Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on February 23, 2010, to extend "Neighborhood Enterprise Zone" property tax breaks to the University Park Estates subdivision in Flint, which is less than 10 years old, and is in a "renaissance zone" whose tax-exempt status is expiring soon. Under current law, these particular NEZ tax breaks are for subdivisions built before 1968. They cut the owner's local property tax liability on the structure in half.
View All of House Bill 5567: History, Amendments & Comments
The vote was 38 in favor, 0 against, and 0 not voting.
(Senate Roll Call 54)
Grant property tax breaks to a particular subdivision
|Anderson (D)||Barcia (D)||Basham (D)||Brater (D)||Cherry (D)|
|Clark-Coleman (D)||Clarke (D)||Gleason (D)||Hunter (D)||Jacobs (D)|
|Olshove (D)||Prusi (D)||Scott (D)||Switalski (D)||Thomas (D)|
|Allen (R)||Birkholz (R)||Bishop (R)||Brown (R)||Cassis (R)|
|Cropsey (R)||Garcia (R)||George (R)||Gilbert (R)||Hardiman (R)|
|Jansen (R)||Jelinek (R)||Kahn (R)||Kuipers (R)||McManus (R)|
|Nofs (R)||Pappageorge (R)||Patterson (R)||Richardville (R)||Sanborn (R)|
|Stamas (R)||Van Woerkom (R)|
SENATE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES
|Y Allen (R)||Y Anderson (D)||Y Barcia (D)||Y Basham (D)||Y Birkholz (R)|
|Y Bishop (R)||Y Brater (D)||Y Brown (R)||Y Cassis (R)||Y Cherry (D)|
|Y Clark-Coleman (D)||Y Clarke (D)||Y Cropsey (R)||Y Garcia (R)||Y George (R)|
|Y Gilbert (R)||Y Gleason (D)||Y Hardiman (R)||Y Hunter (D)||Y Jacobs (D)|
|Y Jansen (R)||Y Jelinek (R)||Y Kahn (R)||Y Kuipers (R)||Y McManus (R)|
|Y Nofs (R)||Y Olshove (D)||Y Pappageorge (R)||Y Patterson (R)||Y Prusi (D)|
|Y Richardville (R)||Y Sanborn (R)||Y Scott (D)||Y Stamas (R)||Y Switalski (D)|
|Y Thomas (D)||Y Van Woerkom (R)||Y Whitmer (D)|
Senate Roll Call 54 on 2009 House Bill 5567
I also agree that this must not be used to say that they government "increased the tax base" - I am sure that as Kildee gets revved up for his run for govenor he will be spouting this lie.
2) Re: 2009 House Bill 5567 (Extend tax exemptions a particular developer’s project ) by DaveGillie on February 24, 2010
Doesn't sound like "equal protection under the law" to me!
However, I'd be tempted to support this exemption but ONLY if it tacked on an amendment that stopped the local politicians around here (Flint) from bragging about how this new project "INCREASED the tax base"! they know full well they're lies. not even mentioning the tax money that came from us in the first place to make the loans for it
3) Re: 2009 House Bill 5567 (Extend tax exemptions a particular developer’s project ) by inform4 on December 3, 2009
Every time I see defined language in a bill for "tax exemptions" classifying exemptions that seems to pin-point a particular development the bells and whistles go off. It looks as if a particular constituent and a particular representative such as Rep. Woodrow Stanley (D) are looking to garner special favors to the detriment of all others. The following language tells me that the tax exemption only applies and favors only one development/person/s. Wouldn't it be great if we could all kiss Rep. Woodrow's ring and all get a "tax exemption?" Then again -- these "special" tax exemptions are wrong -- because they are not representative of equity and equality.
In this case, " (ii) A new or existing structure that has as its primary purpose residential housing consisting of 1 or 2 units, 1 of which is occupied by an owner as his or her principal residence that is located in a subdivision platted after January 1, 1999 and is located in a county with a population of more than 400,000 and less than 500,000 according to the most recent decennial census and is located in a city with a population of more than 100,000 and less than 125,000 according to the most recent decennial census."
View pre-2013 Comments.