October 16, 1998

Michigan Ballot Proposal C: Clean Michigan Initiative

by J. Chris Monsma, Senior Consultant for Natural Resources

The Clean Michigan Initiative (ballot proposal C) is a $675-million bond issue that will be before the voters on November 3; the precise wording of the ballot question is presented at the end of this narrative. Passage seems to be a sure thing. First, the initiative has been marketed well. Second, it has broad, bipartisan support (from U. S. Sen. Spencer Abraham to Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer, people on both side of the aisle are lining up in support), and there is no organized opposition. Third, environmental issues play well at the polls in this state: past performance includes overwhelming approval of the $800-million Quality of Life Bond (1988) and constitutional amendments protecting the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (1984 and 1994).

The Clean Michigan Initiative has nine components.

• $335 million for "brownfield" redevelopment and environmental cleanup
• $90 million for a clean water fund
• $50 million for "nonpoint" pollution-control grants
• $25 million for cleanup of contaminated sediment
• $50 million for waterfront reclamation and revitalization
• $50 million for state park revitalization
• $50 million to enhance local parks and recreation opportunities
• $20 million for pollution prevention
• $5 million for lead hazard control

With the exhaustion of funds generated from the 1988 Quality of Life bond this year, the Clean Michigan Initiative targets some familiar goals. As before, local and state parks will receive additional funding. In 1988 the focus for environmental cleanup was groundwater, while this time the focus is on urban brownfields (sites with public health and environmental problems and/or redevelopment potential), rivers, and waterfronts.

The State of Michigan contends the time is ripe for issuing bonds. With low inflation, an excellent bond rating, and reasonably low public indebtedness in Michigan, the Clean Michigan Initiative makes good economic sense. The proposal is solid and deserves passage, but the public must not be lulled into thinking that this bond issue will solve all the pressing needs of the environment.

As the proposal was being formulated, there was a late push, which was rejected, to have funds also dedicated to farmland protection. Urban sprawl and the accompanying loss of farmland to development are major environmental problems in this state. While brownfield redevelopment strengthens Michigan’s economy and environment, the Clean Michigan Initiative alone may be insufficient to reverse the tide of urban sprawl. Cleaning industrial sites may not serve to reverse—or even slow—the current trend of developing rural "greenfields" instead of reusing property in older industrial cities.

Michigan voters may ask why funding for certain environmental projects/questions have to be approached though the ballot. The answer is that despite broad public support for a clean, safe environment and high-quality outdoor recreation, state and local environment/recreation appropriations and policy frequently fall short of public desire in this regard.

Cleaning up orphaned, abandoned sites is a positive step by the state, and park improvements are needed as their infrastructure ages. But there are other large environment questions that remain to be addressed, and many need innovative solutions beyond the infusion of state bond dollars.

Proposal C

A Proposal to Authorize Bonds for Environmental and Natural Resources Protection Programs

This proposal would:

1. Authorize the State of Michigan to borrow a sum not to exceed $675 million dollars to finance environmental and natural resources protection programs that would clean up and redevelop contaminated sites, protect and improve water quality, prevent pollution, abate lead contamination, reclaim and revitalize community waterfronts, enhance recreational opportunities, and clean up contaminated sediments in lakes, rivers, and streams.
2. Authorize the state to issue general obligation bonds pledging the full faith and credit of the state for the payment of principal and interest on the bond.
3. Provide for repayment of the bonds from the general fund of the state.

Should this proposal be approved? (Yes/No)