Public Policy Reform

2006 Ballot Questions

There were a number of proposals on the November 2006 ballot that will have wide-ranging impacts on the health and prosperity of Michigan's inner-ring suburbs.  The Suburbs Alliance analyzed and took positions on Proposals 2, 4 and 5.  Click on the links below to read our statements.  For an unbiased analysis of the proposals, visit the Citizen Research Council of Michigan's website at www.crcmich.org/election/index.html. 

These positions were approved by the Suburbs Alliance Board of Directors September 15, 2006.

Say NO to the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" (Proposal 2)
Say NO to unreasonable eminent domain restrictions! (Proposal 4)
Say NO to guaranteed funding increases for K-16 education! (Proposal 5)

Proposal 2

Named the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative," this proposal amended the Michigan Constitution "to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes."   The Suburbs Alliance's position statement on this issue follows:

Say "NO" to the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative"

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative proposal is a deceptively-named attempt to end affirmative action in the state. Southeast Michigan is the nation’s most economically and racially segregated region, and the most in need of strategies to ensure the kind of equity that leads to lasting prosperity. The MCRI would eliminate programs that have ensured that girls’ sports are as equally available as boys’, fostered women- and minority- owned businesses, and encouraged men to enter programs where they are underrepresented such as teaching and nursing. Because we still struggle to guarantee equal opportunity, ending affirmative action without the funding or planning for an alternative approach will put the region back decades.

PROPOSAL 2: OPPOSED

Proposal 4

This proposal dealt with eminent domain and its passage imposed numerous restrictions on its use by local governments.  The Suburbs Alliance's position statement on this issue follows:

Say "NO" to Unreasonable Eminent Domain Restrictions!

An essential tool for urban redevelopment is the power of governments to condemn property so that it may be used for public benefit. This is one way we get land for roads and public utilities. Rarely, eminent domain is used to assemble land for critical economic development projects that provide jobs in severely depressed areas. Recent state Supreme Court decisions have established reasonable and carefully crafted rules to ensure this power is not abused. This proposed constitutional amendment would impose excessive fees and reverse the rules of proof in using this tool. More importantly, it would make the use of eminent domain to eradicate blight nearly impossible. The judicious and careful use of eminent domain for economic development can help southeast Michigan’s sluggish economy revive. Let’s keep this tool in our belt.

PROPOSAL 4: OPPOSED

Proposal 5

If this proposal had passed, it would have amended the State School Aid Act to guarantee a minimum amount of state funding for K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities in Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07).  The Suburbs Alliance's position statement on this issue follows:

Say "NO" to Guaranteed Funding Increases for K-16 Education!

Education is easily the highest priority for Michigan voters, and in this economic climate, ensuring that school budgets grow seems reasonable at first glance. The problem with Proposal 5 is not in education, but in budgeting. Guaranteed increases to one service will inevitably cripple others – like community health, children’s welfare and support for city programs. The Citizens Research Council estimates that the impact on the FY07 state budget will be between $565 and $707 million. Moreover, money is not the key to a better education for our kids in Michigan. Our state ranks 11th in the nation for per pupil spending but 30th for educational achievement. Compare that to Minnesota where kids get the nation’s best education and the state spends $900 less per student (ranking 21st nationally in spending). Let’s make sure there’s a good foundation under our education house before we spend money on hot new appliances.

PROPOSAL 5: OPPOSED