text:
Michigan Use Tax and Community Stabilization Share, Proposal 1 (August 2014)
| ||||||||||||||||
The Michigan Use Tax and Community Stabilization Share, Proposal 1 was on the August 5, 2014, ballot in Michigan as a legislatively-referred state statute, where it was approved.
The measure activated a package of legislatively approved bills that was designed to do the following:[1][2]
- Phase out the Personal Property Tax or PPT on industrial and commercial personal property.
- Levy an Essential Services Assessment millage tax on industrial property that is exempted from the PPT.
- Split the State Use Tax into two taxes, a State Share Tax and a Local Community Stabilization Share Tax.
- Create a Local Community Stabilization Authority to administer the Local Community Stabilization Share Tax.
- Replace the revenue local governments would lose without the PPT with revenue from the Local Community Stabilization Share Tax.
- Replace some of the revenue the state government would lose with revenue from the Essential Services Assessment.
Personal Property Tax
Proposal 1 was developed to exempt commercial and industrial personal property from the "Personal Property Tax" (PPT).[1] The PPT was described as having a "misleading name" and being "an inaccurately named levy" because the tax was not levied on an individual's personal property, as the tax's name would suggest.[3][4] The PPT on industrial and commercial property acted as an annual business tax levied by municipalities on property that was not part of a structure, such as machinery, equipment, and furniture. Proposal 1 was designed to phase out the tax on all industrial personal property and a portion of commercial personal property by 2023. Businesses with total personal property valued at or below $80,000 were able to file for exemption from the PPT immediately, rather than waiting for the phase out to be completed.[1][2]
Some municipalities relied heavily on revenue from the PPT for local school districts, community colleges, public libraries, transit authorities, ambulance services, police and firefighters. Proposal 1 was tailored to replace revenue local governments would lose without the PPT with revenue from a portion of the use tax, known as the Local Community Stabilization Share Tax. Revenue lost by the state government due to reallocating some use tax revenue to local governments was replaced, in part, with revenue from the Essential Services Assessment (ESA).
Essential Services Assessment
The proposal levied an ESA on industrial property that became exempted from the PPT. The tax is calculated by multiplying the property's acquisition cost by a millage rate based on how long the taxpayer has owned the property. The millage rates by years of ownership are:[1]
Years of ownership | Rate |
0 - 5 years | 2.40 mills |
6 - 10 years | 1.25 mills |
11 or more years | 0.90 mills |
The ESA allows for exemptions when a company invests $25 million over 5 years in Michigan.
Those exempted from the ESA may be subject to an Alternative State Essential Services Assessment (ASESA), which is half the millage rates established by the ESA:[1]
Years of ownership | Rate |
0 - 5 years | 1.20 mills |
6 - 10 years | 0.625 mills |
11 or more years | 0.45 mills |
All revenue from the ESA and ASESA are dedicated to the Michigan General Fund.[1]
Local Community Stabilization Share Tax
The Local Community Stabilization Share Tax was created by reorganizing the state's use tax into two taxes - (1) a Local Community Stabilization Share Tax and (2) a State Share Tax.[5] The use tax is levied on a person purchasing personal property or services on which sales tax has not been paid. Examples include goods purchased from out-of-state, rental properties, lodging and telecommunication services.[6] The state use tax is levied at a rate of 6 percent and the two share taxes are levied at a combined rate of 6 percent. Therefore, Proposal 1 did not increase taxes.
The local community stabilization share tax rate is determined annually by the Michigan Department of Treasury. The department calculates the rate based on revenue targets. The following are the revenue targets laid out by Proposal 1:[2]
Fiscal year | Revenue target |
2016 | $96,100,000 |
2017 | $380,600,000 |
2018 | $410,500,000 |
2019 | $437,700,000 |
2020 | $465,900,000 |
2021 | $491,500,000 |
2022 | $521,300,000 |
2023 | $548,000,000 |
2024 | $561,700,000 |
2025 | $569,800,000 |
2026 | $571,400,000 |
2027 | $572,000,000 |
2028 | $572,600,000 |
2029 | 1 percent growth from prior year |
State Share Tax
Since the Local Community Stabilization Share Tax and State Share Tax cannot exceed a combined rate of 6 percent, the state share tax rate follows a simple formula:[2]
State Share Tax rate = 6 percent - Local Community Stabilization Share Tax rate. |
Local Community Stabilization Authority
The State Share Tax is administered by the state, while the Local Community Stabilization Share Tax is administered by a Local Community Stabilization Authority.[2] The authority receives revenue from the tax and distributes such to local governments. Revenue is distributed for the purposes of funding school districts, fire protection, police officers and emergency services.[5]
Proposal 1 was forced onto the ballot by Section 31 of Article IX of the Michigan Constitution, which requires voter approval for any new taxes levied by local governments. The Local Community Stabilization Authority, the body that administers the tax, is classified as a "local unit of government."[2]
Proposal 1 was designed to take effect on January 1, 2015. If defeated, Proposal 1 would have not taken effect, and the related legislation would have been repealed.[1]
There was no organized opposition to Proposal 1. Nevertheless, proponents expressed concern that the proposal may be defeated anyway due to "the complexity of the issue" and the ballot measure's "virtually incomprehensible" language.[7][3] Proposal 1 supporters hoped to clear up confusion through a well-funded campaign. Proponents raised $8,498,328, despite having no organized opponents.[8]
Election results
The following are the official elections results:
Michigan Proposal 1 | ||||
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
Yes | 863,459 | 69.29% | ||
No | 382,770 | 30.71% |
- These results are from the Michigan Secretary of State.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot measure's text was based on the effects of Public Act 80. However, Proposal 1 activated a package of statutes, not just Public Act 80.
The official ballot text read as follows:[5]
The amendatory act adopted by the Legislature would:
Should this law be approved? |
" |
Bill package
Proposal 1 was technically Public Act 80 of 2014. However, Proposal 1 activated 10 other statutes, making the proposal much more than just Public Act 80.[10] None of the statutes would have gone into effect without the approval of Proposal 1 on August 5, 2014. The following is a summary of the statutes enacted by Proposal 1 provided by Anderson Economic Group:[11]
Passed in 2012:
- Public Act 401 of 2012: All new manufacturing-related personal property is no longer subject to the PPT starting December 31, 2015. PA 401 was later amended by PA 154.
- Public Act 402 of 2012: All commercial and industrial personal property of a single owner valued at less than $40,000 is exempt from the PPT starting December 31, 2013. PA 402 was later amended by PA 153.
- Note: Public Act 402 is the only statute already in effect. If Proposal 1 is defeated, Public Act 402 will be reversed.
- Public Act 403 of 2012: All industrial personal property that is ten years old or older is no longer subject to the PPT starting December 31, 2015.
Passed in 2013:
- Public Act 153 of 2013: Amends PA 402 to exempt all commercial and industrial personal property of a single owner valued at less than $80,000 starting December 31, 2013. Also, amends PA 402 to include deadline for application for the exemption and the penalty for a fraudulent claim.
- Public Act 154 of 2013: Amends PA 401 to include deadline for application for the exemption and outline the penalty for a fraudulent claim.
Passed in 2014:
- Public Act 80 of 2014: Creates the Local Community Stabilization Share Tax by dividing the use tax into a local share tax and a state share tax. The tax is to be administered by the Local Community Stabilization Authority (LCSA).
- Public Act 86 of 2014: Creates the Local Community Stabilization Authority (LCSA). Also, PA 86 establishes the formula for reimbursement of municipalities, sets up a prioritized list for reimbursements to local governments and requires the state to appropriate enough funds to make up for debt loss in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
- Public Act 87 of 2014: Makes minor amendments to 2012 acts in order for them to apply to 2014 statutes.
- Public Act 88 of 2014: Gives the LCSA authority over telecommunications right-of-way oversight.
- Public Act 92 of 2014: Creates the Essential Services Assessment (ESA) beginning on January 1, 2016.
- Public Act 93 of 2014: Creates the Alternative State Essential Services Assessment (ASESA) beginning on January 1, 2016.
If Proposal 1 was defeated, the entire PPT phase out would have been halted.[12]
Revenue from the PPT
Some municipalities were heavily dependent on revenue from the PPT.[13] Approximately two-thirds of municipalities, on the other hand, derived less than one percent of their property tax revenue from the PPT on industrial property.[11] The Detroit Free Press described these communities as "bedroom communities" or commuter towns where people live, but work somewhere else.[13] The Anderson Economic Group located the top ten municipalities that relied on the PPT on industrial property:[11]
Use tax history
The state's use tax is levied on a person purchasing personal property or services on which sales tax has not been paid. Examples include goods purchased from out-of-state, rental properties, lodging and telecommunication services.[6] It was adopted in 1937 via Public Act 94 at a rate of 3 percent. The use tax rate was increased by law to 4 percent in 1960. In 1994, voters approved Proposal A, a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment which increased the use tax rate to 6 percent. The 2 percent increase was put in Section 8 of Article IX of the Michigan Constitution. Therefore, the use tax, unless the constitution is changed, must be at a rate of at least 2 percent. That 2 percent is deposited into the state school fund. Proposal 1 reorganized the use tax into a State Share Tax and a Local Community Stabilization Share Tax.[2]
The following graph illustrates use tax revenue in Michigan from 1938 through 2012:[2]
Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities led the campaign in support of the measure.[14] The group raised $8,498,328, despite having no organized opposition. One reason the group raised so much money was because of the ballot measure's confusing language. While Proposal 1 was designed to phase out aspects of the PPT, for example, this was no where mentioned in the measure's language.[8] Deena Bosworth of the Michigan Association of Counties, an organization that supported Proposal 1, said the measure was "complicated – you can't explain it in 30 seconds. People don't understand it."[15] Laura Berman, a columnist for The Detroit News, similarly noted the measure's complexity, saying, "What do you do when a ballot question requires a week's worth of study and analysis to understand..."[16]
Supporters of Proposal 1 contended that the PPT was putting Michigan at a competitive disadvantage and limiting investment since most states in the region don't have a similar tax. They argued that phasing out the PPT would increase big and small business investment and create new jobs in Michigan. They said that Proposal 1's aim was to help local communities who rely on the PPT for essential services because the measure creates new sources of revenue for these communities without raising taxes. Therefore, Proposal 1 was proposed to help businesses and communities flourish.
The following legislators sponsored the amendment in the Michigan Legislature:[5]
- Sen. Dave Hildenbrand (R-29)
- Sen. Mark Jansen (R-28)
- Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-18)
- Sen. John Moolenaar (R-36)
- Sen. Jack Brandenburg (R-11)
- Rep. Jase Bolger (R-63)
- Rep. Jeff Farrington (R-30)
Other officials who supported the measure included:
- Gov. Rick Snyder (R)[17]
- Lt. Gov. Brian Calley (R)[18]
- Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D-23)[19]
- Sen. Mike Green (R-31)[20]
- Sen. Jim Ananich (D-27)[21]
- Rep. Tom Hooker (R-77)[22]
- Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero (D)[23]
- Dearborn Mayor Jack O'Reilly (D)[24]
- Holland Mayor Kurt Dykstra (R)
- Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel (D)[19]
- Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson (R)[19]
Former officials
- Former Attorney General Frank Kelley (D)[25]
- Tom Watkins, former superintendent of public instruction[26]
- Michigan Manufacturers Association[43]
- Michigan Municipal League[44]
- Michigan Association of Counties[45]
- Michigan Townships Association[46]
- Michigan League for Public Policy
- West Michigan Policy Forum
- Michigan Farm Bureau[47]
- Michigan AARP[48]
- Michigan Association of School Administrators
- Michigan Association of School Boards
- Michigan Community College Association
- Michigan Library Association[49]
- Michigan Sheriff's Association[50]
- Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police
- Police Officers Association of Michigan
- Fraternal Order of Police
- Michigan Association of Fire Chiefs
- Michigan Professional Fire Fighters Union
- Michigan Food & Beverage Association
- Michigan Restaurant Association
- Michigan Grocers Association
- Michigan Soft Drink Association
- Michigan Retailers Association
- Michigan Infrastructure & Transportation Association
- Associated Petroleum Industries of Michigan
- Michigan Concrete Association
- Business Leaders for Michigan
- Michigan Business & Professional Association
- National Federation of Independent Business – Michigan
- Michigan Association of Realtors
- Great Lakes Bay Manufacturers Association
- Lake Superior Community Partnership[51]
Chambers of Commerce
- Michigan Chamber of Commerce[45]
- Alpena Area Chamber of Commerce
- Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti (A2Y) Regional Chamber
- Battle Creek Area Chamber of Commerce
- Berrien County Manufacturers Council
- Blue Water Area Chamber of Commerce
- Detroit Regional Chamber
- Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce
- Grand Blanc Chamber of Commerce
- Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce
- Howell Area Chamber of Commerce[52]
- Hudsonville Area Chamber of Commerce
- Jackson County Chamber of Commerce
- Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce
- Livonia Chamber of Commerce
- Ludington & Scottville Area Chamber of Commerce
- Michigan West Coast Chamber of Commerce
- Northern Michigan Chamber Alliance
- Petoskey Regional Chamber of Commerce
- Plymouth Community Chamber of Commerce
- Saginaw County Chamber of Commerce[53]
- Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce
- Waterford Area Chamber of Commerce
A Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities campaign video titled "Jobs." |
Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities broke down their argument in support of the proposal into a section on "the problem" and a section on "the solution." The following is an excerpt from their analysis of "the problem:"
" |
The problem for local communities: Michigan communities have struggled for years to pay for essential services like police, fire, ambulances, schools, roads and jails. Communities also battle for annual legislative appropriations in Lansing to fund other services, including roads and libraries, through revenue sharing. How it's collected: Currently, the personal property tax is collected by local municipalities according to local millage rates. This means businesses with multiple locations in multiple jurisdictions pay multiple personal property tax bills at varying rates. For some smaller municipalities, the cost of assessing and collecting this tax is almost more than they collect. Double-taxing small businesses: For decades, Michigan has unfairly double-taxed small businesses with a business equipment tax – known as the personal property tax – on all equipment. Most neighboring states don't tax business equipment at all, which makes Michigan much less competitive when it comes to creating jobs and attracting business investment. A tax that never goes away: Each year, equipment is assessed a taxable value and the owner pays a tax based on the local millage rate. In addition to the 6 percent sales tax paid for most items purchased or sold in Michigan, small businesses pay additional personal property taxes on that equipment every single year just for owning it – that tax never goes away, no matter how old the equipment is. An antiquated, obsolete tax: This antiquated, double-tax has been on the books since the 1800s. Other states in our region have eliminated these antiquated taxes or have dramatically lowered rates, making it difficult for Michigan to compete. This tax limits investment: Only businesses, including small businesses, pay personal property taxes on their equipment. Taxes on business capital are considered by economists to limit investment, making Michigan less competitive than other states. Reforming this tax will create jobs and increase investment: Eliminating the Personal Property Tax will create up to 15,000 jobs and $450 million in additional investment. In fact, no other state in our region taxes business equipment the way Michigan does – and no state except one in our region taxes it at all, which puts Michigan at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to job creation and business investment. [9] |
" |
—Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities [55] |
A Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities'' campaign video titled "Hurts." |
The following is an excerpt from their analysis of "the solution:"
" |
Stabilizing Services In Your Community: Proposal 1 creates a stable, reliable funding system for communities in Michigan to pay for police, fire, ambulances, jails, senior services, schools, libraries, roads and other community services. Local Control Guarantees: Proposal 1 comes with two guarantees: 100 percent of the funding for local community services will be returned directly to your community for police, fire, senior services, ambulances, jails, schools, roads, libraries and other community services. No More Playing Politics With Local Communities: 100 percent of this dedicated funding for local community services is no longer subject to the uncertainty and instability of annual legislative appropriations or political gamesmanship in Lansing. Gives small businesses a fighting chance: Proposal 1 ends the unfair double tax on small businesses to give them a fighting chance and help them create more jobs. It keeps in place the legislature' work to end this unfair double tax on personal property. No tax increase - for anybody!: Proposal 1 doesn't raise tax rates. Instead, it is paid for by eliminating special corporate tax loopholes that the legislature has already voted to end, and by establishing a statewide Essential Services Assessment that is only paid for by manufacturers that receive a Personal Property Tax reduction. Small businesses are already seeing benefits: Small businesses stopped paying the double tax on personal property effective January 2014. Manufacturing businesses, large and small, will see this antiquated uncompetitive tax phased out over time, beginning in 2016. Proposal 1 will create jobs and boost investment in Michigan: The U.S. Small Business Administration found that nearly two-thirds of net new jobs over the past 15 years were created by small businesses. Personal Property Tax reform will free up money that can be used for job growth. Eliminating the Personal Property Tax will create up to 15,000 jobs and $450 million in additional investment. Proposal 1 creates an environment for economic growth: Finally, Proposal 1 won't increase taxes. Instead, it will create an environment that attracts employers to Michigan while ensuring important local services are protected with stable funding sources. [9] |
" |
—Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities [56] |
A 'Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities'' campaign video titled "Fifteen." |
Maureen Krauss, vice president of economic development for business attraction at the Detroit Regional Chamber, said one primary reason that businesses do not move to Michigan is the PPT. She noted, "I hear it in every state the Detroit Regional Chamber travels to: "Get rid of the personal property tax — then let's talk." That's the reaction from potential investors across the country as they consider moving their operations and jobs to Michigan." Krauss continued, saying:
" | A "yes" vote on Proposal 1 is a game-changer. It removes the outdated tax known as the personal property tax and makes Michigan more competitive in attracting jobs and investment. With Michigan's reinvention well underway, taking that comeback to the next level requires attracting more investment from outside the state.
Unfortunately, when businesses consider locating in Michigan, they have to face paying the PPT on equipment they use to do business, every single year, on the very same piece of equipment. So that advanced manufacturing equipment they purchase to produce high-tech automotive parts or medical devices could cost them the same tax, year after year, for decades. That's not exactly a welcome mat. The PPT also impacts businesses and communities across Michigan. Businesses here pay that cost, putting them at a tremendous disadvantage when their competitors in neighboring states don't have to. That's money that could be used to expand and create jobs. At the same time, Michigan's local communities have struggled for years with the unpredictable revenue fluctuations the PPT produces. [9] |
" |
—Maureen Krauss [57] |
Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, who originally voted against the bill in the Michigan Senate, came out in support of the measure following analyses of the proposal:
" | Unfortunately, I didn't have the assurances I needed to answer those questions as the legislation was hurried through without the opportunity for any real debate, leading me to be one of only two senators to vote against it at the time.
Since then, however, the analyses done by local government officials and fiscal agencies have answered my questions and addressed my concerns. Now that I have those assurances, I'm confident Proposal 1 is right for Michigan. Michigan communities will be reimbursed for 100 percent of the estimated PPT revenue lost for local services. Essential local services such as police, fire and ambulances, along with schools, libraries, roads and jails, will receive the same level of funding that the PPT provided. Proposal 1 is paid for entirely by eliminating some of the billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks the state hands out and by a statewide Essential Services Assessment paid only by manufacturers receiving a PPT reduction. The resulting revenue stream for local services will be much more reliable than the PPT, which has been notoriously unstable. I am confident Proposal 1 is good for local communities and good for local businesses. [9] |
" |
—Sen. Gretchen Whitmer [58] |
A Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities'' campaign video titled "Facts." |
Tom Watkins, who served as the Michigan Superintendent of Public Instruction from 2001 to 2005, deemed Proposal 1 a "win-win-win." He listed several reasons to support the ballot measure:
" |
" |
—Tom Watkins [26] |
Other arguments in favor of the proposal include:
- Speaker of the House Jase Bolger (R-63) said, "We are getting rid of a job-killing tax and replacing it with a job-creating solution. For years, our state lost out on jobs to neighboring states that do not punish their employers for investing in new equipment. Well, today those states no longer have that advantage and will have a front-row seat to watch as Michigan attracts new and better careers."[18]
- Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-18) stated, "We finally got it right. You will see, I think, a lot of broad bipartisan support. We can both modernize our tax structure and make sure our local communities have a stable revenue stream long into the future."[24]
- Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel (D) concluded, "A yes vote for Proposal 1 solves two major problems for Michigan and Macomb County without raising taxes. Proposal 1 replaces 100 percent of the estimated revenues lost by eliminating the Personal Property Tax for important services like police, fire, schools, ambulances, roads, jails and libraries. Second, a yes vote on Proposal 1 supports local small businesses and manufacturers by reforming the uncompetitive Personal Property Tax."[19]
- Amy Clickner, CEO of Lake Superior Community Partnership, said, "As an economic development organization, we see the value in eliminating the cumbersome tax and believe it will be especially positive for small business. However, we were not willing to support the tax elimination if it meant a negative financial impact to our local municipalities, which has been corrected in the passed legislation."[51]
- A Pittsfield Township business owner, who remained unidentified, stated, "I paid about $200 for the computers I have and not much more for the furniture. But the assessed value was about $4,000. I pay about $100 a year (in PPT)."[59]
Campaign contributions
Total campaign cash as of July 28, 2014 | |
Support: | $8,498,328 |
Opposition: | $0 |
Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities committee received $8,498,328 in contributions.[43]
PAC info:
PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities | $8,498,328 | $6,946,209 |
Total | $8,498,328 | $6,946,209 |
The following is a list of those who contributed $30,000 or more to Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities:[43]
Top contributors:
Donor | Amount |
Michigan Manufacturers Association | $2,831,384 |
Ford Motor Company | $2,000,000 |
Dow Chemical | $1,500,000 |
General Motors Corp. | $501,031 |
Dow Corning | $500,000 |
Alticor Inc. | $250,000 |
Chrysler Corp. | $250,000 |
Kellogg Corp. | $200,000 |
Consumers Energy Company | $50,000 |
DTE Energy Co. | $50,000 |
John Kennedy III | $50,000 |
Haworth Inc. | $50,000 |
Lear Corporation | $50,000 |
Herman Miller | $50,000 |
Michigan Chamber of Commerce | $30,000 |
Masco Corp. | $30,000 |
Proposal 1 faced no organized opposition.[7] However, there were a few individuals, such as Warren Mayor James R. Fouts (I), who opposed the proposal.[60] James Hohman of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy said many of the question he received from people opposed to the proposal were Tea Party members. He found this strange, saying, "This proposal cuts taxes and pays for it from the state budget. It is a little strange that the main opposition seems to be some Tea Party supporters."[61]
Opponents argued that Proposal 1's primary problem was a lack of adequate replacement revenue. Timothy J. Bartik, economist at the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, said that "if Proposal 1 passes, the state's budget situation will deteriorate and services are likely to suffer." Mayor Fouts agreed, calling Proposal 1 a "large corporate giveaway that will result in service cutbacks and employee lay-offs by cities like Warren." Some opponents said the arguments that businesses aren't investing in Michigan due to the PPT were reductionist. Businesses make investment decisions based on other factors, such as qualified workers, excellent transportation infrastructure and desirable neighborhoods, not just the PPT.[62][60]
The following legislators voted against putting the proposal on the ballot in the Michigan Legislature:[63]
- Note: Sen. Whitmer opposed the bill in the legislature, but came out in support of the proposal in July 2014.[19]
- Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D-23)[13]
- Sen. Coleman Young II (D-1)
- Rep. Vicki Barnett (D-37)
- Rep. Bob Genetski (R-80)
- Rep. Rose Mary Robinson (D-4)
- Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-6)
- Rep. Gretchen Driskell (D-52)
Other officials who opposed the measure included:
- Wayne County Taxpayer Association[64]
- Chris Savage, owner of the "progressive" Eclectablog[65]
James R. Fouts (I), Mayor of Warren, called the ballot measure a "large corporate giveaway." He criticized the argument that phasing out the PPT would create jobs. The following is an excerpt from his argument:
" | As the mayor of Warren, the state's third-largest city in population, I oppose Proposal 1 because it is unfair and burdensome to cities like Warren…
The argument claiming that personal property tax increases the overhead for the municipality and is a bureaucratic nightmare is not valid either. In fact, this proposal increases the paperwork, monitoring, verifying and reporting of both exempt and nonexempt personal property for the municipality. It should be left up to the local jurisdiction to determine whether it can afford to exempt personal property for a manufacturer. A jurisdiction already has the right to exempt personal property to industries on a per parcel basis. Proposal 1 takes that local control away. It has been our experience that businesses choose to locate and invest in communities for a variety of reasons, only one of which is low taxes. Qualified workers, excellent transportation, reliable infrastructure, dependable public services, quality schools and desirable neighborhoods are all important ingredients. I view Proposal 1 on the August ballot as another large corporate giveaway that will result in service cutbacks and employee lay-offs by cities like Warren. So much for the argument that the proposal will create new jobs. This is a very confusing propaganda proposal, primarily benefiting industrial manufactures. For that reason, I call it a hoax on taxpayers and urge voters to vote against Proposal 1. [9] |
" |
—Mayor James R. Fouts (I) [60] |
Timothy J. Bartik, senior economist at the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, offered critical commentary of Proposal 1. Bartik said the proposal may exacerbate the state's budget issues:
" | The main problem with Proposal 1 is the lack of adequate replacement revenue. The $600 million in funds for local governments are provided in part by a new, smaller statewide tax on business personal property, which would eventually provide about $100 million annually.
The remaining $500 million that would eventually be needed for local governments is not financed by new revenue, but rather would be diverted from the state's general fund, which supports health care programs, the criminal justice system, higher education, and human services programs. Some Proposal 1 proponents argue that the remaining $500 million is financed by expiring business tax credits. However, these expiring business tax credits were already scheduled to expire, and should not be counted as "new revenue". Michigan faces a long-run budget problem. The state's tax revenue grows slower than the state economy, while spending pressures grow faster than the state economy. Proposal 1 worsens this problem by about $500 million per year. This loss in revenue could reduce state services, which could worsen the state's economic competitiveness, even with lower personal property taxes. Voters face this choice: if Proposal 1 passes, the state's budget situation will deteriorate and services are likely to suffer. If Proposal 1 is voted down, it is possible that the state legislature will re-enact personal property tax elimination without replacement revenue for local governments… Regardless of what happens to Proposal 1, Michigan faces significant long-run budget challenges. The news media, outside public interest groups, and state policymakers need to focus more on the long-term budget issues facing the state, and possible tax and budget reforms to deal with these issues. We can't keep kicking the can down the (pothole-strewn) road. [9] |
" |
—Timothy J. Bartik [62] |
Chris Savage, owner of the "progressive" Eclectablog, said he voted no on Proposal 1 and offered a critique of the measure. The following is an excerpt from his critique:
" | At the end of the day, voters need to decide (a) if the shift in tax revenues to give businesses – small businesses and large corporations alike – a(nother) tax break is a smart move that will improve our state business climate and (b) if the state legislature can be trusted not to change things at a later date in a way that harms local municipalities. Given their track record with things like reneging state revenue sharing – tax revenues that are returned to local communities – many are concerned that they can NOT be trusted. How that would play out is largely dependent on who we elect to the state legislature in the future...
As I have said, I am voting NO on Proposal 1. If lawmakers want to get rid of the PPT, that's fine. But to do so requires a much more comprehensive tax reform plan than this haphazard one. And, at the end of the day, businesses in Michigan are already enjoying massive tax breaks thanks to Republicans in charge of our government and we've seen very little to show for it. In fact, we still have the third highest unemployment rate in the USA. It's hard to see how even more tax breaks are going to have a discernible impact. [9] |
" |
—Chris Savage [65] |
Other arguments against the ballot measure include:
- Andrew Meisner (D), treasurer of Oakland County, argued that Proposal 1's suggested benefits were based on a theory and not evidence. He stated, "I'd like to see the data. Local governments are being asked to make a sacrifice based on an unproven theory."[16]
- The Wayne County Taxpayer Association said the association opposed the PPT, but also rejected the Local Community Stabilization Authority. The organization argued, "This Authority would be granted an enormous responsibility. That cannot be good for taxpayers. The line in the proposal that limits the used/sales tax [sic] to 6% does not address the expansion of the sales tax to, for example, internet purchases or fines or penalties for failure to comply. It does not address other things that they may choose to include as taxable by the sales tax which they seem to think they have the authority to adjust."[64]
Media editorial positions
- Crain's Detroit Business said, "The PPT has been unpopular for a long time. Businesses don't like it because it's hard to figure out and it's not charged by most nearby states. Local governments haven't liked it because the assessments are constantly under appeal by businesses. The current proposal addresses the concerns of both businesses and municipalities and doesn't raise anyone's taxes."[66]
- Detroit Free Press said, "Ultimately, if voters don't approve Prop 1, the personal property tax will go back into effect, along with the bureaucratic mess it causes businesses and cities... We haven't always agreed with [Gov. Snyder's] decisions, but on this one, we're all in. Municipalities need steady funding; both businesses and municipalities need less overhead in the taxation process. Take the time to read the ballot language, and information about the tax replacement, and vote yes on Aug. 5."[67]
- The Detroit News said, "Everybody wins if Prop 1 passes. Voters should not get caught up in the awkwardly worded language of the proposal, nor in suspicions that it's a backdoor business tax break. It isn't."[68]
- Escanaba Daily Press said, "A proposal that helps Michigan businesses without hurting local governments and schools is a good deal for everyone, including homeowners."[69]
- Gannett Company, owner of Observer & Eccentric, Battle Creek Enquirer, Port Huron Times Herald and Livingston Daily, said, "A proposal that helps Michigan businesses without hurting local governments and schools is a good deal for everyone, including homeowners. That's why voters should support Proposal 1 during the Aug. 5 state primary."[70][71]
- The Herald-Palladium said, "There really isn't much to dislike about the proposal, other than the cockeyed ballot language. We hope voters educate themselves about the proposal and understand its benefits. A "yes" vote really would help move Michigan forward."[72]
- Holland Sentinel said, "Proposal 1 may sound like a technical, inside-government issue, but it's important to everyone in Michigan. It is a rare and gratifying example of legislators addressing a real problem and working together to fix it."[73]
- Huron Daily Tribune said, "Unlike many prior state proposals, there is no measured opposition to this proposal. That's because it's a win for businesses and a win for Michigan."[74]
- Lansing State Journal said, "It is a rare occurrence in Michigan when a reform effort wins broad support from a coalition that draws large and small business, labor, government, Democrats and Republicans. Yet that's what has happened with Proposal 1, a statewide question that will appear on the Aug. 5 primary ballot."[75]
- The Michigan Daily said, "Prop. 1 includes an effective method to regain tax money. Allowing arbitrary and outdated business tax to expire is a commendable initiative."[76]
- Midland Daily News said, "Everyone under the sun is saying that citizens should vote yes on Proposal 1, which would eliminate the state personal property tax, described by Lt. Gov. Brian Calley when he was in town last week as antiquated, outdated, burdensome and anti-investment. Yes, it is all those things."[77]
- MLive Media Group said, "The fact that there is no organized opposition to the proposal is rare and telling. In fact, the greatest threat to the proposal is voter skepticism and mistrust of government. We think skepticism is healthy, but we also believe this is the best solution available right now."[78]
- Petoskey News-Review said, "With no tax increases included, we see this as a fairness issue that makes perfect sense. Government officials and economic leaders in Northern Michigan say they are working hard to attract good jobs to the region. How can we expect them to succeed if they're saddled with this personal property tax disadvantage?"[79]
- Toledo Blade said, "Virtually everyone in public life has endorsed Proposal 1, from liberals to conservatives, from the AARP to various chambers of commerce."[80]
- WXYZ 7 said, "It would help create jobs, grow small businesses, and provide dedicated revenue to local police, fire, EMS and school districts."[81]
- See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures
In July 2014, Denno Research, on behalf of Public Sector Consultants, conducted a survey on the views of those likely to vote in the general election, but not necessarily the primary election. They asked the following question regarding Proposal 1:[82]
" | This August, Proposal 1 asks whether Michigan should create a local community stabilization fund with proceeds from the state's Use Tax. This move is part of a package of legislation aimed at repealing the Personal Property Tax, which is paid by businesses on equipment such as office furniture and machine tools. Based on what you know now, how likely are you to vote "yes" on Proposal 1?[9] | " |
Conducted one month before the August 5 vote on Proposal 1, 42.2 percent of voters were still undecided or felt neutral about the proposal.
Michigan Proposal 1 (2014) | |||||||||||||||||||
Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided or Neutral | Margin of Error | Sample Size | ||||||||||||||
Denno Research 7/9/2014 - 7/9/2014 | 30.8% | 27.0% | 42.2% | +/-4 | 600 | ||||||||||||||
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to firstname.lastname@example.com. |
Reports and analyses
Anderson Economic Group
Anderson Economic Group (AEG), commissioned by the Small Business Association of Michigan, developed fiscal and economic projections based on the approval of Proposal 1. AEG concluded that the proposal would have a "significant effect" on the state's economy. The organization broke down their conclusion into five parts:[11]
- 1. Motivation for Personal Property Tax Reform: The PPT raises the costs of locating business equipment in the state, thus influencing where businesses locate their factory sites. Also, the tax is "cumbersome to comply with," since businesses are essentially required to inventory and assess the value of their property, including objects like furniture. Proposal 1 would "sharply reduce" the PPT burden for small businesses immediately. Proposal 1 would increase Michigan's competitive advantage with Illinois and Indiana.
- 2. Economic Effects of Proposal 1: Once Proposal 1 is fully phased in by 2025, $203 to $474 million in additional business investment would likely occur, translating to 5,000 to 11,700 new private-sector jobs.
- 3. Local and State Revenue Changes: Local governments are the primary recipients of revenue from the PPT. By 2017, local governments would be fully reimbursed from new sources of revenue. The state government, however, would lose $407 million by 2020. The legislature has allowed a number of tax credits to expire. The tex credits are estimated to total $526 million in 2013. Furthermore, increased investment by businesses would generate between $40 million and $94 million in state tax revenue.
- 4. Constitutionality and Taxing Authority: AEG determined that Proposal 1 is within statutory and constitutional tax limits.
- 5. Additional Policy Considerations: Whether or not the Local Community Stabilization Share Tax is a "local" tax or a "new" tax is debatable. Similarly, the Local Community Stabilization Authority is deemed a "local" authority, but has statewide geographic boundaries. This may invite "future abuses of constitutional separation of powers, tax limitations, and powers of local governments."
You can read the study here.
- See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014
2014 measure lawsuits |
By state |
Alaska • Arkansas • California Illinois • Michigan • Missouri Montana • Nebraska • New York |
By lawsuit type |
Ballot text Campaign contributions Constitutionality Motivation of sponsors Petitioner residency Post-certification removal Single-subject rule Signature challenges Initiative process |
Fouts lawsuit
Warren Mayor Jim Fouts (I) filed a lawsuit against Proposal 1 on August 8, 2014, three days after the proposal was approved by voters. Fouts said he would use his own money to overturn the measure. He claimed the ballot language was "blatantly unlawful and fraudulent," "confusing," "one-sided" and "prejudiced."[83] According to Fouts, Proposal 1 proponents used a "sales pitch" to garner votes. He took issue with phrases like, "helping small business grow and create jobs," "modernize the tax system," "police safety, fire protection and ambulance emergency services" and "aid to local school districts." He said the proposal itself used positive phrases, rather than negative phrases, such as, "tax cuts for large manufacturers."[84] He continued, "I am defending the taxpayers from being hoodwinked. I think the overall, larger issue here is to protect the honesty and integrity of the ballot process by not allowing misleading or confusing language."[83]
Kelly Rossman-McKinney, a spokesperson for Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, replied, "I would say the mayor has the prerogative to take any action he feels is appropriate, but the majority of his own constituents did vote in favor of Proposal 1 on Tuesday."[83]
Mayor Fouts, in return, argued voters did not understand Proposal 1. He said, "[Voters] thought they were voting for police and fire. They did not know they were voting for a new tier of government. They did not know they were voting for a new tax. They did not know they were voting to take money away from their local government."[83]
On December 11, 2014, Judge Deborah Servitto of the Michigan Second District Court of Appeals tossed out the lawsuit, arguing:
" | Plaintiff takes issue with the proposal's references to business growth, job creation and support for public safety and for school districts. However, this Court concludes that these references do not create prejudice and are not defects that would (be) likely to mislead the voters such that the outcome of the election should be nullified.[9] | " |
—Judge Deborah Servitto[85] |
Path to the ballot
A simple legislative majority was needed to refer the statute to the ballot. SB 822 was approved by the Michigan House of Representatives on March 25, 2014. The bill was approved by the Michigan Senate on March 27, 2014. The act was signed by the governor on March 28, 2014. SB 822 was enrolled as Public Act 80.[63]
House vote
March 25, 2014 House vote
Michigan SB 822 House Vote | ||||
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
Yes | 104 | 95.41% | ||
No | 5 | 4.59% |
Senate vote
March 27, 2014 Senate vote
Michigan SB 822 Senate Vote | ||||
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
Yes | 35 | 94.59% | ||
No | 2 | 5.41% |
See also
External links
Basic information
- Senate Bill No. 822
- Summary of Use Tax by Michigan Department of Tresury
- Senate Fiscal Committee's Overview of Proposal 1
- Citizens Research Council of Michigan, "Outline of the Michigan Tax System," April 2014
- Citizens for Strong & Safe Communities
- Citizens for Strong & Safe Communities Facebook
- Citizens for Strong & Safe Communities Twitter
- Citizens for Strong & Safe Communities Youtube
Additional reading
- MLive, "A 'gamble' for Michigan cities? Critics question promise of Proposal 1 in run up to primary," August 2, 2014
- The Detroit News, "Vote for Proposal 1 not as easy as it appears," July 31, 2014
- The Center for Michigan, "Even with no opposition, is Proposal 1 in trouble?," July 31, 2014
- MLive, "Proposal 1: Everything you need to know about August 2014 ballot issue," July 28, 2014
- MLive, "Proposal 1: How much does your community rely on personal property taxes? Search our database," July 24, 2014
- MLive, "Michigan primary 2014: $5.6 million raised to battle confusion about statewide ballot proposal," July 23, 2014
- MLive, "Michigan Primary 2014: Proposal 1 a business tax cut that local communities can get behind," July 21, 2014
- MLive, "Brad Flory column: Don't blame voters if they vote 'no' on gibberish," July 21, 2014
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Senate Fiscal Agency, "Ballot Proposal 14-1," accessed July 28, 2014
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Citizens Research Council of Michigan, "Statewide Ballot Issues: Proposal 2014-1," accessed July 15, 2014
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Michigan Radio, "This ballot proposal is critical to Michigan's economy, but most people won't bother to vote on it," July 15, 2014
- ↑ Holland Sentinel, "Our View: Proposal 1 is a good deal for everyone in Michigan," July 6, 2014
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Michigan Legislature, "Enrolled Senate Bill No. 822," accessed March 28, 2014
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 MLive, "Proposal 1: Top 12 questions and answers from MLive's editorial board interview on Proposal 1," July 23, 2014
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 MLive, "Personal property tax ballot proposal won't face opposition, so why do supporters still fear failure?," May 30, 2014
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 MLive, "Michigan primary 2014: $5.6 million raised to battle confusion about statewide ballot proposal," July 23, 2014
- ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- ↑ Lansing State Journal, "Michigan legislature passes bills eliminating personal property tax for business," March 27, 2014
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Anderson Economic Group, "Analysis of 2014 Proposal 1: Personal Property Tax Reform and the Michigan Economy," July 30, 2014
- ↑ MLive, "Gov. Snyder signs law repealing taxes on industrial business equipment; vote to be held in 2014," December 20, 2012
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Detroit Free Press, "Michigan Senate OKs plan to eliminate personal property tax," March 4, 2014
- ↑ Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, "Homepage," accessed July 1, 2014
- ↑ The Center for Michigan, "Even with no opposition, is Proposal 1 in trouble?," July 31, 2014
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 The Detroit News, "Vote for Proposal 1 not as easy as it appears," July 31, 2014
- ↑ CBS Detroit, "Michigan Big Businesses Spend $7M To Keep Tax Cut Intact," August 2, 2014
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 MLive, "Michigan House moves to repeal 'job-killing' personal property tax, replace local revenue," March 25, 2014
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Battle Creek Enquirer, "Michigan Citizens for Strong & Safe Communities: Proposal 1 puts Michigan on the right track," July 11, 2014
- ↑ MLive, "Guest view of state Sen. Mike Green: Proposal 1 a win for business, workers, communities," July 23, 2014
- ↑ MLive, "Genesee County officials gather to rally support for Proposal 1 on the Aug. 5 ballot," July 28, 2014
- ↑ Wood TV, "Proposal 1: Can you trust it?," July 31, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Radio, "Proposal 1: A solution born of suspicion," August 1, 2014
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 MLive, "Michigan personal property tax reform plan hailed as 'win-win' for businesses, local governments," February 25, 2014
- ↑ Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, "Former Attorney General Frank Kelley endorses Aug. 5 ballot proposal," May 15, 2014
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 Dome Magazine, "Strong Schools Require a "Yes" Vote on Proposal 1!," July 4, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Frankenmuth Resolution," June 3, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Fremont Resolution," May 19, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Citizens for Strong & Safe Communities, "Grand Rapids City Commission urges YES vote on Prop 1 on Aug. 5 statewide ballot," July 25, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Grayling Resolution," May 12, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Hartford Resolution," May 19, 2014
- ↑ MLive, "Resolution supporting elimination of Personal Property Tax OK'd by Kalamazoo City Commission," July 8, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Madison Heights Resolution," May 27, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Mattawan Resolution," May 12, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Middleville Resolution," June 10, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Mount Pleasant Resolution," June 9, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Northville Resolution," May 22, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Norton Shores Resolution," May 20, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Pleasant Ridge Resolution," June 10, 2014
- ↑ The Saline Reporter, "Saline City Council passes resolution in support of Proposal 1," July 25, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Walker Resolution," June 9, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Yale Resolution," June 9, 2014
- ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 43.3 Michigan Secretary of State, "Michigan Committee Statement of Organization," accessed July 25, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Municipal League, "Michigan Communities Urge Residents to Vote YES on Proposal 1; Pass Resolutions in Support," June 26, 2014
- ↑ 45.0 45.1 Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, "Supporters," accessed July 1, 2014
- ↑ WKZO, "Michigan Townships Association backing Proposal 1," August 4, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Farm Bureau, "Ballot Initiatives," accessed July 1, 2014
- ↑ WKZO, "Michigan AARP supports ballot proposal to eliminate state personal property tax," June 17, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Library Association, "MLA Advocacy," July 24, 2014
- ↑ Midland Daily News, "Michigan Sheriff's Association backs Proposal 1, which would benefit Midland, Midland County," June 25, 2014
- ↑ 51.0 51.1 The Mining Journal, "LSCP backs proposal to eliminate personal property tax," April 15, 2014
- ↑ Livingston Daily, "Howell chamber endorses Proposal 1," June 26, 2014
- ↑ 53.0 53.1 MLive, "Business, government leaders join hands in Saginaw to campaign for statewide ballot initiative," April 3, 2014
- ↑ PRWeb, "Lake Michigan Mailers, Inc. Endorses a "YES" vote on Proposal 1 on the August 5th Michigan Ballot," June 30, 2014
- ↑ Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, "The Problem," accessed July 1, 2014
- ↑ Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, "The Solution," accessed July 1, 2014
- ↑ The Detroit News, "Eliminate personal property tax, make Michigan more competitive," July 28, 2014
- ↑ The Detroit News, "Whitmer: Yes on Proposal 1," July 16, 2014
- ↑ MLive, "Proposal 1 would give businesses tax relief with no impact on residents," July 24, 2014
- ↑ 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.3 Detroit Free Press, "Feedback: Proposal 1 is unfair, burdensome to Michigan cities," July 25, 2014
- ↑ Michigan Capitol Confidential, "Why Are Some Tea Party Supporters Fighting Proposal 1 In Michigan?," August 1, 2014
- ↑ 62.0 62.1 MLive, "Guest column: Proposal 1 solves some problems but may create long-term budget issues," July 24, 2014
- ↑ 63.0 63.1 Michigan Legislature, "Senate Bill 0822 (2014)," accessed March 28, 2014
- ↑ 64.0 64.1 Wayne County Taxpayer Association, "July 2014 Newsletter," accessed July 26, 2014
- ↑ 65.0 65.1 Eclectablog, "A comprehensive look at Michigan's Proposal 1 and why I am voting NO on it," August 4, 2014
- ↑ Crain's Detroit Business, "Don't let wording confuse PPT issue," May 25, 2014
- ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Editorial: Vote yes on Proposal 1," June 8, 2014
- ↑ The Detroit News, "Editorial: Vote yes on Prop 1," June 29, 2014
- ↑ Escanaba Daily Press, "Proposal 1 helps Michigan jobs climate," June 25, 2014
- ↑ Observer & Eccentric, "Vote yes: Proposal 1 helps improve jobs climate," June 23, 2014
- ↑ Livingston Daily, "Proposal 1 helps Mich. jobs climate," June 16, 2014
- ↑ The Herald-Palladium, "In our opinion: Proposal 1," July 20, 2014
- ↑ Holland Sentinel, "Our View: Proposal 1 is a good deal for everyone in Michigan," July 6, 2014
- ↑ Huron Daily Tribune, "Vote 'Yes' on Proposal 1," August 1, 2014
- ↑ Lansing State Journal, "Editorial: Pass Proposal 1 on Aug. 5 ballot," May 31, 2014
- ↑ The Michigan Daily, "From the Daily: Better for business," June 11, 2014
- ↑ Midland Daily News, "Our view: Joining the chorus: Vote yes on Proposal 1," July 16, 2014
- ↑ MLive, "MLive Media Group: Vote yes on Proposal 1 to preserve local funding," July 25, 2014
- ↑ Petoskey News-Review, "Don't let Proposal 1 language confuse you, it's good for all," July 17, 2014
- ↑ Toledo Blade, "Yes on Mich. Proposal 1," July 28, 2014
- ↑ WXYZ 7, "WXYZ Editorial: Vote YES for Detroit Library, SMART Millage & Proposal 1," July 17, 2014
- ↑ Denno Research, "Statewide Survey of Michigan General Election Voters Wednesday, July 9-Friday, July 11, 2014," July 22, 2014
- ↑ 83.0 83.1 83.2 83.3 Macomb Daily, "Warren Mayor Fouts seeks to invalidate Proposal 1 vote," August 7, 2014
- ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Warren mayor says he'll sue to repeal newly approved Proposal 1," August 7, 2014
- ↑ Macomb Daily, "Judge tosses out Warren Mayor Fouts' lawsuit seeking to invalidate Proposal 1," December 11, 2014
State of Michigan Lansing (capital) | |
Ballot measures |
List of Michigan ballot measures | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process | |
Government |
Michigan State Constitution | House of Representatives | Senate | Legislative Service Bureau | |
State executive officers |
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Auditor General | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Director of Agriculture and Rural Development | Director of Natural Resources | Director of Labor and Economic Growth | Chairman of Public Service Commission | |
School boards |
Michigan Department of Education | Michigan school districts | |
Judiciary |
Michigan Supreme Court | Court of Appeals | Circuit Courts | District Courts | Probate Courts | Judicial selection in Michigan | |
Transparency Topics |
Freedom of Information Act | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | Transparency blogs | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations | |
Divisions |
State |
List of Counties |
List of Cities |
List of School Districts | |


text:
Virgin Media marketing chief: 'Facebook will be a powerful player for some time to come'
By Noelle McElhatton, marketingmagazine.co.uk, Monday, 21 May 2012 10:36AM
As marketing director of Virgin Media, Nigel Gilbert has one of the biggest budgets in the UK. Marketing magazine caught up with Gilbert at Media360 to gauge his reaction to Facebook's historic IPO
Marketing: In the light of General Motors reassessing its advertising on Facebook, is the social network's IPO... to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill... the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end?
Gilbert: I'm sure it's the end of the beginning. Facebook has some extraordinary opportunities that are, as yet, untapped. The very fact that [Facebook co-founder and CEO] Mark Zuckerberg has retained his controlling interest suggests that he many plans up his sleeve. Facebook is a fascinating organisation with a great deal more potential.
Marketing: Virgin Media is present on Facebook...
I'd rather not go into what we do with them and how we spend money [on Facebook]. What I would say is we are very supportive of Facebook. Our TiVo (Virgin Media's connected TV service) platform allows us to link with Facebook.
Like with any media owner – including Sky and others – we are competitors, suppliers and customers of Facebook.
One statistic suggests that three out of four Facebook users don't click on ads there. And WPP chief Sir Martin Sorrell believes Facebook is not the right environment for advertising. Do you agree?
He's a better person to comment on that situation as he's heading up a lot of media buying operations. As far as we're concerned, we have much more of a partnership relationship with Facebook.
How will Zuckerberg's controlling interest effect Facebook's future when there are other, albeit more niche, competitors on the horizon, like Pinterest?
It's very difficult to know how it will play out and we've seen the rise and fall of many players in this space. That's not to suggest I am making any comment on the potential replacements...I would say that the trajectory is as fast upwards as it is down.
I don't see that happening with Facebook. I see Facebook as being a powerful player for some time to come. They've got a good, relatively simple model that seems to have captured the world's imagination.
However there could easily be a new competitor that could appear from nowhere and take on the mighty. And that's what I find really exciting. We, as Virgin Media, are relatively agnostic about that because we can carry those sites on our open platforms.
You're a mass market brand and it's hard to argue with a channel [Facebook] that has a third of the UK population tuning in...
So I don't argue with that! And I'm perfectly happy to work with them...and others in this.
Virgin Media needs to acquire customers...and Facebook is improving its acquisitive abilities.
I haven't looked at its latest numbers, but certainly it's acquiring very well. The difficulty, as any market matures, it becomes not about acquisition, it becomes about engagement and ultimately about retention and they will have this problem as will any others in this space. But I see no particular signs of that [with Facebook].
You think Facebook can grow further?
I don't see why not.
Paul Polman, chief executive of Unilever, told us that he sees a time when social media will be more effective for brand adoption than TV...
I wouldn't wish to disagree with Paul Polman – he's a very impressive individual. I think the two things will converge – not that TV will be eclipsed by social. Virgin Media has the most successful connected TV there is...so it's not so much a divide as a convergence.
This article was first published on marketingmagazine.co.uk
Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.
If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.
Additional Information
Campaign Jobs
- Senior Marketing Manager Cutis Developments £50,000 - £60,000 per annum , Victoria, London (Greater)
- Account Manager- Integrated Spectrum 360 Recruitment £28k - £32k, London (Central), London (Greater) / London (East), London (Greater) / London (North), London (Gr...
- head of strategy collectivo Up to £120,000 per annum + benefits, London (Central), London (Greater)
- Digital Account Executive air recruitment Up to £22k - dependent on experience + bonuses, London (Central), London (Greater)
- Freelance Account Manager / Project Manager air recruitment Up to £32k (pro rata) dependent on experience, London (Central)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Get the Best Priced Triumph TR6 Head Gasket
- Fast Shipping
- 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee
- Lowest Prices
Triumph TR6 Replacement Head Gasket Information
Search our online head gasket catalog and find the lowest priced discount auto parts on the web. We sell wholesale to the public. We offer high quality new, OEM, aftermarket and remanufactured Triumph TR6 Head Gasket parts. We specialize in a wide-variety of high-quality car parts and accessories for your car, truck or SUV. Call toll free to order or place your order online via our secure checkout system. Our online parts catalog uses real-time inventory, so you can be assured the parts you buy are in stock at the time of ordering. Most orders are shipped the same day. They are available for the following Triumph TR6 years: 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973, 1972, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72. This part is also sometimes called Triumph TR6 Engine Gaskets. We stock head gasket parts for most Triumph models including Spitfire and TR8.
We stock these Head Gasket brands for the Triumph TR6: Payen.
Very fast turnaround. I was, in fact, very surprised at how fast my parts were shipped (and arrived) to me!
The people at PartsGeek were wonderful to deal with. They quickly processed my order and sent emails keeping me updated on the progress. Even when some of the parts were out of stock they quickly t...


text:
April 18, 2015 |
Bloomberg's Climate Change Plan Appears Grossly InadequatePosted on Jun 12, 2013
The New York mayor's $20 billion proposal to protect America's most populated city from the ravages of global warming seems to ignore the worst predictions of sea level rise reported in the respectable press. Michael Bloomberg struck a committed tone in a speech Tuesday at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, a place badly damaged last year by Hurricane Sandy. "This is urgent work, and it must begin now. Piece by piece, over many years and even decades, we can build a city that's capable of preparing better, withstanding more and overcoming anything," he said. Among the considerations is a plan to place levees 20 feet high around part of Staten Island. But according to some projections of sea level rise, that height is inadequate. The greatest predicted rise reported in The New York Times late last year was 25 feet. The long term estimates are even worse. The Guardian recently reported an eventual rise of 131 feet worldwide if nothing is done to stop or reduce the amount of carbon flowing into the atmosphere. Additionally, to date, the fastest forecasts of alterations to the climate and wild environment are the ones that have proved most reliable, so the direst warnings appear to be the ones for which the city and others should prepare. The price tag for the renovation project is expected to grow. If the plans do not change to match the worst predictions, reporters should be asking who is benefiting from the project's contracts and whether the city's funds are genuinely serving the public or if contractors and their friends in government have simply devised a way to collect checks. —Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly. Advertisement Square, Site wide New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |


text:
GreenTown Los Altos is a grassroots initiative of residents and businesses in Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. Our mission is to educate and inspire the community to take action that will make us more environmentally healthy and vibrant today and for future generations.
Copyright © 2015 · All Rights Reserved · GreenTown Los Altos · Privacy Policy


text:
uh comic party, naruto, angel dust neo,evangelion
Well, i'm new to A.O. but i've loved anime for quite some time. I'm still "feeling" my way around the website, but so far so good. I really enjoy anime, (almost too much) but I am still finding out new titles. I am new to manga though, it wasn't until I watched the entire boxed set of Beserk that I even realized what manga was ! So now i'm desprately scratching around trying to get all the beserk manga I can get my fingers on. So if anyone knows any "titles" I should check out, just let me know . Thx!
uh comic party, naruto, angel dust neo,evangelion
We need jobs now http://www.invisionfree.com/Aquatic_...rums/index.php
If you think Hinata Hyuuga is the cutest kunoichi then under your sig post Hinata Hyuuga 64
welcome pm me if for some reason you need something
Welcome to AO!! Hope that you will enjoy your time here!!
->:Be descriptive in your posts or its like you didnt post at all:<-
|The "RULES" of AO|My AO Gallery|YouTube|AnimeSuki|
Hello Gods_Dragon And Welcome 2 AO!!! I'm sure that your gonna love it here and make lot's of great friends. Oh and if you ever want 2 chat,just pm me anytime k.
Made by- Ryomakurosaki (Thank you sooooo much!!) ^__^
If you like Berserk Hellsing would be more to your liking than naruto and all that crap. Sorry I think Shonen is garbage compared to Senein. Entertaining yes, but it's still garbage. Anyway I sent you a pm.
welcome to AO and enjoy your stay and make lots of freinds
pm me if you have any questions
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and all your demons
I'll be the one to protect you from a will to survive and a voice of reason
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and your choices son
They're one in the same, I must isolate you...
Isolate and save you from yourself


text:
Digital printmaking etching. This is the original manipulated on photoshop. Could you please tell me which one you like better. The coloured one, or this sepia one. I am asking so that I can get an idea which one to hand in for assessment. As I can easily ink up one just like this. I have the plate and can ink up in class anytime. Your thoughts would be great. Billy.
Printmaker and Painter on the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria, Australia.
View Full Profilei like the colour one best
Thankks blamo, I hope more people tell me what they think…thanks for that…I like the coloured one also. But then the brown one has something earthy about it….gosh I don't know….
– Belinda "BillyLee" NYE (Printmaker)
I really can't decide…my hubby likes the mood in the coloured, so I'll go with sepia :)
Oh Sorina, I'm confused…you like the sepia and hubby likes the coloured??Thats so far 2 coloured, 1 sepia. So coloured is the winner so far!
– Belinda "BillyLee" NYE (Printmaker)
I like the original better, it's alive, the colour makes all the difference, it sets the mood
3 for the colour, 1 for the sepia…mmmmm, thanks Tonia for giving me your thoughts on it, all of this helps me with my future art.
Oooooh, cool BillyLee, love this one best, looks Fab!!!!!!!!
Billylee I like the sepia one better but I think during the Digital process you have lost your highlights. I think if you ink the plate up the result maybe different.
I will Ink it up in SEpia this Thursday and see what I get and post it on this chain of comments . Thanks Marilyn, I love the feedback and tips. Its so great being a part of the printmaking bubble community.
– Belinda "BillyLee" NYE (Printmaker)
Oh yes, I like this one, too. Very subtle!
the colour one.
I love the colour one
Oh my Goodness, this is so exciting, at last, yipea! On the home page and all that brown and sepia looks sooooooooooooooooooooFINE I love it. Thank you. BillyLee


text:
The legibility of marks made by lasers is achieved through a color contrast between the mark and the base material.
This contrast is a function of one of several processes such as annealing, engraving, surface etching,
thermo-chemical reaction, and ablation.
A color change can be achieved in most bright steels by annealing. |
Marks on annodized, plated or painted products are made by the laser removing the top layer to expose a base material (without damaging it) with a contrasting color. |
Surface etching is one of the most common forms of laser marking. |
Thermo-chemical reaction
Most plastics react when exposed to laser radiation. The resulting mark depends on the type of reaction which is a function of the composition and color of the base material. Additives can be used with most plastics to achieve different colors. |
Vaporizing material produces deep marking which is visible through the shadows and reflections of ambient light from the different angles carved into the surface. |


text:
Ingredients (serves 4-6):
In a large pot, boil water and add a pinch of salt (not in ingredients list). Blanch brussels sprouts for 2 to 4 minutes depending on the size. Drain water and set aside.
Turn the Gourmet d' Expert® Electric Griddle (EA-DCC10) control knob to 300ºF. When the pilot lamp turns off, melt butter and sauté shallots for 10 seconds then add bacon. Continue to sauté for one minute.
Add brussels sprouts to the griddle, sprinkle salt and pepper.
Occasionally stir and cook for 8 - 10 minutes or until brussels sprouts become tender.
Add sage leaves and heavy cream to the griddle and mix well. Check and adjust the taste with salt and pepper.
Turn heat off and serve while hot. Enjoy!


text:
Las Vegas Monorail
Las Vegas Monorail | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A monorail train arriving at the Sahara Station
Overview | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Type | Straddle beam monorail | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
System | Alweg (inflated rubber tires on concrete guideway) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Locale | Las Vegas Strip, Nevada | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Termini | Sahara MGM Grand |
Stations | 7 (5 more stations to be added, including 2 underground at the airport) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daily ridership | 12,075 (Quarter 4 - 2011[1]) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Website | www.lvmonorail.com | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Opening | July 15, 2004 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owner | Las Vegas Monorail Company | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operator(s) | Las Vegas Monorail Company | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Character | Elevated (two future underground stations) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rolling stock | 9 Bombardier MVI trains | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Technical | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Line length | 3.9 mi (6.3 km) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. of tracks | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minimum radius | < 60 m[2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Electrification | 750 V DC third rail[2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating speed | 50 mph (80 km/h) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Highest elevation | 60 ft (18 m) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Las Vegas Monorail is a 3.9-mile (6.3 km) monorail mass transit system located adjacent to the Las Vegas Strip, in Clark County, Nevada, United States. It connects the unincorporated communities of Paradise and Winchester, and does not enter the City of Las Vegas. It is owned and operated by the Las Vegas Monorail Company. The monorail is a registered not-for-profit corporation, allowed under Nevada law since the monorail provides a public service. The State of Nevada assisted in bond financing, but no public money was used in construction; citizens may eventually have to pay taxes that fund the monorail.[3][4]
This section needs additional citations for verification. (January 2014) |
The Las Vegas Monorail project was built by Bombardier Transportation upon an existing free monorail that ran between the MGM Grand and Bally's, closing a long gap in the Strip that tourists usually had to travel on foot.
During testing and commissioning, the monorail suffered several malfunctions that delayed the start of passenger service for almost a year. The most serious of these problems related to parts falling from the monorail to the ground under the tracks.[5] After many delays, the finished Las Vegas Monorail opened to the public on July 15, 2004 with the completion and testing of "Phase 1."
On September 8, 2004, more problems with falling parts led to the closing of the monorail for nearly four months. It reopened on December 24, 2004. A number of repairs were made to the monorail cars during this shutdown. Each time the monorail system required major engineering changes, it underwent a lengthy "commissioning" process to confirm the effectiveness and safety of the repairs. The local press reported that each day the monorail was down cost the system approximately $85,000, and that over $8.3 million was lost as a result of this one shutdown.[citation needed]
Transit Systems Management officials cited the successful handling of crowds during the 2005 Consumer Electronics Show as proof that the system can handle a major convention.[citation needed]
On February 2, 2005, the monorail system was shut down due to problems with the electrical system. Reportedly,[citation needed] a short circuit required replacement of a 30-foot (9.1 m) section of the power rail. The system reopened about 12 hours later.
In July 2005, a record was set for ridership for the monorail, with over one million passengers. BankWest debuted a red "MoneyRail" branded train, and joined Nextel Communications (now a part of Sprint Nextel Corporation), Hansens Beverage, and Paramount Studios (with a Star Trek themed train) as corporate sponsors.
On July 8, 2005, Transit Systems Management announced that it would shut down, turning over its responsibilities to the Las Vegas Monorail Company, the system operator. Curtis Myles, a former deputy general manager of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, became President of the Las Vegas Monorail Company. He assumed his duties on July 18, 2005.
Expansion plans took a step forward on November 1, 2005, when the County Commission approved a study into the feasibility of an airport extension.
On June 6, 2006, the Las Vegas Monorail Corporation announced that monorail revenues rose nearly 16 percent from the previous year, to $3,250,565 in April 2006. Likewise, ridership had also increased, from 563,823 riders in January 2006 to 704,527 in April 2006. New ticket distribution and marketing efforts had been implemented to continue the trend, including a ticket brokerage program that provided convention attendees with monorail tickets in advance and a national public relations program.
On January 13, 2010, the Las Vegas Monorail filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection. The filing will not affect system operations and will have no impact on the monorail's hours of operation or service to its customers.[6]
On March 11, 2011, the Sahara Hotel and Casino announced that it would close its doors May 16, 2011.[7] Closure of the Sahara has been cited as one of the significant reasons for ridership dropping in 2012.[8] In 2014, a new hotel casino, the SLS Las Vegas took over the Sahara.
The monorail (Phase 1 of the overall project) begins at the MGM Grand Hotel near the south end of The Strip, and runs roughly parallel to the Strip on its eastern side. The monorail passes next to the Convention Center and the Las Vegas Hotel & Casino, both with stations, before ending at the former Sahara Hotel location at the north end of the Strip. The ride takes about fifteen minutes to travel its total distance of 3.9 miles (6.3 km).
The monorail generally runs behind the eastern Strip side hotels and casinos, a long block away from the Strip. Usually, it requires a walk through a casino to get to the Strip, emerging upon the Strip in front of the property. This lack of a direct presence on the Strip along with ticket prices has been a factor in the rather slow acceptance of the monorail.[5]
System name and sponsorship[edit]
The Las Vegas Monorail was named the Robert N. Broadbent Las Vegas Monorail in honor of Robert N. Broadbent, whom Las Vegas officials credit with gaining the support from the public and officials needed to bring the monorail to fruition. Broadbent, a former Boulder City mayor, Clark County commissioner, assistant secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, and McCarran International Airport director, died in 2003, a few months before the system's scheduled opening. The Las Vegas Monorail Company is the company's official corporate name.[9]
The Las Vegas Monorail used to be known as the MGM Grand-Bally's Monorail.[10]
The Las Vegas Monorail generates revenue from ticketed passengers and from corporate sponsors. Branding rights for the seven stations and the nine trains are available, and the sponsorship prices are in the millions of dollars. Hansens Beverage sponsored the first monorail train, featuring its Monster Energy drink. Nextel Communications created a totally themed pavilion by branding the largest station, adjacent to the Las Vegas Convention Center. Since the Sprint-Nextel Merger in late 2005, Nextel Central has been rebranded as Sprint Central. However, in late February 2008, the Sprint Nextel Corporation terminated its sponsorship contract.[citation needed]
Construction and planning[edit]
The Las Vegas Monorail was designed by Gensler of Nevada, engineered by Las Vegas-based Carter & Burgess (now Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) and constructed by Granite Construction, Inc. of Watsonville, California, one of the largest civil contractors in the United States.
The Las Vegas Monorail vehicles and signal systems were developed by Bombardier Transportation. The technology for the monorail vehicles came directly from the well-tested monorail systems running in Walt Disney World. Bombardier constructed Mark VI Monorail trains both for the Walt Disney World Monorail System and for Las Vegas.
Stations listed from north to south:
- SLS Station
- Westgate Las Vegas Station
- Las Vegas Convention Center Station
- Harrah's / The Linq Station
- Flamingo / Caesars Palace Station
- Bally's / Paris Las Vegas Station
- MGM Grand Station
The monorail uses nine Bombardier MVI trains that have four cars in each of the fully automatic trains. The guideway is built to the "ALWEG" track standard. For the first seven years, the line only ran as the MGM Shuttle, between MGM and Bally's stations. During this time, two ex-Walt Disney World Mark IV monorail trains were used.[11][12][13][14][15] Though the Las Vegas and related train equipment appear superficially similar to the original ALWEG design (as exemplified by the Seattle system), their suspension and propulsion systems differ substantially. A Seattle train may be walked end-to-end which is impossible on a Las Vegas or Florida train. The ALWEG Mark VI system used in Las Vegas Monorail consists of two inline large truck tires per car that support the load over the concrete guideway with a rectangular cross section and eight guide tires that straddle the guideway from both sides.[16] The total capacity of the four-car trains is roughly equivalent to two articulated buses at 80 seated and 160 standing passengers.[17] The maximum speed is 50 miles per hour (80 km/h), although that speed is only reached during one short straight segment of the line.
All trains in the system have available advertising and branding opportunities. By selling advertising and branding rights for the trains, the system earns additional revenue.
$5.00 Single Ride: Good for one person for one entry/ride.[18]
$12.00 Unlimited Day Pass: Good for unlimited travel for one person for a consecutive 24-hour period during operational hours. The 24-hour clock begins and the expiration date and time are stamped on the ticket with first use at the fare gates.
$28.00 Unlimited Three-Day Pass: Good for unlimited travel for one person for a consecutive 72-hour period during operational hours. The 72-hour clock begins and the expiration date and time are stamped on the ticket with first use at the fare gates.
Purchase prices are online prices. Prices at Monorail Stations may differ. Additionally, Nevada residents may purchase up to two single-ride tickets per day for a discounted price of $1.00 each; these are available only from the customer service booths located at the Sahara and MGM Grand stations.
Hours of operation[edit]
7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday to Thursday
7:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. Friday to Sunday
To Downtown Las Vegas[edit]
Phase 2, a 2.3-mile (3.7 km) long extension along Main Street to Downtown Las Vegas was planned, with new stations at the Stratosphere Hotel, Charleston Boulevard, Bonneville Avenue and Main Street Station. Construction was planned to begin in 2005 with service starting in 2008. However, the anticipated funding from the federal government was not allocated in 2004, so the plans were put on hold. On January 27, 2005, the federal government announced that it would not provide money for the $400 million project.
The original plan was to open the system in January 2004, and for it to cover its debts and operating expenses by attracting 19 to 20 million riders. Since the system was not only delayed in opening, but later shut down for four months, income was not as great as organizers had hoped. This reportedly is a contributing factor for the government's denial of Phase 2 funding.
To McCarran International Airport[edit]
Phase 2 was revised to instead extend the monorail system in the opposite direction, south from the MGM Grand Station to McCarran International Airport.[19] Providing monorail service to the airport has been an unpopular idea with limousine and taxicab operators in the city, as trips to and from the airport form a major portion of their business.[20] Several hotel and casino owners on the Strip continue to support the project, and are more supportive of an extension to the airport than one to downtown Las Vegas.[21]
On December 7, 2006, Clark County commissioners granted permission for the proposed extension to McCarran Airport. Funding had not yet been identified.[22]
On September 9, 2008, the monorail company provided details of the proposed expansion to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors' Authority board members. The intended airport extension would begin at the new Terminal 3, with the first stop near Terminal 1, turn north on Swenson Street, then continue west on Tropicana Avenue before turning north at Koval Lane to meet up with the existing system behind the MGM Grand.[23] This route is proposed to be built with private funds. This would add approximately four miles to the existing route, doubling the length of the system.
When the monorail company first announced details of the extension in September 2008, the airport extension was to be built with private funds and was expected to be built by 2012.[23] However, as of March 2011, the Las Vegas Monorail Company was still in the planning phases of the proposed extension to McCarran International Airport with a proposed stop on the UNLV campus.[24]
See also[edit]
- ^ "Ridership". Las Vegas Monorail. 2011. Retrieved 14 January 2012.
- ^ a b http://www.ea.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg239/elektrische_antriebe_Bahnfahrzeuge/VL_Elektrische_Antriebe_fuer_Bahnfahrzeuge_14-10-09.pdf
- ^ See AMBAC Assurance Reply filed in In re Las Vegas Monorail Company, 429 B.R. 770 (2010) (Docket No. 169)
- ^ "Las Vegas Monorail to take a ride out of town?". KVBC.com. Retrieved 2014-01-17.[dead link]
- ^ a b Clark, Andrew (February 16, 2008). "How Las Vegas transport gamble turned into a one-track ride to ruin". The Guardian. Retrieved December 19, 2014.
- ^ "Las Vegas Monorail files for bankruptcy protection". Las Vegas Sun. 2010-01-13. Retrieved 2010-01-14.
- ^ "Sahara's closure on May 16 will mark 'the end of an era'". Las Vegas Sun. 2011-03-11. Retrieved 2011-03-23.
- ^ "Las Vegas Monorail ridership continues to fall". LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL. 2012-11-10. Retrieved 2013-02-12.
- ^ "Las Vegas Monorail Company". Entity details. Nevada Secretary of State. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
LAS VEGAS MONORAIL COMPANY; Status: Active; File Date: 5/12/2000; Type: Domestic Non-Profit Corporation; Corp Number: C13309-2000; Qualifying State: NV
- ^ Arthur Andersen LLP (1999-06-17). "MGM Mirage · SC 13E4". U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Retrieved 2008-10-09.
Effective December 10, 1993, the Company through its wholly owned subsidiary, MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., and Bally's Grand Inc. ("Bally's") formed a 50/50 joint venture, MGM Grand-Bally's Monorail, LLC. The joint venture was intended to construct, own and operate the MGM Grand-Bally's Monorail.
ignored (help) - ^ McGinnis, George (2004-01-30). "Walt Disney World's Mark VI Monorail". Retrieved 2008-10-09.
The approximate 1.6 km guideway of the MGM-Grand Bally's monorail line, which used two Mark IV's, will be integrated and re-equipped. These twice-retired trains were built in the '80s and since retirement from WDW have operated for over seven years in Las Vegas.
- ^ "Las Vegas Mark IVs retire. (1/29/03)". News Briefs Archives - November 23, 2002–February 16, 2003. Monorails.org. 2003-01-29. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
Two dutiful Disney-built Mark IVs retired for the second time Sunday night. Previous to Las Vegas, they operated for many years in Florida at Walt Disney World... designed to be a catalyst for a larger Las Vegas Monorail, which will be achieved when the current track is connected to a four-mile system under construction. New automated Bombardier MVI trains will run along the same tracks when the new line opens in early 2004
- ^ Krischer, Reinhard. "ALWEG's Heritage in Las Vegas". Retrieved 2008-10-09.
So the development of the ALWEG monorail, technically described as "a rubber-tired straddle-beam monorail", and its technology concept - today used by the now opened Las Vegas Monorail - originated in 1951 in Cologne-Fühlingen.
- ^ "ALWEG Beam Comparison Chart". Monorails.org. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
[Type] Disney-Bombardier [type currently available for purchase] [Width] .66M 26" [Height] 1.22M 48" [Width at Endpoint] 2.03M 80" [Locations] Walt Disney World, FL (1971), Las Vegas, NV (1995)
- ^ "Comparisons to Other Systems". The Urbanaut Monorail Technology. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
The ALWEG monorail system is a 50 year old antiquated monorail concept... Examples are Seattle, Disneyland, Disneyworld and Las Vegas monorails in the U.S, and the Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and several monorails in Japan.
- ^ "Disney/Bombardier suspension". Monorails.org. Retrieved 2014-01-17.
- ^ "Disney/Bombardier rolling stock". Monorails.org. Retrieved 2014-01-17.
- ^ "Ticket Information". Lvmonorail.com. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ "Expansion". Lvmonorail.com. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ LV cab, limo companies rap monorail[dead link]
- ^ "Airport Extension" (PDF). Neighborhood Meeting. Las Vegas Monorail. 26 July 2008. p. 9. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
- ^ "County Commission: Monorail extension gets OK". ReviewJournal.com. December 7, 2006. Retrieved 2014-01-17.
- ^ a b "Monorail Looks to Expand to McCarran Airport - KLAS-TV Channel 8 News Las Vegas". Lasvegasnow.com. 2008-09-09. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ "Las Vegas Monorail didn't do much for the Sahara". Las Vegas Review-Journal. 2011-03-23. Retrieved 2011-03-23.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Las Vegas monorail. |
- Official website
- Robert N. Broadbent Las Vegas Monorail, Nevada at Monorails.org
- Ridership Graph 2005–2006
- Rail transit map of Las Vegas (to scale)
- Alweg people movers
- Electric railways in Nevada
- Las Vegas Monorail stations
- Las Vegas Strip
- Monorails in the United States
- Nevada railroads
- Passenger rail transportation in Nevada
- Railway lines opened in 2004
- Rapid transit in Nevada
- Transportation in the Las Vegas Valley
- Urban people mover systems
- People mover systems in the United States


text:
Item Code: IDH522
by Inderpal SinghHardcover (Edition: 1999)Guru Nanak Dev University Size: 8.8" X 5.5" Pages: 97 {1 Illustration in Colour} |
Price: $25.00 Shipping Free
The Grandeur of Khalsa offers a life altering perspective of the greatness of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The book deals with some of the most significant Aspects of Khalsa and provides a rich, in-depth study and proper evaluation of Various dimensions of Sikh spirituality and sublimity.
It is a presentation in simple language for the benefit of the new generation providing a comprehensive understanding of the greatness andgrandeur of Khalsa. The need of the hour today is to remember what has been bequeathed to us and follow it as ordained by the great Gurus.
It is hoped that this book will be of good use to students and researchers in the field of Sikh studies. About the AuthorDr. Inderpal Singh, Vice Chancellor, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar is a senior academician with a professional standing of over four decades. While his basic discipline is Education, he has been a keen student of Sikh Studies.
He is accredited as Shiromani Lekhak of the state having written, edited and compileo over thirty books in Punjabi, English and Hindi on diverse subjects like education, religion children literature etc. he is widely traveled all over the world and has been a member of various state, national and International level bodies.
1 | The Grandeur of Khalsa | 1 |
2 | The Spiritual Splendour | 10 |
3 | Sri Guru Granth Sahib | 18 |
4 | The Great Sikhs and Saints | 64 |
5 | Kadre-har Kar Guru Gobind Singh | 87 |
6 | Bibliography | 92 |
7 | Appendix | 95 |
Click Here for More Books Published By Guru Nanak Dev University


text:
Return to program book search
Date: Sunday, March 23
CME Credits: 2.00
Location: Room 705/707
Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Director: Lynn Ann Cornelius, MD, FAAD
Learning Objectives: Following this course, the attendee should be able to:
Description: This session is geared to optimize the understanding of the dermatologist to the current advances in melanoma pathogenesis and the relevance to recently approved FDA treatments. Multidisciplinary management of the melanoma patient will be discussed in the context of the 2014 NCCN guidelines by dermatology, medical oncology and surgical oncology. Emphasis will be placed on obtaining appropriate pre-treatment laboratory and radiographic studies for various stages of presentation. Surgical and medical management will be discussed, including indications for lymph node surgery and surgery for metastatic disease. Cooperative group clinical trials for melanoma will also be reviewed.


text:
search by writer, book or series: | |
Writers: Philip Hawthorn | |||
Bibliography | ||||
Get pricing and availability through our links to online stores, or click on a title to get more information and buying options. |
Fangtastic Adventures of Dracula's Dentures
(Amazon - Alibris)
Fangtastic Adventures of Dracula's Dentures |
Internet links | ||||
If you know a good site about this author, please let us know, we'll consider adding it here. |
© 1998-2010 Olivier Travers & Sophie Bellais - All Rights Reserved |


text:
Source: Creating the Future of Complementary Education
The world of part-time Jewish education is changing rapidly. New models are emerging, both within congregations and beyond. A growing number of communities are engaged in initiatives to foster broad-scale improvement. And, national actors are accelerating their efforts to seed innovation and support local change. What can we learn from and what will be the impact of all this activity? Will today's alternative models become tomorrow's norm? What will this mean for children and their families, for institutions and communities, innovators and funders? JESNA is holding a series of three convenings for professional and lay leaders involved with complementary education to discuss these important questions.
About The Convenings:
Target Audience: Professional and lay leaders involved with complementary education
Convening #1: Alternative Models of Complementary Education
January 29th, 2012 - 2:00pm – 4:30pm EST
JCC Association: 520 8th Ave., 4th Floor, New York
Over the past several decades, a growing number of alternatives to the conventional religious or Hebrew school model for complementary education have been developed and implemented. This convening will examine a number of these alternative models in order to better understand:
Please note, this convening will be webcast for those unable to attend in person. Convening #2: Community Change Initiatives in Complementary Education March 19th, 2013 Los Angeles
Alongside (and at times stimulating) the development of new models, recent decades have also seen a number of community-wide initiatives to strengthen and transform complementary education. This convening will examine a number of these initiatives in order to better understand:
Convening #3: Putting the Pieces Together: Building a Network for Change
The richness of today's landscape with regard to efforts to strengthen and transform complementary education presents the field with an opportunity and a challenge to move beyond the current situation in which multiple endeavors operate in parallel, but with little structured communication. This greatly diminishes the chance for systematic learning, transfer of knowledge, coordination of efforts, and collective impact. It also impedes efforts to draw new resources into the field to support more ambitious change efforts. This convening will examine how the community of activists and interested funders engaged in complementary educational change might establish more robust frameworks for communication, shared learning, and collaborative planning. The convening will consider:
See the JESNA website for additional information and registration.


text:
flotd - not found
No words found in this wordlist when searching for flotd.
No direct (one word) anagrams for flotd found in this word list.
Words formed by adding one letter before or after flotd (in bold), or to dflot in any order:
e - lofted
Shorter words found within flotd:
do dol dolt dot fold lo loft lot od of oft old to tod told
List shorter words within flotd, sorted by length
Words formed from any letters in flotd, plus an optional blank or existing letter
List all words containing flotd
Previous word in list: flotations
Next word in list: flotilla
Some random words: widder ilea oil eskar foal kinnikinnick cuadrilla
This is not a dictionary, it's a word game wordfinder.
- Help and FAQ - Examples - Home
Privacy Policy - Share - © Copyright 2004-2015 Morewords.com - 8.399mS


text:
Did you know that some candy products have as many as 10 dyes? A possible link between ADHD and certain foods — including food dyes and preservatives — has been suspected since the 1970s, though many researches still believe the cause of ADHD if primarily genetic.
Here's a list of food preservatives and colorings that could aggravate attention problems:
•Red No. 40 – the most widely used food coloring in the U.S.
•Red No. 3
•Yellow No. 5 – studies have been done on Yellow No. 5 as a single agent, which did link it to ADHD. It's the second most commonly used food coloring, after Red No. 40
•Blue No. 1
•Blue No. 2
•Green No. 3
•Orange B
•Sodium benzoate
•Yellow No. 6
The European Union has already acted to place warning labels on foods containing six artificial colors that "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." Britain's Food Standards Agency (the equivalent of the U.S. FDA) is also trying to get companies to phase out these additives.
The bottom line? Get the colors in your diet from fresh fruits and vegetables!


text:
TV, Radio, and Online Availability for Kentucky-Vanderbilt
Nov. 14, 2013 Information regarding where the Kentucky-Vanderbilt game will be available on TV and radio, as well as various options for catching the game online. TelevisionSEC Network - Live at 12:21 p.m. ET
RadioAll UK men's basketball games are carried by the UK IMG Sports Network; check for the affiliate in your area. Online Coverage
Text UpdatesText updates are available through the Wildcat Alerts service.


text:
Teaching (Early Childhood)
Welcome to the current students website for the Master of Teaching (Early Childhood Education). In these pages you will find useful information about:
- units of study
- course completion requirements
- course structures
- faculty staff associated with the teaching and administration of the course.
The curriculum integrates preparation for general- and special-early-childhood education of infants, toddlers and preschool children so that students will be confident about teaching in diverse and inclusive early-childhood environments, including schools and other community settings.


text:
View Image
baseball team
lets play
lets play
I'm glad I don't play for that team!! What side of the plate does he bat f...
Ashamed Of His Team
Sometimes you have to take one for the team
my mate drunk at the 18th
me and my army mates
Your Dishes Do Not Concern Me
You're not.
Concerned Mother
I was at a baseball game in southernCalifornia and they displayed the team ...
Should we be concerned he's watching Dexter?
Batter Up
Good Catch
I asked my son if he was ready to go to his baseball game, he told me that ...
A sign telling you the only customers that can eat for free