Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2011 Senate Bill 567: Create another corporate subsidy program (Senate Roll Call 488)
facebook  twitter 

Passed 35 to 1 in the Senate on September 20, 2011.
View All of Senate Bill 567: History, Amendments & Comments 

The vote was 35 in favor, 1 against, and 2 not voting.
(Senate Roll Call 488)

Print-friendly version

 Comment on this vote   View others' comments   Add to scorecard 

Line

Vote
In Favor In Favor
Against Against
Not Voting Not Voting
 Undecided
Democrat
831783%
1000%
168416%
12 total votes
Republican
96496%
3973%
1000%
26 total votes
Voters
1000%
100100%
1000%
2 total votes

What do you think? In Favor Against Undecided (log on required)

Line

Create another corporate subsidy program

IN FAVOR

SENATE DEMOCRATS

Anderson (D)Bieda (D)Gleason (D)Gregory (D)Hood (D)
Hopgood (D)Hunter (D)Smith (D)Warren (D)Whitmer (D)

SENATE REPUBLICANS

Booher (R)Brandenburg (R)Casperson (R)Caswell (R)Colbeck (R)
Emmons (R)Green (R)Hansen (R)Hildenbrand (R)Hune (R)
Jansen (R)Jones (R)Kahn (R)Kowall (R)Marleau (R)
Moolenaar (R)Nofs (R)Pappageorge (R)Pavlov (R)Proos (R)
Richardville (R)Robertson (R)Rocca (R)Schuitmaker (R)Walker (R)


AGAINST

SENATE DEMOCRATS
none

SENATE REPUBLICANS

Meekhof (R)


SENATE LEGISLATORS WHO DID NOT VOTE

Johnson (D)Young (D)



SENATE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES

Y    Anderson (D)Y    Bieda (D)Y    Booher (R)Y    Brandenburg (R)Y    Casperson (R)
Y    Caswell (R)Y    Colbeck (R)Y    Emmons (R)Y    Gleason (D)Y    Green (R)
Y    Gregory (D)Y    Hansen (R)Y    Hildenbrand (R)Y    Hood (D)Y    Hopgood (D)
Y    Hune (R)Y    Hunter (D)Y    Jansen (R)  -  Johnson (D)Y    Jones (R)
Y    Kahn (R)Y    Kowall (R)Y    Marleau (R)  n  Meekhof (R)Y    Moolenaar (R)
Y    Nofs (R)Y    Pappageorge (R)Y    Pavlov (R)Y    Proos (R)Y    Richardville (R)
Y    Robertson (R)Y    Rocca (R)Y    Schuitmaker (R)Y    Smith (D)Y    Walker (R)
Y    Warren (D)Y    Whitmer (D)  -  Young (D)  

Senate Roll Call 488 on 2011 Senate Bill 567

Line

Comments

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.



Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )  by TaterSalad on December 28, 2011 

 



How the "Debt Limit" is explained so even a liberal/progressive can understand it even though they don't want to know.  Spend, spend and spend is the only thing on their minds.  Entitlements are their "future"!

 

http://conservativebyte.com/2011/07/the-united-states-debt-limit-explained/



Re: 2011 Senate Bill 567 (Create another subsidy program for particular developers )  by TwoCents on December 28, 2011 

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.


 



View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.