

If the disabled occupant is a family member, I might be able to "see" the sense of this bill. There would be significant social purpose in that case. If it is a way to secure tax relief for conventional rental property, no way. Especially at this time, when local units of government (school districts) are getting stiffed by the State at every turn.
(I am no fan of the extra 18 mills that can be levied by school districts -- subject to local voter approval -- against non-homestead property, per conditions of Proposal A. I think that provision is essentially unconscionable. However, Proposal A is the law of the land overwhelmingly approved by Michigan voters in popular referendum. Proposals like this one seek to undermine Prop A by bits and pieces, without addressing a fundamental flaw, thus creating greater inequities and a more complicated mess.)
![]()
I don't disagree with this bill on its face. However, I find it interesting that Mr. Slezak introduced this bill since he personally told me that he and his family own the house across the street from him so his brother-in-law with Downs Syndrome can live in it. He personally will benefit from this bill. Seems like a conflict of interest to me or at least self-serving nepotism.
![]()
![]()