Michigan's Medical Marihuana Act is a citizen initiated law which was approved by 63% of the voters in 2008.  Now in 2012, after a year of frustrations, supporters are gearing up to hit the streets (and now the internet) to gather enough signatures to bring a new citizen initiated law proposal to the people.  Recently approved language of the constitutional amendment aims to end the marihuana prohibition as we know it.  The proponents of the initiative have to gather over 322,000 qualifying signatures before July to put the proposal on the ballot in the general elections this November.  To be approved, it has to get more votes in support of the amendment than those against it.

The proposed amendment reads:

"For persons who are at least 21 years of age who are not incarcerated, marihuana acquisition, cultivation, manufacture, sale, delivery, transfer, transportation, possession, ingestion, presence in or on the body, religious, medical, industrial, agricultural, commercial or personal use, or possession or use of paraphernalia shall not be prohibited, abridged or penalized in any manner, nor subject to civil forfeiture; provided that no person shall be permitted to operate an aircraft, motor vehicle, motorboat, ORV, snowmobile, train, or other heavy or dangerous equipment or machinery while impaired by marihuana."

With over 129,000 registered medical marihuana users in the state, the required number of petitions may not be a difficult goal for the proponents of the bill to attain.  However, whether or not the voters will have the same acceptance for free recreational use compared to the 2008 support for limited medical use will remain to be answered on November 6, 2012.

On January 12, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments on two of the most cited cases in Michigan's young, but busy, medical marihuana history.

In People v Kolanek, the Supreme Court will rule on whether or not a defendant can assert a Section 8 affirmative defense without first obtaining a valid registry identification card, and the timing of a qualifying physician certification with relation to the arrest.  (Section 8 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act provides an affirmative defense for patients who, although they do not have a registry identification card, meet certain criteria for the medical use of marihuana.)

The Supreme Court will also hear the infamous "dog kennel" case: People v King.  In People v King, the Court will determine the definition for the term "enclosed, locked facility" as well as the interplay between different sections of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

On December 22, 2011, Governor Snyder signed House Bill 4770.  The bill prevents a public employer from offering medical or other fringe benefits to certain unrelated individuals who reside with public employees.  Higher education institutions are exempted from the provisions due to their constitutional autonomy.  The new ban would affect mostly local governments and public schools in Michigan, and apply to health insurance and other fringe benefits for unmarried partners of public employees, whether they're of the opposite or the same sex.  The law is effective immediately, but does not affect union-represented workers until their current collective bargaining agreements expire, or are amended or renewed.

House Bill 4771, on the other hand, got vetoed.  HB 4771 was proposing to add the "fringe benefits to certain unrelated individuals" to the list of prohibited subjects of collective bargaining  under Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), instead of banning the benefits altogether.  In vetoing the Bill Governor Snyder reasoned that the bill directly conflicted with Public Act 260 of 2011, signed on December 14, 2011 which amended the PERA giving public employers discretion in deciding whether or not to renegotiate an existing, applicable bargaining agreement upon consolidation of public employers or public services through a merger or interlocal agreement among other changes.

The recent data from the Civil Service Commission puts the number of current employees benefiting from what is widely known as "domestic partners benefits" to 138 and the cost for 2011-2012 to $893,000.  The legislation claims to have passed this law for its potential savings of $8 million.  ACLU of Michigan has vowed to take the law to the courts for violation of equal protection rights.

On December 6, 2011, Senate Bill 8, a bill that would create the "Municipal Partnership Act" was submitted to Governor Snyder for signature.   This act is tie-barred to Senate Bill 9 and 10 and would allow two or more local governments or one or more local governments and a public agency to enter into a contract with each other to form a joint endeavor to perform or exercise any function, service, power, or privilege that the local government or public agency could exercise separately.

The new joint endeavor could use tax revenue that was previously dedicated to pay for the exercise or performance of any function, service, power, or privilege by that local government or public agency individually, to fund the exercise or performance of that function, service, power, or privilege by the joint endeavor.  Moreover, the joint endeavor could levy a tax up to five mills on all taxable property in the areas it served for the purposes of providing revenue to the joint endeavor, but only if approved by a majority of electors served by the endeavor.

The Municipal Partnership Act also makes various topics prohibited subjects of bargaining between a local government or public agency and the bargaining representative of its employees.  Specifically, the following would be prohibited subjects of bargaining under the Act:

• Whether the local government would enter into a contract for a joint endeavor under the proposed Act for or in connection with one or more functions or services;
• The procedures for obtaining the contract for a joint endeavor;
• The identities of the other parties to the contract;
• The contents or language of the contract; and
• The impact of the contract on individual employees or the bargaining unit.

To learn more about the Municipal Partnership Act please contact Andria Ditschman at (517) 886-7139 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or Mark Koerner at (517) 886-7109 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Pursuant to Michigan's Environmental Indicators Act of 1999, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) worked with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to produce a new report on the quality of Michigan's environment. Entitled "State of Michigan's Environment 2011," the report is divided into three sections: Environmental Measures, Programmatic Measures, and Emerging Contaminants of Concern in Michigan. The Environmental Measures section presents the ecological, physical, and chemical measures used by the State to track environmental quality. The Programmatic Measures section covers those measures used by the State to fulfill state and federal environmental program requirements. The final Emerging Contaminants section examines recognized contaminants with potential for environmental and public health impacts.

Click here for the full report.

Montcalm County became embroiled in a boundary dispute between neighbors when it obtained an easement to install a main sewer line from property owners within the County.  After obtaining the easement, the adjoining property owners claimed ownership of a narrow strip of land on which the easement was located.

The litigation between neighbors in which the County was named solely because of the easement threatened to tie up the sewer project for years and add several thousands to its cost. In an attempt to save the County and sanitary sewer district both time and money, The Hubbard Law Firm quickly filed a motion seeking dismissal of the County from the lawsuit.

In its Motion, Hubbard argued that even if the south property owners have a valid claim against the north property owners which could proceed to trial, the claims against the County must fail for a number of factual and legal reasons. A hearing on various motions was held on November 29.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the Montcalm County Circuit Court agreed with Hubbard and dismissed the County from the lawsuit, while allowing the boundary dispute between the neighbors to continue.

At Governor Snyder's request, on Friday, November 18, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an advisory ruling as to the new amendments to the Michigan Income Tax Act, which go into effect on January 1, 2012:

• The Supreme Court ruled that reducing or eliminating the exemption for public pension incomes (MCL 206.30) does not impair the accrued financial benefits of a pension plan of the state or political subdivisions and does not impair a contractual obligation; and, therefore, does notviolate the Michigan or U.S. Constitution.

• The Supreme Court ruled that determining eligibility for income tax exemptions on the basis of date of birth (MCL 206.30(9)) does not violate the Michigan or U.S. Constitution.

BUT,

• The Supreme Court ruled that determining eligibility for income tax exemptions and deductions on the basis of total household resources (MCL 206.30(7) and (9)) does create a graduated income tax and, therefore, does violate the Michigan Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that the unconstitutional portion of the Income Tax Act can be severed, leaving the rest of the amendments intact and in effect as of January 1.

Click here for the complete Supreme Court Opinion.

Save the date for Ingham County Land Bank's Annual Holiday Open House, scheduled for December 8, from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m., at 934 Clark Street, Lansing. This is within the Northtown Neighborhood Organization. The renovated building is now home to the Kincaid-Henry offices and the NEO Center (also known as the Center for New Enterprise Opportunity). The NEO Center is a membership-based co-working space and incubation program for new businesses.

This tax foreclosed property was renovated and redeveloped by way of accelerated Brownfield Tax Increment Finance reimbursements through the Land Bank and the Ingham County Brownfield Authority.