Introduced by Sen. Tom George (R) on May 13, 2004, to allow Downtown Development Authorities (DDA’s) to use tax receipts or borrowed money to subsidize wireless technology infrastructure, and to pay for marketing campaigns.
Referred to the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee on May 13, 2004.
Reported in the Senate on May 26, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the Senate on June 3, 2004. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 3, 2004.
Referred to the House Commerce Committee on June 9, 2004.
Reported in the House on June 15, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the House on June 16, 2004, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 16, 2004.
Amendment offered by Rep. James Koetje (R) on June 16, 2004. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 16, 2004.
Passed 100 to 7 in the House on June 16, 2004, to allow Downtown Development Authorities (DDA’s) to use tax receipts or borrowed money to subsidize wireless technology infrastructure, and to pay for marketing campaigns. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on June 17, 2004.
Substitute offered by Sen. Jason Allen (R) on June 24, 2004, to replace the previous version of the bill with a "conflict substitute," made necessary because the law being amended has been changed by another bill, requiring that certain references in this bill be updated. These changes not affect the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 24, 2004.
Passed 35 to 0 in the Senate on June 24, 2004, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill, except for the adoption of a "conflict substitute" that does not affect the substance of the bill. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
1) Taxpayers lose again! by SHwatch on October 9, 2004 The DDAs use of tax dollars to market businesses is an abuse of the intent of TIF. Often there is no "public benefit", but only the use of public funds to subsidize selected businesses. Who is looking out for the taxpayer? Reply
2) DDA Law in Michigan by SHwatch on September 23, 2004 DDA boards are not elected and they are not required to be residents of municipalities. There is very little accountability considering they have control of tax dollars. The benchmark for "public good" should be raised, not lowered and allowable expenditures should be greatly restricted. Reply
3) Tax to Advertise Promotion of Tax by Mike Hignite on September 21, 2004 This allows a downtown development association to tax businesses, then use that money to advertise to promote more taxes.