Local Issues

Michigan needs reliable, affordable energy, and landowners have a right to make reasonable use of their property. But those principles do not justify pushing local residents and township governments aside when a large industrial energy project will permanently affect farmland, drainage, roads, neighboring properties, and the character of a community.

That is why I support substantially amending Public Act 233. The law gives the Michigan Public Service Commission authority over certain large renewable-energy projects under specified circumstances. Silver Maple Solar, a proposed 200-megawatt project in Zeeland and Jamestown townships, is now part of that state process. Michigan Public Service Commission

My position is not anti-solar. It is pro-accountability, pro-property rights, and pro-local representation. Renewable energy projects should earn community support through a fair process, not receive special treatment that weakens local zoning authority.

I would work to amend PA 233 so that:

• Township zoning decisions receive substantial deference. State review should be a limited backstop for unreasonable obstruction, not the default path around local government.
• Residents have a real seat at the table. Public participation must occur early enough to influence a project, not after the major decisions have already been made.
• Both sets of property rights are protected. Participating landowners may choose to lease their land, but neighboring owners also deserve safeguards involving setbacks, screening, glare, noise, drainage, construction traffic, fire response, and property access.
• Productive farmland receives stronger protection. Developers should prioritize brownfields, contaminated land, rooftops, parking areas, and less productive acreage before converting large areas of prime farmland.
• Developers bear the full cost. Host communities and taxpayers should not be left paying for road damage, emergency planning, drainage problems, decommissioning, or disposal.
• Decommissioning plans are fully funded in advance. Financial guarantees should be independently reviewed, periodically updated, and strong enough to restore the land even if the developer changes ownership or fails.
• Project decisions are transparent. Site plans, environmental studies, drainage analyses, emergency-response plans, lease-related conflicts of interest, and decommissioning obligations should be available to the public in understandable form.

For Silver Maple specifically, state officials should give serious weight to the findings and concerns of Zeeland and Jamestown townships and their residents. A project of this scale should proceed only after a transparent review demonstrates that it protects neighboring families, farmland, roads, drainage systems, and taxpayers.

Michigan can expand its energy supply without erasing local democracy. We should expect both.

Clean water is not a partisan issue. Ottawa County residents should be able to trust the water coming from their taps and private wells, and they should not have to become environmental experts to learn whether contamination threatens their families.

Ottawa County faces more than one groundwater challenge. State records identify multiple PFAS sites and areas of interest in the county, while local research has also documented declining groundwater levels and increasing salt content in parts of the aquifer system. Michigan PFAS Response · Ottawa County Groundwater

I believe the state should focus on five basic duties:

1. Test where the risk is greatest. When contamination is discovered, the state should rapidly test nearby groundwater, public water systems, and potentially affected private wells. Testing should be based on evidence and proximity, not on whether a family can afford it.
2. Protect private-well owners. Families near a known or suspected contamination source should receive timely testing, plain-language results, and immediate access to safe drinking water when standards are exceeded. Michigan already coordinates among environmental, health, and local agencies when groundwater exceeds PFAS criteria; that response should be fast, consistent, and adequately funded. Michigan PFAS Response
3. Make information easy to find. Residents should be able to search a public map by address and see investigation boundaries, testing results, contaminants, responsible agencies, current status, health guidance, and the next scheduled action. Technical reports should be accompanied by clear summaries.
4. Make polluters pay. When a responsible party can be identified, taxpayers and affected homeowners should not bear the cleanup costs. The state should aggressively pursue investigation, treatment, cleanup, well replacement, and long-term monitoring expenses from responsible polluters while preserving due process.
5. Prevent the next contamination site. Michigan should strengthen monitoring of high-risk facilities, enforce handling and disposal requirements, respond quickly to spills, and reduce the use of PFAS when safer and practical alternatives exist.

Accountability also applies to government. Agencies should publish measurable cleanup milestones, explain delays, and report how public money is being spent. Emergency assistance must not turn into an indefinite substitute for actual cleanup.

We should also treat groundwater quantity as part of water security. State and local planning should use sound data so that new development, agriculture, and industry do not overdraw aquifers or worsen saltwater intrusion.

Families deserve prompt answers, safe water, transparent information, and confidence that the party responsible for contamination - not the homeowner - will pay to fix it.

Ottawa County's housing problem affects people at every stage of life: young adults looking for a starter home, families struggling with rent, employers trying to recruit workers, and seniors who want to remain near their communities.

The county's 2025 housing assessment found substantial gaps in both rental and for-sale housing. It also identified opportunities to serve middle-income buyers by allowing smaller homes on appropriately sized lots and expanding options such as townhomes and two-to-four-unit buildings in suitable locations. Ottawa County

The answer is not one large new bureaucracy. It is a disciplined strategy built around supply, prevention, self-sufficiency, and accountability.

State government should help communities remove unnecessary barriers while respecting legitimate local planning. That includes:

• Encouraging smaller starter homes, townhomes, accessory dwelling units, and other modest housing choices where infrastructure can support them.
• Making permitting more predictable and reducing unnecessary delays that add cost without improving health or safety.
• Reusing vacant buildings and redeveloping brownfields before expanding outward onto productive farmland.
• Directing infrastructure assistance toward communities willing to approve additional housing.
• Reviewing state construction and rehabilitation rules for provisions that raise costs without delivering a clear safety benefit.

Local governments should still decide where growth belongs. The state's role should be to provide useful model ordinances, technical assistance, infrastructure partnerships, and carefully designed incentives - not impose the same neighborhood design on every Michigan community.

A short-term crisis should not become a permanent loss of housing. Limited, targeted eviction prevention can be both humane and fiscally responsible when a temporary setback is the only barrier keeping a household from stability.

Any state-supported prevention effort should:

• Focus on households facing a verifiable, short-term emergency.
• Include mediation, landlord participation, and a workable plan for future payments.
• Coordinate existing programs so residents are not sent from office to office.
• Measure whether assistance actually prevents displacement and reduces later shelter, court, healthcare, and public-safety costs.
• Use clear eligibility rules, audits, and time limits.

People experiencing homelessness do not all face the same problem. Some primarily need affordable housing; others may need mental-health treatment, addiction recovery, disability support, employment assistance, or protection from domestic violence.

State policy should support locally coordinated programs that combine emergency shelter with individual responsibility and a path forward. The goal should be stable housing and greater independence, not indefinite management of homelessness.

Funding should follow measurable outcomes such as:

• Movement into stable housing.
• Continued housing stability.
• Increased employment or income when a person can work.
• Connection to treatment and recovery services.
• Reduced repeated use of shelters, emergency rooms, courts, and jails.

Michigan should expand programs that demonstrate results, revise those that do not, and stop funding efforts that cannot show where the money went or whether lives improved.

A serious housing policy should make it easier to build attainable homes, help people survive temporary crises, and give those who have lost housing a realistic route back to stability - without creating another costly system measured only by how much it spends.