Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on October 21, 2003, to include in the definition of "urban township" for purposes of establishing a local development finance authority, a township which has a written agreement with an adjoining township to develop one or more public facilities on contiguous property located in both townships, located in a county with a population of one-million or more (Oakland and Wayne Counties). A local development finance authority may use revenue "captured" from the increment of increased local property taxes that result from economic growth which is supposed to occur due to the new public facilities funded by the authority

The vote was 38 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 603 at Senate Journal 103)

Click here to view bill details.

Rep. Law, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

This is an example of spot zoning. This bill furthers urban sprawl and is not in keeping with the findings of the Governors Bi-Partisan Committee on Land Use. For these reasons I voted no on SB780."

Rep. Murphy, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on Senate Bill 780 because many have stressed the health and strength of the state depends on the health and strength of its cities. There are many laws to facilitate this goal. There is a disturbing trend of amending laws that were drafted for struggling urban centers to help their growing suburbs. SB 780 is an example of this trend."

Rep. Tobocman, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on Senate Bill 780 because the health and strength of the state depends on the health and strength of its cities. There are many laws to facilitate this goal. There is a disturbing trend of amending laws that were drafted for struggling urban centers to help attract development to rural greenfields and undeveloped areas. If additional tools are needed for townships to be able to support their tax base, than those tools should be discussed, debated and considered on their merits. SB 780 provides a tool to one township without addressing the systemic problems of either our urban centers or our townships."

Rep. Waters, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on Senate Bill 780 because the health and strength of the state depends on the health and strength of its cities. A number of laws have been enacted over the years to help preserve or refurbish Michigan's struggling urban centers. Unfortunately, a disturbing trend is now taking place in which these laws are being amended - turned on their heads, actually - to provide incentives to growing suburbs, rather than cities. SB 780 is an example of this trend. This bill and too many other bills that this Legislature has before it this session facilitate piece-meal development and sprawl, when the more appropriate policy should be to promote big-picture, healthy land-use."