2007 House Bill 4376 (Revise commercial rental property assessment occupancy formula ) (House Roll Call 98)
Substitute offered by Rep. Fulton Sheen (R) on April 17, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that eliminate the retroactive nature of the bill, which would require property owners to pay higher taxes in the future to compensate governments for past tax savings under the WPW ruling. Also, to require a vote of the people on jurisdiction-wide ad-valorem "special assessments" (which some say are no different from regualar property taxes for which a popular vote would be required under the Headlee amendment.) Also, to to revise the rules that local government property tax assessors use to establish the value of property. Under current law, assessors are able to base a property's value on "comparable sales" from the two years prior to the previous April. The amendment would change this to the one-year period prior to the previous Sept. 30. Note: The selling price of many homes in Michigan has fallen in the past year, but many assessments are still being raised because of higher-price sales in the earlier period. . The substitute failed in the House (49 to 59) on April 17, 2007. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 49 in favor, 59 opposed, and 2 not voting
(House Roll Call 98 at House Journal 35)
[Comment on this vote | View others' comments]
|
|
|
Support
Oppose
Not Voting
Undecided
The following legislators supported the substitute:
The following legislators opposed the substitute:
The following legislators did not vote on the substitute:
| Emmons (R) | Garfield (R) |
Most Recent Comments
1) VypTGOcDnLKpKFa [by Anonymous Citizen on March 20, 2008]3B6QFu Cool, bro!
Reply
One more means to have government steal property and equity from the suckered taxpayers!
Michigan is currently a very high foreclosure state. So, what's one more means to use legalized plunder to steal homesteads from the people.
Maybe you should just bulldoze the whole city of Detroit -- were there are no jobs to be garnered, and so many out of work. Let's turn the whole city into a commune.
Reply
Senator Hunter's statement is as follows:
To my Senate colleagues, the Senator from the 4th District provided a lot of background concerning this legislation, so what I want to do is to take off from there and point out that one of the main issues that has been brought out concerning this legislation is that of can a homeowner's property be foreclosed because they didn't pay the solid waste fee? As a matter of fact, I received a letter from the Detroit City Council, which represents well over 800,000 citizens of the city of Detroit, and they say that they oppose any legislation that would lead to foreclosure of property for failure to pay the solid waste collection fee. As a matter of fact, in their own ordinance they say in section 4, "Properties with a fee delinquency only shall be placed in a separate file and red flagged prior to the submittal to the county of Wayne treasurer for the purpose of alerting the county of Wayne treasurer that these properties are not to be placed in the forfeiture process."
I happen to agree with the City Council's wisdom. Therefore, I am offering an amendment for your consideration this evening which would amend the appropriate sections of this bill to reflect the following: If an owner redeems property that is his or her principal residence that is returned to the county treasurer for delinquent taxes and a delinquent solid waste fee is assessed to that owner's principal residence, the owner may redeem his or her principal residence without payment of the delinquent of the solid waste fee.
My colleagues, I want to be clear, let us be clear today when we cast our votes that we will not allow any homeowner in the city of Detroit to lose their home for having not paid the solid waste fee.
Reply
View Full Conversation
