Case Name: BENDIX SAFETY RESTRAINTS GROUP, ALLIED SIGNAL, INC v. CITY OF TROY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1996-01-30
Citations: 215 Mich. App. 289
Docket Number: Docket No. 163811
Parties: BENDIX SAFETY RESTRAINTS GROUP, ALLIED SIGNAL, INC v CITY OF TROY
Judges: Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Griffin, Neff, Jansen, Fitzgerald, Markey, and O’Connell, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 215
Pages: 289–300

Head Matter:
BENDIX SAFETY RESTRAINTS GROUP, ALLIED SIGNAL, INC v CITY OF TROY
Docket No. 163811.
Submitted February 22, 1995, at Detroit.
Decided January 30, 1996, at 9:10 a.m.
Bendix Safety Restraints Group, Allied Signal, Inc., brought an action in the Oakland Circuit Court against the City of Troy, alleging improper denial of the City of Troy’s consent to a tax abatement the City of Sterling Heights offered to Bendix to move its facilities from the City of Troy to a location in the City of Sterling Heights. Sterling Heights had offered Bendix the tax abatement under the plant rehabilitation and industrial development districts act, 1974 PA 198, MCL 207.551 et seq.; MSA 7.800(1) et seq. However, under the act, the City of Troy’s consent was required before Bendix actually could be granted the tax abatement. The Troy City Council objected and thereby blocked the abatement, though not the move. The court, David F. Breck, J., granted summary disposition for Bendix. The court vacated the resolution by the Troy City Council that had denied Bendix’ request and remanded the matter to the Troy City Council for further consideration. Bendix appealed and the City of Troy cross appealed. After the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Marposs Corp v City of Troy, 204 Mich App 156 (1994). On appeal, the Court of Appeals, Cavanagh, P.J., and Connor and Bandstra, JJ., affirmed the trial court’s order to the extent that it granted a judgment for Bendix, but reversed that portion of the order that remanded the matter to the Troy City Council. 211 Mich App 801 (1995). In its opinion, the Court of Appeals noted that, while it disagreed with the majority opinion in Marposs, it was required to follow it pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1994-4. The Court of Appeals then issued an en banc order invoking the conflict resolution procedure of Administrative Order No. 1994-4 and vacating its prior Bendix opinion. 211 Mich App 801 (1995).
Following consideration by the special panel convened pursu ant to Administrative Order No. 1994-4, the Court of Appeals held:
References
Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law §§ 332, 335.
See ALR Index under Legislature; Separation of Powers.
The conflict in this case is resolved in favor of the prior opinion in this case and its reasoning and analysis is adopted. The trial court erred in ruling that the Troy City Council had improperly refused to consent to the tax abatement. The grant under MCL 207.559(2)(f); MSA 7.800(9)(2)(f) of unlimited discretion to the Troy City Council to decide whether to consent to a tax abatement is not unconstitutional. The Marposs case is overruled.
Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment for the City of Troy.
O’Connell, J., concurring, wrote separately to address constitutional issues raised in this case. The statutory scheme involved in this case, MCL 207.551 et seq.; MSA 7.800(1) et seq., does not contain an unconstitutional delegation of power by the Legislature to the City of Troy. It is not the responsibility of the Court of Appeals to examine the reason proffered by the City of Troy for its denial of consent for the abatement. The mechanisms by which tax exemptions or abatements shall be granted or withheld are plainly committed by the state constitution to legislative resolution. The court properly takes a deferential approach to legislative decisions, arrogating the power of review only with respect to claims that such legislative action violated some clear and established constitutional norm. Bendix had made no claim that the Troy City Council has violated a clear and established constitutional norm. A legislative body is not required to give reasons for its actions. The remedy available in this case is through the legislative process, not judicial review. No judicially cognizable interest of Bendix was violated when the Troy City Council failed to state other than political reasons in support of its decision.
Makkey, J., concurred with Judge O’Connell’s concurrence.
Taxation — Constitutional Law — Plant Rehabilitation and Industrial Development Districts Act — Objections to Tax Exemption — Delegation of Legislative Power.
The provision of the plant rehabilitation and industrial development districts act that precludes a municipality that is acquiring an eligible facility from granting a tax abatement without the consent of the municipality that is losing the facility is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power (MCL 207.559[2][f]; MSA 7.800[9][2][f]).
Butzel Long (by James C. Bruno and Daniel R. W. Rustmann), for the plaintiff.
City of Troy, Department of Law (by Peter A. Letzmann and John J. Martin, III), and Petersen & Lefkofsky, P.C. (by Donald K. S. Petersen), for the City of Troy.
Amicus Curiae:
Miller, Canñeld, Paddock & Stone, P. L. C. (by Joel L. Piell and Steven G. Cohen), for the Michigan Municipal League.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Griffin, Neff, Jansen, Fitzgerald, Markey, and O’Connell, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1994-4, this special panel was convened to resolve the conflict between the prior, vacated opinion in this case, Bendix Safety Restraints Group, Allied Signal, Inc v City of Troy, 211 Mich App 801; 537 NW2d 459 (1995), and Marposs Corp v City of Troy, 204 Mich App 156; 514 NW2d 202 (1994). In accordance with Administrative Order No. 1994-4, the prior Bendix panel was required to follow the precedent of Marposs Corp, supra. Were it not for Administrative Order No. 1994-4, the previous panel would have reversed the decision of the lower court.
Following an en banc order invoking the conflict resolution procedure of Administrative Order No. 1994-4, this case was reheard by this special panel. After due consideration, we resolve the conflict in favor of the prior Bendix opinion. We are persuaded by the prior Bendix opinion and hereby adopt its reasoning and analysis. Marposs Corp v City of Troy, supra, is overruled.
Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for defendant, City of Troy.
Bendix Safety Restraints Group, Allied Signal, Inc v City of Troy, 211 Mich App 801; 537 NW2d 466 (1995).