08/09/2006
A number of ballot proposals affecting small-business owners and the members of NFIB/Michigan have made their way to the November ballot. Members speak out on such issues as:
- Private Property Rights—Ending Eminent Domain Abuse
- Stop Overspending (SOS) Spending Limitation
- K-16 Automatic Funding for Schools
Yes: 93.2 percent
No: 6.0 percent
Undecided: 0.8 percent
Background: "Eminent domain" refers to the government's power to take private property. The U.S. Constitution restricts eminent domain to "public uses," such as for roads, parks or public buildings, and sometimes for quasi-public uses, such as railroad tracks and utility lines. But the courts have steadily expanded the definition of "public use" to include economic redevelopment projects where private parties may benefit from takings under eminent domain and/or the government may realize higher tax revenues or economic development activity. As a result of this concern, the Michigan legislature passed Senate Joint Resolution E on Dec. 13, 2005. The resolution would place on the November 2006 ballot an amendment to the state constitution that would make it clear that the term "public use" does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.
Opponents of the ballot proposal to restrict the government's eminent domain powers argue that economic development is in the public's interest. They contend that redevelopment is an essential tool for maintaining and reinvigorating economic growth, which benefits everyone. Without an expansive eminent domain power, opponents say, government officials could not attract those large businesses and redevelopment projects that bring more jobs and more tax revenues for the community. In addition, opponents of the ballot proposal claim that by restricting government power in this area, slum landlords and irresponsible property owners would be able to drag out and stall attempts by the community to remove eyesores and redevelop blighted areas.
Supporters of the ballot proposal argue that acquiring private property on behalf of other private parties gives rise to abuse, and it is generally unfair to those who lose their property. Small businesses and small property owners are disproportionately affected, they contend, and the benefits only go to a few people. Supporters of the ballot proposal believe that if government can seize property because another party could generate more taxes then nobody's property is safe from seizure. In addition, supporters of the ballot proposal claim that some governments have stretched the definition of "blight" to the point where any property that does not fit a future development plan desired by the government is declared "blighted" and then a takings process is pursued.
Return to the topYes: 78 percent
No: 14 percent
Undecided: 8 percent
Background: Supporters of the Stop Overspending (SOS) ballot initiative have submitted signatures to the Michigan Secretary of State's Office in support of placing a restrictive spending formula into the state constitution. The proposed constitutional change is patterned after Colorado's "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" or "TABOR" initiative. If the secretary of state validates the signatures, Michigan voters will decide in November whether to adopt the proposal. The proposal would provide new limits on the ability of state and local governments to raise and spend revenue. Specifically, it would limit future annual increases in state appropriations (spending) to the increase in the rate of inflation plus state population growth and it would require a voter approval on increasing most local taxes and special assessments. The proposal would also effectively eliminate pension plans for future lawmakers.
Opponents of the ballot proposal claim that it is promoted primarily by out-of-state interests at a time when real per-capita state spending in Michigan is approaching a 50-year low. They also say that a similar initiative passed in Colorado in 1992 has been a disaster for the state and taxpayers actually voted to suspend the spending limit in 2005. Opponents of the proposal contend that it would result in dramatic reductions in critical public services such as K-12 and higher education, health care, fire and police protection, senior services, highways, libraries and a range of other public services. Opponents believe that the legislature and the governor should have the flexibility to address spending and revenue issues and that the taxpayer's wishes are already reflected adequately through the electoral process that appoints those officeholders.
Supporters of the ballot proposal claim that it is clear from past behavior that elected officials of all parties are incapable of spending discipline and that the only way to limit government spending is to take it out of their hands and lock it into the constitution. They say that the Colorado experience just proves that the proposal is sound as it allows the people, by popular vote, to suspend the spending limits when necessary. Supporters of the proposal contend that it will force politicians to set priorities in their spending decisions—just as taxpayers have had to do during these tough economic times. Supporters say that Michigan's state and local governments tax and spend at a higher level than most other states and that is why our economy is in the doldrums and why businesses are fleeing Michigan for better economic climates.
Do you support a proposal to constitutionally lock in automatic funding increases for education?
Yes: 3.9 percent
No: 93.8 percent
Undecided: 2.3 percent
Background: A broad coalition of education interest groups that includes the Michigan Education Association has completed a petition drive to place a proposal on the November ballot (commonly referred to as the "K-16 funding initiative") that would guarantee future funding increases in the state budget for K-12 school districts, community colleges and universities. Currently more than $12 billion in state taxes is being spent on public education, and the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency estimates that the proposed mandatory funding increase would raise an additional $1.1 billion in funding in the first year. Future annual increases would be based on inflation levels at that time.
Supporters of the ballot proposal say that the days of walking out of high school and getting a good paying job are over. They believe that making a solid, steady investment in education means students will be able to compete for high-tech and other good paying jobs that will grow our economy. Supporters contend that college tuition is beyond what many families can afford and that the ballot proposal will increase funding for colleges and universities and will help make a college education more affordable. They also point out that in three of the last four years, K-12 schools received no increase in state aid and Michigan's community colleges and universities had budgets slashed 15 percent. If Michigan is to grow and prosper, they argue, voters should do what lawmakers are unwilling to do and guarantee education funding increases.
Opponents of the ballot proposal claim that the real agenda of the proposal is to ask taxpayers to continue to fund extravagant salaries and benefits for teachers and administrators with very little money ending up in classrooms for students. They point out that although education funding in K-12 may have been flat during recent tough economic times, from 1994-2004 K-12 appropriations increased by 42.9 percent while enrollments were up only 5 percent and inflation was half as much. Opponents also say that while Michigan ranks second only to Vermont in the proportion of its budget dedicated to education; it ranks 49th in the amount of education money that actually makes it to the classroom with the balance eaten up by administration costs and lavish retirement and health benefits. They believe that if the proposal passes businesses and citizens will have taxes increased and/or other state services such as police and health care will have to be cut in order to meet the funding requirements.
