Court Opinion

ID: 9693519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:47:41.234536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:48.022524
License: Public Domain

Sharpe, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result of Mr. Justice Reid’s opinion. Article 8, § 28, of the Michigan Constitution (1908) provides in part as follows:
“The right of all cities, villages and townships to the reasonable control of their streets, alleys and public places is hereby reserved to such cities, villages and townships.”
Under the above section of the Michigan Constitution we have held that a municipality has the power to exercise reasonable control of the streets, alleys and public places within its own limits. See North Star Line, Inc., v. City of Grand Rapids, 259 Mich 654. However, that part of US 16 in controversy here became a part of Ingham county road system on September 10, 1924, and on the same date it was, established as a State trunk line highway. By such action US 16 not only was a city street but also a part of the State highway systems. I note that the city of East Lansing on September 10, 1924, adopted a resolution, a copy of which reads as follows:
“Resolution by Alderman Hallman. Resolved,, that the common council of the city of East Lansing, Ingham county, Michigan hereby consents, for and on behalf of said municipality, that the board of county road commissioners of said county may take over as a part of the county road system the following described streets and parts of streets: Grand River avenue, beginning at its junction with Michigan avenue east to the east city limits, known as Project PA-88-C-2. Resolution adopted: Teas,. 3; Nays, none.” (The project referred to was a Federal aid project.)
Under the above resolution the city of East Lansing released and surrendered its rights to control *418.parking in that part of US 16 involved in this case. It follows that in such case CL 1948, § 750.498 (Stat Ann 1951 Cum Supp § 28.766) and PA 1949, No 300, § 675 (d), as amended by PA 1951, No 47 (Stat Ann 1951 Cum Supp § 9.2375 [d]) of the Michigan vehicle code is not unconstitutional.
Boyles, J., concurred with Sharpe, J.