Repeated claims that the approval of the Special Assessment District (SAD) for the Higgins Lake sewer was “undemocratic” are unsupported and contrary to Michigan Law. Michigan P.A. 188 allows for the approval of a SAD in two ways: 1) approval of a resolution by elected Township officials (this is what happened in Gerrish), or 2) approval – by petition — by landowners of more than 50% of land in the SAD (this is what happened in Lyon). To suggest that township officials did something sneaky to get the SAD approved is untrue and harmful. They just followed the legal process – the same legal process that has been used by more than 1,200 Michigan townships since 1954 to get special projects done. See https://mymlsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Special-Assessment-Districts-Brochure-2020.pdf
Nevertheless, opponents of the sewer claim that the process was undemocratic because they didn’t personally get to “vote.” Under Michigan PA 188, no “vote” was required. The US is not a direct democracy where citizens vote on every government decision. That is not practical. Our system of government is representative democracy, where we elect representatives to make some of these decisions.
Through the PA 188 process, property owners did have a say through the petition process. A vote through the regular election process would have excluded approximately 60% of nonresident property owners from the decision-making process. The petition process, by contrast, allowed all property owners within the SAD to have a say in something that has a profound impact on their property. Arguably this was more fair and MORE democratic than a “vote” because it allowed the people impacted by the decision to participate. It’s unfortunate that the minority is unhappy with what the majority decided and the PA 188 process, but it is not undemocratic.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha Barta
Lyon Township
