Public Act 252 of 2011
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Mike Kowall (R) on July 13, 2011, to authorize cash subsidies of up to $10 million for firms selected by political appointees on the board of the state government's “Michigan Strategic Fund,” who would have extensive discretion to hand out these cash subsidies and subsidized loans to particular firms. This “Michigan Community Revitalization Program” would essentially replace subsidies provided through the Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA), and also ones handed out under "brownfields" statutes, which were "open-ended," whereas this program will hand out around $100 million annually (that's the amount appropriated this year).
- Referred to the Senate Economic Development Committee on July 13, 2011.
- Reported in the Senate on September 15, 2011, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on September 15, 2011, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on September 15, 2011.
- Referred to the Senate Economic Development Committee on July 13, 2011.
- Passed 35 to 1 in the Senate on September 20, 2011.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on September 20, 2011.
- Referred to the House Commerce Committee on September 20, 2011.
- Reported in the House on November 2, 2011, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on November 29, 2011, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details; this was superseded by a different substitute. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on November 29, 2011.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Wayne Schmidt (R) on November 29, 2011, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that gives somewhat less discretion to the Michigan Strategic Fund board regarding which firms gan get the proposed subsidies; requires more transparency and reporting on the performance of the firms getting the subsidies; and limits the number of $10 million subsidies to three per year, plus up to five firms getting $1 million subsidies. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on November 29, 2011.
- Referred to the House Commerce Committee on September 20, 2011.
- Passed 95 to 11 in the House on November 30, 2011, to authorize cash subsidies of up to $10 million for firms selected by political appointees on the board of the state government's “Michigan Strategic Fund,” who would have extensive discretion to hand out these cash subsidies and subsidized loans to particular firms. This “Michigan Community Revitalization Program” would essentially replace subsidies provided through the Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA), and also ones handed out under "brownfields" statutes, which were "open-ended," whereas this program will hand out around $100 million annually (that's the amount appropriated this year).
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on December 1, 2011.
- Passed 34 to 1 in the Senate on December 6, 2011, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on December 13, 2011.
Comments
1) Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers ) by TwoCents on December 30, 2011 It is unfortunate that you have so little confidence in your ignorant tirade that you felt a need to block responses. I will not waste my time to craft a response to someone who clearly has no idea of what they are writing about. I have read your other posts and it is clear you are not interested in a dialogue but rather prefer to try and inflict your dribble on others. I should have ignored you like everyone else. Cheers.
You are partially correct in what you say but it is an over simplification of reality and not realistic.
While it is partially true that the current owner assumes liability (historical owners of the property are also responsible for cleanup) there are many situations where it is no longer practical to pursue the owner due to things such as death, Chapter 7 bankruptcy, insolvency, etc. In these cases where ownership is clouded and the cost of cleanup makes sale of the property impractical (assuming no brownfield dollars are available) the land is left idle and eventually foreclosed on by the County Treasurer. The point being that no one with the resources to develop a site is going to purchase a site as-is and litigate for the cleanup except in very rare cases.
Once the Treasurer forecloses it become the owner. As you pointed out the County in effect takes the property in “as-is” condition. They may choose to litigate but the cost of doing so may likely be far greater than incentivizing someone to purchase the property and redevelop it with brownfield credits. The costs to be considered are not only the legal costs but the opportunity cost of having the property sit idle not earning taxes while cleanup is litigated.
Unfortunately, contrary to your belief, ultimately it is “the taxpayer’s responsibility”. Your inflammatory comments serve only to highlight your ignorance as to the process and lack of knowledge as to reality. While I may be Left leaning those I work with on a daily basis are most definitely Right leaning. Right or Left it doesn’t matter because the environmental legacy of these sites must eventually be addressed or they will continue to blight our State.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
