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.
View All of Senate Bill 778: History, Amendments & Comments
The vote was 96 in favor, 11 against, and 1 not voting.
(House Roll Call 85)
Restrict ad hoc road-end “marinas”
|Ananich (D)||Bauer (D)||Bledsoe (D)||Brown (D)||Brunner (D)|
|Byrum (D)||Cavanagh (D)||Darany (D)||Dillon (D)||Durhal (D)|
|Geiss (D)||Hammel (D)||Hobbs (D)||Howze (D)||Jackson (D)|
|Kandrevas (D)||Lane (D)||LeBlanc (D)||Lindberg (D)||Lipton (D)|
|Liss (D)||McCann (D)||Meadows (D)||Nathan (D)||Oakes (D)|
|Olumba (D)||Rutledge (D)||Santana (D)||Schmidt, R. (D)||Segal (D)|
|Smiley (D)||Stallworth (D)||Stanley (D)||Stapleton (D)||Switalski (D)|
|Talabi (D)||Townsend (D)||Womack (D)|
|Bolger (R)||Bumstead (R)||Callton (R)||Cotter (R)||Crawford (R)|
|Daley (R)||Damrow (R)||Denby (R)||Farrington (R)||Forlini (R)|
|Foster (R)||Franz (R)||Genetski (R)||Gilbert (R)||Glardon (R)|
|Goike (R)||Haines (R)||Haveman (R)||Heise (R)||Hooker (R)|
|Horn (R)||Hughes (R)||Jacobsen (R)||Johnson (R)||Knollenberg (R)|
|Kowall (R)||Kurtz (R)||LaFontaine (R)||Lori (R)||Lund (R)|
|Lyons (R)||MacGregor (R)||MacMaster (R)||McMillin (R)||Moss (R)|
|Muxlow (R)||Nesbitt (R)||O'Brien (R)||Olson (R)||Opsommer (R)|
|Ouimet (R)||Outman (R)||Pettalia (R)||Poleski (R)||Potvin (R)|
|Price (R)||Pscholka (R)||Rendon (R)||Rogers (R)||Schmidt, W. (R)|
|Shaughnessy (R)||Shirkey (R)||Somerville (R)||Stamas (R)||Tyler (R)|
|Walsh (R)||Yonker (R)||Zorn (R)|
|Barnett (D)||Clemente (D)||Constan (D)||Hovey-Wright (D)||Irwin (D)|
|Slavens (D)||Tlaib (D)|
|Agema (R)||Huuki (R)||Jenkins (R)||McBroom (R)|
HOUSE LEGISLATORS WHO DID NOT VOTE
HOUSE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES
|n Agema (R)||Y Ananich (D)||n Barnett (D)||Y Bauer (D)||Y Bledsoe (D)|
|Y Bolger (R)||Y Brown (D)||Y Brunner (D)||Y Bumstead (R)||Y Byrum (D)|
|Y Callton (R)||Y Cavanagh (D)||n Clemente (D)||n Constan (D)||Y Cotter (R)|
|Y Crawford (R)||Y Daley (R)||Y Damrow (R)||Y Darany (D)||Y Denby (R)|
|Y Dillon (D)||Y Durhal (D)||Y Farrington (R)||Y Forlini (R)||Y Foster (R)|
|Y Franz (R)||Y Geiss (D)||Y Genetski (R)||Y Gilbert (R)||Y Glardon (R)|
|Y Goike (R)||Y Haines (R)||Y Hammel (D)||- Haugh (D)||Y Haveman (R)|
|Y Heise (R)||Y Hobbs (D)||Y Hooker (R)||Y Horn (R)||n Hovey-Wright (D)|
|Y Howze (D)||Y Hughes (R)||n Huuki (R)||n Irwin (D)||Y Jackson (D)|
|Y Jacobsen (R)||n Jenkins (R)||Y Johnson (R)||Y Kandrevas (D)||Y Knollenberg (R)|
|Y Kowall (R)||Y Kurtz (R)||Y LaFontaine (R)||Y Lane (D)||Y LeBlanc (D)|
|Y Lindberg (D)||Y Lipton (D)||Y Liss (D)||Y Lori (R)||Y Lund (R)|
|Y Lyons (R)||Y MacGregor (R)||Y MacMaster (R)||n McBroom (R)||Y McCann (D)|
|Y McMillin (R)||Y Meadows (D)||Y Moss (R)||Y Muxlow (R)||Y Nathan (D)|
|Y Nesbitt (R)||Y O'Brien (R)||Y Oakes (D)||Y Olson (R)||Y Olumba (D)|
|Y Opsommer (R)||Y Ouimet (R)||Y Outman (R)||Y Pettalia (R)||Y Poleski (R)|
|Y Potvin (R)||Y Price (R)||Y Pscholka (R)||Y Rendon (R)||Y Rogers (R)|
|Y Rutledge (D)||Y Santana (D)||Y Schmidt, R. (D)||Y Schmidt, W. (R)||Y Segal (D)|
|Y Shaughnessy (R)||Y Shirkey (R)||n Slavens (D)||Y Smiley (D)||Y Somerville (R)|
|Y Stallworth (D)||Y Stamas (R)||Y Stanley (D)||Y Stapleton (D)||Y Switalski (D)|
|Y Talabi (D)||n Tlaib (D)||Y Townsend (D)||Y Tyler (R)||Y Walsh (R)|
|Y Womack (D)||Y Yonker (R)||Y Zorn (R)|
House Roll Call 85 on 2011 Senate Bill 778
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.
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.
Property owner: Roscommon County.