Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2011 Senate Bill 778: Restrict ad hoc road-end “marinas” (Senate Roll Call)
facebook  twitter 

Passed 30 to 6 in the Senate on January 19, 2012.
View All of Senate Bill 778: History, Amendments & Comments 

The vote was 30 in favor, 6 against, and 2 not voting.
(Senate Roll Call)

Print-friendly version

 Comment on this vote   View others' comments   Add to scorecard 


In Favor In Favor
Against Against
Not Voting Not Voting
12 total votes
26 total votes

What do you think? In Favor Against Undecided (log on required)


Restrict ad hoc road-end “marinas”



Anderson (D)Bieda (D)Gleason (D)Gregory (D)Hood (D)
Hunter (D)Whitmer (D)   


Brandenburg (R)Colbeck (R)Emmons (R)Green (R)Hansen (R)
Hildenbrand (R)Hune (R)Jansen (R)Jones (R)Kahn (R)
Kowall (R)Marleau (R)Meekhof (R)Moolenaar (R)Nofs (R)
Pappageorge (R)Pavlov (R)Proos (R)Richardville (R)Robertson (R)
Rocca (R)Schuitmaker (R)Walker (R)  



Hopgood (D)Warren (D)Young (D)


Booher (R)Casperson (R)Caswell (R)


Johnson (D)Smith (D)


Y    Anderson (D)Y    Bieda (D)  n  Booher (R)Y    Brandenburg (R)  n  Casperson (R)
  n  Caswell (R)Y    Colbeck (R)Y    Emmons (R)Y    Gleason (D)Y    Green (R)
Y    Gregory (D)Y    Hansen (R)Y    Hildenbrand (R)Y    Hood (D)  n  Hopgood (D)
Y    Hune (R)Y    Hunter (D)Y    Jansen (R)  -  Johnson (D)Y    Jones (R)
Y    Kahn (R)Y    Kowall (R)Y    Marleau (R)Y    Meekhof (R)Y    Moolenaar (R)
Y    Nofs (R)Y    Pappageorge (R)Y    Pavlov (R)Y    Proos (R)Y    Richardville (R)
Y    Robertson (R)Y    Rocca (R)Y    Schuitmaker (R)  -  Smith (D)Y    Walker (R)
  n  Warren (D)Y    Whitmer (D)  n  Young (D)  

Senate Roll Call on 2011 Senate Bill 778



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 Michigan I would like rebut your comment and clear up your spin on bill SB 778.  This bill in truth actually does take into consideration every resident in Michigan.  First this is not completely new legislation, bill 778 amends 1994 PA 451 which prohibited boats from mooring on public property overnight and clarifies how to enforce PA 451.  Bill 778 still allows a dock to be installed and still allows boats to be moored but limits the boat mooring between 12am and sunrise.  SB 778 actually does represent all of Michigan by not allowing people like yourself to moor your boat on a public road end for an entire summer while in doing so blocking the chance for other people to enjoy the same rights.  SB 778 by not allowing boats to be moored over night opens up the sensible first come first serve motto.  When you look at the truth there is no argument to support how bill SB 778 does not represent all of the residents in Michigan.  Your spin on the matter supports people who have been breaking the law for over 20 years and stifling the original plat of the property which in some cases goes back over 100 years; before you were even born.  It is laughable reading your message and stating how this bill does not represent all the residents in Michigan.  If SB 778 does not go through, only a select few compared to many would be able to use the road ends.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 778 (Restrict ad hoc road-end “marinas” )  by safetytecric on March 12, 2012 

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.


Ric Federau

Property owner: Roscommon County.


2011 Senate Bill 778 (Restrict ad hoc road-end “marinas” )  by admin on March 12, 2012 
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.

View These pre-2013 Comments on the Forum.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.