would have on this most important international
border and upon the flow of people and commerce across both
sides of the border.8

The resolution demands additional details and time for the
Council to perform due diligence on the proposal. It also
notes the intent of the City Council to consult with local
citizens, the U.S. federal government, Michigan officials,
the City of Windsor, the province of Ontario, and the
Canadian federal government. After passing this resolution
the Detroit City Council went on recess until January.


8. (C) COMMENT: The Ambassador Bridge proposal to construct
a super plaza and take control of operations on the U.S. side
of the Detroit Windsor Tunnel has excited significant
opposition on both sides of the border. It is not yet clear
whether the bridge company is serious about pursuing
operating rights to the Detroit Windsor Tunnel or whether
that aspect of their October proposal was mostly for public
relations effect during the Detroit Mayoral election race.
It seems likely that the bridge company will continue to
pursue construction of a twin bridge span and expansion of
the inspection plaza on the U.S. side of the border. This
would present serious challenges to officials on the Canadian
side of the border. END COMMENT.


9. (C) Text of letter from Honigman, et al to Detroit Mayor
and City Council follows.

Begin Text.

Dear Mayor Kilpatrick and Council Members:

We represent the Government of Canada. We are writing
regarding the so-called &Binding Agreement8, whereby DTW,
Inc., an affiliate of the Detroit International Bridge
Company, would become the &day to day manager8 of the U.S.
side of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel.

The owners of the Ambassador Bridge had been clear that their
desire to own the Tunnel is associated with their proposal to
create a new port of entry that would service both the
Ambassador Bridge and the Tunnel. As you are no doubt
already aware, the Government of Canada has serious concerns
with the diminution of redundancy that would result from
having only one pot of entry. Sending 10,000 Canadians and
thousands of Americans, who utilize the tunnel or bridge
every day to travel from the United States to Canada, through
one port of entry would be problematic if an emergency,
security threat or even a traffic problem were to disrupt the
operations of that one port of entry.

Furthermore, recognizing the important role that the Tunnel
plays in the day-to-day lives of so many Canadians and
Americans, the Government of Canada would have serious
concerns with any plan that could disrupt two-way visits
across our shared border.

The Canadian Government is certainly sympathetic to the
budget needs of the City, and would not presume to advise the
City as to how to conduct its affairs. However, it appears
that the proposal under consideration from the Detroit
International Bridge Company would create a monopoly and harm
the public which uses the Bridge and Tunnel. We cannot
ignore any action which would potentially violate the law and
harm thousands of American and Canadian citizens.

Given our concerns, our preference would be to discuss this
matter with the Council before you meet to consider the
Binding Agreement with the Detroit International Bridge
Company. You should know that if you choose to proceed with
approving the binding agreement before meeting with
representatives from the Government of Canada there are other
options available to us including litigation.

Very truly yours,

David A. Ettinger
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP

End Text.
LECROY