[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SG-W:/ MEC Land Stewardship Initiative News
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Jeff Surfus wrote:
> The Bureau of Elections has certified language for Proposition 00-2, a
> proposed constitutional amendment which will appear on the November ballot.
> The proposal would require a super majority vote (2/3 vote) of the
> legislature to enact certain laws affecting local governments. The proposal
> 1. Require a super majority to enact any law which addresses a
> matter which a county, city, township, village or municipal authority could
> otherwise address under its governing powers or which places a condition on
> unrestricted aid extended to local governments by the state,
> 2. Retroactively apply the super majority requirement to any such
> law enacted after March 1, 200, and
> 3. Exempt from the super majority requirement any law that can be
> applied at the option of local governments.
How do people stand on this issue? This is the first I've heard of it, and
I can see arguments as far as sustainable development go for and against
Superceding local control could be good, in that regional gov'ts
(i.e. SEMCOG) could have more say in growth that affects the region
without having to go to the courts with local municipalities (so much).
That way, we could have a county plan that smaller townships would have to
adhere to - so that Washtenaw Co. could have a plan that called for Ag in
Pittsfield Twsp, and then (for instance) Newmarket wouldn't fly. Likewise,
environmental regulations across the state would be hard to enact if we
_didn't_ take away local control - because there would be one county with
stricter rules than another that would have to put up with the lessor
county's pollution. The whole idea of not letting the State of Michigan
make any law that a county, city, or township _could_ make seems bad to
On the other hand, there is a big gap for state exploitation over local
protests. For example, local control wouldn't (doesn't?) exist for factory
farms, development of power plants and other state-related utilities, etc.
Cities don't want rules put on the money they receive, and to some degree
I can relate to that - the state doesn't know what best, always, so why
should they have a say on (previously free) money?
What do you all think? Are there more areas that I haven't mentioned here?
smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send
email to email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info