Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) look at the bill text  by Anonymous Citizen on October 17, 2008 
Again, I would suggest that you look at the text of the actual bill not the description that a clerk has entered and is shown above. First of all, under PA 139, the citizens must petition for the SAD. A township could not initiate the action on their own. Secondly, the language does state that the "allocation of cost to be spread against all of the owners in the district benefiting on a pro rata frontage OR PER LOT basis".
Reply

2) it's the "more" that's the problem  by Anonymous Citizen on October 6, 2008 
I would like it better if it was "instead of" rather than "in addition to"
Reply

3) Read the text!!  by Anonymous Citizen on October 3, 2008 
Obviously, you blowhards did not even bother to read the proposed amendment to the current law. Currently, if your neighborhood wanted to petition the township to form a road maintenance SAD under PA 139, the costs could only be assessed on a road frontage basis. This could unfairly burden land owners with corner lots or larger lots that contained mostly wetlands and unfairly benefit those with lots on cul-de-sacs that have small road frontages. This change allows the neighborhood the flexibility to choose how the costs should be spread among those benefiting from the improvements. If a township attempted to form an SAD under this act without a petition from those affected, the landowners could file a petition in opposition to the SAD and stop the process. Lastly, this change gives those of us who live on private roads the same flexibility that already exists for people who live on public roads.
Reply

View Full Conversation