April 2006 Field Report - West Michigan
Important Property Rights Question This November
By: Kyle Olson – West Michigan Field Director
Michigan voters will have an opportunity to weigh in on the property rights debate happening around the country, triggered by a recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision. It comes as a result of a case in Connecticut (Kelo v. New London) and the SCOTUS ruled it is up to each state to decide to what extent the government should be allowed to use eminent domain.
Michigan has already ruled on the matter, but the ballot question this November would change the Michigan Constitution to reflect what the Michigan Supreme Court has already ruled. Right now, the Supreme Court has already taken the matter on and said a local government cannot take a piece of private property and give it to another private party. A Constitutional amendment is necessary because no one knows what direction future Supreme Courts may go, and should Justices less-prone to protecting private property rights be appointed or elected to the bench, property owners should not have to wonder whether the government believes it has a better use for your land than the owner does.
Back several years ago, the city of Detroit essentially seized a neighborhood known as Poletown so an auto manufacturing plant could be build. The project promised hundreds of jobs, income taxes, and property taxes to the city, but at the cost of a historic neighborhood and private property rights. Thus, the debate of what exactly constitutes a legitimate use of eminent domain began. Only recently did the Michigan Supreme Court reverse its previous ruling allowing for such an action. The court ruled a person’s private property rights trump a municipality’s wish for more tax dollars through different, more-grand land usage.
We have read and seen on TV the stories from around the county about different municipalities seizing homes, businesses, and churches to build strip malls, shopping centers, or whatever endeavor the local government deems would bring more tax dollars into the coffers. It is a tempting thought, given the tight budgets local governments are consistently facing these days.
We are looking to inform as many voters as possible what this ballot question means and what impact it could have on private property rights. We are available to speak to Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, Optimists, or any other group of civic minded people. MAR believes strongly is protecting private property rights and are eager to explain the importance of this measure and advocate for its passage. If you are a member of such a group and would like me to speak to this subject, please let me know at (517) 202-7563 or kolson@mirealtors.com.
We know when a voter is not sure about a ballot question, they tend to vote ‘no’. We need a ‘yes’ vote so it is important to inform as many voters as possible. To read the exact language that will be on the ballot this November, please visit here.
top
Granholm Vetoes SBT Elimination Bill
Citizens in Michigan have been bombarded lately with news and information about Michigan’s Single Business Tax (SBT) and the negative impact the burdensome tax has on Michigan’s economy. Recently, legislation to excel the repeal of the SBT in 2007 rather than currently in 2009, made its way to the Governor, where it came to a screeching halt in the form of a veto. House Bill 5743, sponsored by Representative Leon Drolet (R-Clinton Township), would have eliminated the single business tax in 2007, speeding up the elimination by 2 years. However, the bill failed to mention where replacement funds would be coming from, which the Governor cited was the ultimate reason for the veto.
Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson testified before the House Tax Policy committee recently and said if the bill is vetoed, which it was, he would start his own petition drive to get the SBT 2007 repeal on the November ballot for the voters to decide. The petition drive, which also does not identify a way to replace the revenue lost to the state, would need 254,206 signatures by May 31st. Although MAR believes that the single business tax does substantially more harm than good to the current economic state in Michigan, we are cautiously approaching the issue given possible revenue replacements, such as a tax on services. A service tax would devastate the real estate industry, and further the soft housing market in Michigan.
MAR is making its opposition to this potential service tax clear by informing legislators who will ultimately decide on where the revenue will come from.
top
Meth Bills on the Move
Several bills further attacking the problem of meth labs are moving through the legislature. The biggest concern from the real estate perspective is clean-up standards and the ability to make a house once again habitable. Sen. Birkholz (R-Saugatuck) has introduced bills that would transfer rule-making authority from the DEQ to DCH and set a deadline of 6 months. In the original bill, there was a 1-year deadline. We had advocated for 3 months, and all parties settled on six. The bills are now in the House where we anticipate swift action.
top |
|
April 2006 Field Report
• Property Rights Question
• Granholm Vetoes SBT Elimination Bill
• Meth Bills on the Move
Kyle represents:
• Antrim-Charlevoix-Kalkaska
• Battle Creek
• Branch County
• CAR
• Grand Rapids
• Greater Kalamazoo
• Ionia County
• Mason-Oceana-Manistee
• Montcalm County
• Paul Bunyan
• Southwestern Michigan
• St. Joseph County
• Traverse Area
• West Central
• West Michigan Lakeshore
Other Field Reports:
Archives:
|
