Public Act 56 of 2012
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Mike Kowall (R) on October 26, 2011, to establish that unless a deed, easement, or other recorded dedication expressly provides for it, a waterfront road end may not be used for boat hoists or docks; for mooring between midnight and sunrise; or for any activity that obstructs access to a lake or stream. Local governments could ban or regulate uses that are not specified in property owners’ deeds, easements, etc.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 26, 2011.
- Reported in the Senate on November 3, 2011, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on January 17, 2012. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on January 17, 2012.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 26, 2011.
- Passed 30 to 6 in the Senate on January 19, 2012.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on January 19, 2012.
- Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on January 19, 2012.
- Reported in the House on February 15, 2012, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on February 29, 2012, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not include criminal penalties for violation, but civil fines only. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on February 29, 2012.
- Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on January 19, 2012.
- Passed 96 to 11 in the House on March 1, 2012, to establish that unless a deed, easement, or other recorded dedication expressly provides for it, a waterfront road end may not be used for boat hoists or docks; for mooring between midnight and sunrise; or for any activity that obstructs access to a lake or stream. Local governments could ban or regulate uses that are not specified in property owners’ deeds, easements, etc.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on March 6, 2012.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Vincent Gregory (D) on March 7, 2012. The amendment failed 14 to 24 in the Senate on March 7, 2012.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Sen. Vincent Gregory (D) on March 7, 2012. The amendment failed 14 to 24 in the Senate on March 7, 2012.
- Passed 31 to 7 in the Senate on March 7, 2012.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on March 22, 2012.
Comments
1) Re: 2011 Senate Bill 778 (Restrict ad hoc road-end “marinas” ) by anderson76 on March 23, 2012
Also as a property owner and tax payer in
As a property owner / tax paying citizen and business owner in Michigan, I see Sen. Bill #-778 as a negative resolve favoring a single special interest group and certainly not in favor of ALL citizens of Michigan.
778 is not conducive to a " one size fits all" piece of legislation designed to benefit all citizens of Michigan. Total local control is meaningful and is the answer to resolve. Hence, sub-section 1 of 778 should be included into sub-section 2 as well. This makes sense.
Who knows better what their respective districts need then local unit of Government officials? Each area in Michigan is different. Let the local units of Government determine what is in the best interest of their municipal needs and the needs of their respective citizens.
778 is a negative hit on the Governor's motto: " relentless, positive action" to reinvent Michigan's economic base. Out of state recreation visitors spending money in Michigan is up 21% from last year. Each time a person steps into a boat in Michigan it generates $57.00 in State revenue. 778 will hurt the opportunity to utilize these factors when attempting to reinvent Michigan!
It will cripple revenue in areas dependent on tourism around inland lakes, rivers & streams.
778 is NOT "Pure-Michigan". The signing of 778 minimizes the activities that may be needed in various municipal situations,it hurts employment, local businesses and drives the potential for litigation spending not necessary under local control.
Governor Snyder,
Please realize you represent ALL citizens of Michigan and simply a select few special interest group of people. Michigan needs to enhance tourism and recreation in creating and reinventing a NEW, stronger and more progressive Michigan economy.
YOU are urged to veto Sen. Bill #-778. No compromise has been discussed, this is being totally rushed through legislative means and is NOT well known about by citizens throughout Michigan. This is a simple example of legislation being driven by deep pockets and little regard for Michigan as a state, it's citizens or its future. 778 does NOTHING positive for the State of Michigan.
PLEASE DO NOT SIGN SEN. BILL #-778! It's not "Pure-Michigan" and is not in favor of ALL citizens of this great state.
Respectfully,
Ric Federau
Property owner: Roscommon County.
Introduced in the Senate on October 26, 2011, to establish that unless a deed, easement, or other recorded dedication expressly provides for it, a waterfront road end may not be used for boat hoists or docks; for mooring between midnight and sunrise; or for any activity that obstructs access to a lake or stream. Local governments could ban or regulate uses that are not specified in property owners’ deeds, easements, etc
The vote was 30 in favor, 6 opposed and 2 not voting
(Senate Roll Call 0 at Senate Journal 0)
Click here to view bill details.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
