[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SG-W:/ MEC Land Stewardship Initiative News
I too, am divided. I noticed that the Michigan Municipal League
(represents Villages and Cities) is advocating the proposition, while
Michgian Townships Association is advocating against it.
Some of the laws coming from this particular legislature, regarding Mobile
Home Parks, factory farms, requiring (or not) officers to reside inthe
city they work, taking over a city's schools, etc., have been what has
triggered this proposition. These are the kind of things IMHO should have
local control. However, I also agree very much with Kristen about the
need for regional planning and the need for taking *some* of the control
or responsibility from locals in order to allow *with local input and
power as well* regional planning. I have this perspective because I work
at the Huron River Watershed Council, which is trying to get people to
plan on a watershed level. Our watershed include 63 DIFFERENT communites,
each with their own master plans - this is not really working for the
So, My Two Cents.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Kristen A. Gibbs wrote:
> 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
> > would:
> > 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
> the proposal.
> 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
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