Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 20, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

Sure, why should they contribute when they are only making a profit! Another business-freindly law that will help Michigan become more like a third world county.

You are watching to many movies. How many slumloards do you have in your town? Ever hear about taxation without representation? So let's not pass a good law because a few landlords are idiots. Think those people will bother to vote? You forget who the first people in this country that were allowed to vote - property owners. Also, check out the tax rate on non-homestead property. It's the non owner occupied properties in your community that are keeping your property taxes lower. Get a life.

HB 4281 strikes me as fundamentally un-American, by attaching the right to vote to property ownership. This bill is focused on allowing non-resident property owner to vote in school elections. It clearly is aimed at correcting, or trying to offset one very objectionable aspect of Proposal A, which Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved as a state constitutional amendment in 1994. That aspect is the authority of a local school district to levy an extra 18-mill tax on non-homestead property within its boundaries. A few principled school boards and district constituencies at first declined to propose, vote for and levy the additional 18 mills on non-homestead property. But as far as I know, escalating school operating costs and stagnant state funding of schools (per pupil grants) as provided by the legislature have all but eliminated principled resistance, and now (I believe) every school district in the state levies this patently unfair millage. HB 4281 is not the right way to correct this inequity, though.

the constitution you would know that only property owners are allowed to vote. Once you let everyone vote then the slackers will vote for whoever gives them the most free stuff and you end up with the democrat party.

"-)

Are you nuts? Rich non residents with no stake in schools, hospitals, roads, snow plowing etc. would control small rural government by cutting off any funds to do anything for the folks living there. Can non property owners vote in areas they don't live? Why not just ban non property owners from voting? Maybe only count non property owners as a 1/3 of a citizen?

a good socialist.

Allowing non-residents to determine the level of taxation in a community they do not live and raise their families in would have obvious negative results for the residents and their families.

Where do you think the money to pay increases in taxes comes from for apartment owners? Increased rent? Rents are decreasing along with occupancy. It comes from the improvement/maintenance budget. Who does that hurt? Residents and the community. Why not allow homestead rates for multi family properties?

"Allowing non-residents to determine the level of taxation" Allowing NON OWNERS to determine what OWNERS pay is wrong.

property owners be TAXED? yes, can non resident property owners be FINED? YES, OWNING PROPERTY means you have a stake in the community.

This is a nightmare! Property owners and developers would have dozens of voter ID cards. Schools would have to have 2 sets of ballots -- one with only millage, one with school board. Who verifies that the voter ID card is revoked when the property is sold? Property is transferred on a daily basis. This opens a huge door to voter fraud!

If you own property you should be able to vote on tax issues. When it comes to anything else, you vote at your residence on record. If you think this is difficult maybe you don't need to vote.

Y’know, I did read the Michigan Constitution, and here’s what I found in respect to the claim that ONLY “property owners are allowed to vote.” It is mainly not true, but it also has an element of truth in it. This is addressed in Article II, Section 6, which says: “Whenever any question is required to be submitted by a political subdivision to the electors for the increase of the ad valorem tax rate limitation imposed by Section 6 of Article IX for a period of more than five years, or for the issue of bonds, only electors in, and who have property assessed for any ad valorem taxes in, any part of the district or territory to be affected by the result of such election or electors who are the lawful husbands or wives of such persons shall be entitled to vote thereon. All electors in the district or territory affected may vote on all other questions.” To be honest, I was flabbergasted to learn that only residents who own property and are assessed for tax purposes on it in a Michigan political subdivision can vote on local bond issues or tax increases that will run more than 5 years. I was further surprised to read that this evidently remains fully in effect. We can learn something new every day, it seems. Art II, Sec 6 pretty well explains to me why millage propositions invariably have a “sunset” of five years or less. I never thought much about that in more than 35 years as a registered and participating Michigan voter. But I remain puzzled about the bond issue provision. In all my years as a voter, I never have seen an indication – even a hint -- that the “resident property owners only” restriction applied or was enforced in bond issue proposal elections. To me, the property ownership based restriction is a foreign idea. That brings us back to HB 4281. Allowing non-residents of a political subdivision a vote would create a chaotic situation. At the very least it would require preparation and maintenance of another voter registration list. And, as someone has noted here before, keeping track of property ownership transfers would be a formidable task for those charged with maintaining qualified elector lists. Then we have the matter of corporate ownership and how those votes would be handled. With legislative proposals afoot to liberalize absentee voting, it is easy to see that we would have more and more elections of compromised integrity. Communities are made up of people, not property, joined together in some kind of common purpose. Thus, the only real stakeholders in a community are the people who live there, whether or not they own property. The Lansing tendency over the past 10-15 years has been to enact legislation and push other initiatives that reduce rather than encourage and foster sense of community between people at the local level. Some cynics will say that doesn’t matter but those of us who live in decent, functioning communities know better. HB 4281 is another bill that chips away at community. It is bad legislation that should go nowhere.

"Thus, the only real stakeholders in a community are the people who live there, whether or not they own property" Bull #1 If I own a rental property in your neighborhood I have every bit as much at stake as you. I want to see the value of my investment go up just as you want your home value to go up. "keeping track of property ownership transfers would be a formidable task" Bull #2 These records are very up to date and easy to find. How many times have you bought a house and the tax man didn't know who to send the tax bill to? "With legislative proposals afoot to liberalize absentee voting" Bull #3 This is a problem. The only reason for this push is on to "liberalize absentee voting" is so that the libs can keep getting elected. It's a proven fact...most dead guys vote dem/lib/socialist

The whole thought, for your benefit: Communities are made up of people, not property, joined together in some kind of common purpose. Thus, the only real stakeholders in a community are the people who live there, whether or not they own property. The Lansing tendency over the past 10-15 years has been to enact legislation and push other initiatives that reduce rather than encourage and foster sense of community between people at the local level. Some cynics will say that doesn’t matter but those of us who live in decent, functioning communities know better. HB 4281 is another bill that chips away at community. It is bad legislation that should go nowhere.

In 1993, Inland Lakes Public Schools (Indian River, MI) held a millage election in the middle of the summer and it failed. The school was set to NOT open it's doors in the fall of 1993. This occurred because the Indian River area has many homes on lakes within the school district that are lived in only for portions between June-September - most of these people being retirees that live elsewhere during the winter. All of these people, none of whom lived in the area permanently, went and voted to NOT raise taxes, because they only live there a couple months a year for vacation purposes. They didn't want to pay taxes to send me or my brother or my friends to school. So, the school couldn't raise enough money to pay their payroll for the fall, and they announced they wouldn't be opening, everyone would be legally required to drive their child between 10-30 miles away to the next nearest school. Fortunately, a group of recent graduates and kids that actually wanted to be able to attend school the next year got together, organized a recall vote, and spent the better part of a month getting all the local parents to show up and vote in the recall, and it passed the second time. This is what will happen if a bill like this is passed - you'll see schools not starting every fall because all the rich and/or retired summer residents that don't care about the quality or quantity of education in Michigan will vote to not raise millages.

"all the rich and/or retired summer residents that don't care about the quality or quantity of education in Michigan will vote to not raise millages." Actually you may be reading too much into this. Millage votes are being shot down all over the state, Northville lost two this summer. What you are seeing is not the rich/retirees trying to cheat people out of schooling, what you are seeing is intelligent folks that are sick and tired of throwing money down the black hole of government and schools. Detroit cries broke and spends 1.6 mil on art to adorn the office walls, 1.4 on out of town boondoggles and dinners? People are fed up with government waste and the teachers unions taking money and not producing. Don't blame the "rich", they are usually the smartest society has to offer, you might want to aspire to be one of them.

The cottage owners DO care about schools. No doubt, they are paying their share down state. Everyone wants something for nothing. Full time locals up north want the seasonal revenue, wages, tips, and taxes associated with summer cottages. Then,they want the down staters to leave after Labor Day, but continue supporting the locals thru taxes. In good times, that might be palatable. But, read the newspapers. The economic changes down state are affecting us all, up north included (yoo too, stoopid yoopers). The state of Michigan is on the way to becoming the Mississippi of the North.

"The cottage owners DO care about schools. No doubt, they are paying their share down state." @tax tax tax: "The cottage owners DO care about schools. No doubt, they are paying their share down state." In the instance I described, which was in 1993, I spoke to a number of summer residents who said point-blank they don't care about schools here and never will because they have no family or grandchildren in Michigan, and they're only here a couple months a year, so why should they have to pay? If they want to own land in the district, they should have to pay, that's why - it's a property tax to pay for necessary services like public schools. And, if they're rich enough to own two homes, they can afford the millage increase. Anyone with basic math skills can figure that out. Are there some part-time resident property-owners that care about schools? Sure. There are also some who do not, and that is the problem I was addressing. However, many people that own property in that specific area do NOT live in Michigan the rest of the year; they live in Florida or other southern locations, and indeed have no family or friends in the areas where they are preventing schools from operating. "Full time locals up north want the seasonal revenue, wages, tips, and taxes associated with summer cottages. Then,they want the down staters to leave after Labor Day, but continue supporting the locals thru taxes." I could care less if someone not in the district chooses to support my district. What I do care about is when people not in the district choose to NOT support my district, because of a poorly thought-out election cycle that allows people to vote for multiple tax increases in multiple districts. An easy solution would be to move all elections to November, thereby preventing people from voting twice - once at their main residence and once at their summer residence. Whichever they choose to vote at, I don't care. I just have a problem with people who will vote a millage down to save a hundred bucks on their taxes without regard to the schools they may be harming. "stoopid yoopers" Resorting to name-calling really brings your point across, [begin sarcasm] idiot [end sarcasm]. @The Evil Rich at Fault Again: I was using an example from over a decade ago to illustrate the point; I know the current reasons for voting the way they do may be different per school district and per voter, but there are still some rich people that do cause millages to fail in poor districts that need the money just so they don't have to shut down - districts where they don't spend anything on wall art or expense accounts for board members or school executives. I also know plenty of stupid rich people, and many smart poor people. As for aspiring to be one of them, I'm not sure if you're referring to "rich" or "smart", but in either case I consider myself both. For those of you who think I'm not "smart" solely because I disagree with your opinion, that's your prerogative.

SMART poor people, (why aren't they rich?) and DUMB rich people, (how did they GET rich?) are we supposed to vote in favor of EVERY MILLAGE INCREASE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD TRIES TO PASS??? or just the ones that make sense?

residents to decide that non residents get to pay almost double what they pay. If you don't want me to vote on your millage then make the tax rates the same for homestead and non homestead. You guys use the cottage owners as a cash cow and don't mind taking our money all summer and charging us double the tax you pay while you're out poaching deer.

didn't agree... "HB 4281 strikes me as fundamentally un-American, by attaching the right to vote to property ownership." Why should someone that doesn't own anything get to decide what property owners pay????????

whether or not they own property, can vote on any tax issue. the founding fathers (some of them, anyway) wanted only landowners to be able to vote for this very reason.

Within the tax district is a reasonable requirement for being allowed to vote on local tax issues. This is a terrible piece of legislation that places proprty ownership above citizenship.

to get back to the constitution and only let property owners vote. When you let everybody vote you create the politicians that can take from the earners and promise free stuff to the non earners and soon you have Michiganistan.

As a non-resident of Michigan my property taxes were raised from 15 mills to 18 mills for local school funding. The local residents voted to have my taxes increased and their taxes decreased on this account. I do not see how this is fair or ethical? What protects me from future tax hikes? This strikes me as taxation without representation. I have talked with several other non-residents who are equally dismayed. At the very least, I think it a reasonable request to have property tax increases apply equally to both residents (who use the schools) and non-residents.

8ajm7gmcxjvwpr08