• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How to ban OC at Hoedown..change venue

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
WYCD and Detroit found a legal way to ban OC at the Hoedown this year...change venue. Now Comerica park is quite possibly public property as it is owned by an authority(there is that word again), but I highly doubt they will acquiesce and allow OC in Comerica Park. Good luck with the backlash for charging $30 for an event that has always been free.

http://www.freep.com/article/201203...-June-date?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
Have you not followed the CADL case? One judge already ruled authorities are not bound by preemption. Although not precedent yet, it seems foolish to fight that fight until our appeal is heard and hopefully won.

That is a wise thing to do.

BTW - I know the Lawyers have been not keen on the idea of challenging CADL per MCL 124.502 and MCL 124.504. I still believe that the case would be won quickest using that argument. While it may not set the precedent that some may want, THE GOAL IS TO WIN.

URBAN COOPERATION ACT OF 1967 Act 7 of 1967 (Ex. Sess.) said:
124.502 Definitions.

Sec. 2.

As used in this act:

(a) “Interlocal agreement” means an agreement entered into under this act.

(b) “Local governmental unit” means a county, city, village, township, or charter township.

(c) “Province” means a province of Canada.

(d) “Property” means any real or personal property, as described in section 34c of the general property tax act, 1893 PA 206, MCL 211.34c.

(e) “Public agency” means a political subdivision of this state or of another state of the United States or of Canada, including, but not limited to, a state government; a county, city, village, township, charter township, school district, single or multipurpose special district, or single or multipurpose public authority; a provincial government, metropolitan government, borough, or other political subdivision of Canada; an agency of the United States government; or a similar entity of any other states of the United States and of Canada. As used in this subdivision, agency of the United States government includes an Indian tribe recognized by the federal government before 2000 that exercises governmental authority over land within this state, except that this act or any intergovernmental agreement entered into under this act shall not authorize the approval of a class III gaming compact negotiated under the Indian gaming regulatory act, Public Law 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467.

(f) “State” means a state of the United States.

124.504 Joint exercise of powers.

Sec. 4.

A public agency of this state may exercise jointly with any other public agency of this state, with a public agency of any other state of the United States, with a public agency of Canada, or with any public agency of the United States government any power, privilege, or authority that the agencies share in common and that each might exercise separately.

CADL is formed of County of Ingham and the City of Lansing. The County of Ingham and the City of Lansing appoint members to the CADL Board. Upon dissolution, the assets of CADL would be distributed between the County of Ingham and the City of Lansing. It is a JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER to provide Library Services under the District Library Act for the County of Ingham and the City of Lansing. Due to this, MCL 124.504 clearly applies and CADL would therefore be Preempted.

From the Michigan District Library Law:

Introduction said:
Michigan’s District Library Establishment Act, effective 22 May 1989, allows two or more municipalities to join together to form a district library. District library boards control district libraries and are taxing authorities pursuant to the Michigan Constitution, Article IX, section 6. As taxing authorities, the district library boards have the power to place a districtwide library millage question on the ballot for voter approval.

ESTABLISHMENT said:
To establish a district library, at least two municipalities must agree to join to provide library service. The statute defines a “municipality” as a city, village, school district, township, or county. The municipalities that join to establish a district library are referred to as “participating municipalities” in the statute.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal_lm_distliblaw_51001_7.pdf

Since this law was passed in 1989, the Michigan Legislators would have been clearly aware of the URBAN COOPERATION ACT OF 1967.

But hey, what do I know? :confused:

IT DOES SEEM CLEARER EACH TIME I LOOK AT IT THAT MCL 124.504 IS THE WAY TO DEFEAT CADL ONCE AND FOR ALL.
 

maustin195

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
120
Location
, ,
WYCD and Detroit found a legal way to ban OC at the Hoedown this year...change venue. Now Comerica park is quite possibly public property as it is owned by an authority(there is that word again), but I highly doubt they will acquiesce and allow OC in Comerica Park. Good luck with the backlash for charging $30 for an event that has always been free.

http://www.freep.com/article/201203...-June-date?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

To be clear on this the Hoedown will not be "in" Comerica Park it will be "at" the park. By that I mean only using parking lots and external areas acording to people involved with the park.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
To be clear on this the Hoedown will not be "in" Comerica Park it will be "at" the park. By that I mean only using parking lots and external areas acording to people involved with the park.

The parking lots are owned by whoever owns comerica park, therefore they control that portion of the property as well.

The question as has been stated is, if Comerica is owned and operated by a municipal authority then preemption may or may not apply. Once a court of appeals decision is made one way or the other in regards to an authority, it sounds like MOC will not engage the Hoedown promoters.

If MOC wins the court of appeals and it is found that an authority is a local unit of government and preemption applies then next year this issue will be taken on. Or, if MOC loses, the legislature can always correct it by including authorities in the preemption statute.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
They have had the time, and the opportunity, and they know exactly what we want them to do, why we want it done, and how to do it. They swore an oath to the constitution, neither of which mean squat to them.
 
Last edited:

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
They have had the time, and the opportunity, and they know exactly wht we want them to do, why we want it done, and how to do it. They swore an oath to the constitution, neither of which mean squat ti them.

It has been clearly and publicly stated that the Michigan Legislature is waiting for the Michigan Court of Appeals to Rule on the CADL Case before they act.

Take your angst somewhere else.
 
Top