If I'm not mistaken, this has come before the township boards in the past, and because these are Charlevoix County roads, the townships can't really do anything. I think your time would be better spent before the Charlevoix County Commission. They're the ones who authorize snowmobile use on our roads in the winter.
If you're interested, here is the Ogemaw County ordinance, typos, grammatical errors and all.
ORV's Ordinance
Moderator: Gillespie
I think it would be a wonderful thing to allow ORV's!! We need to take a look at alternate, affordable methods of transportation. In 1996 I leased a nearly 40,000. dollar truck to haul and plow with and I was always stunned by my own inane stupidity with which I could have just as easily plowed with a 5,000. dollar truck and hauled with one of my dump trucks.................................a method we use today! I paid 4.75 today per gallon for fuel to make road gravel for you'all, it is becoming very difficult to keep these machines in operation! I wonder if they could be coal fired?? Peace out.......................
Court Rulings on Township control of local roads
I'm not an attorney but I believe that townships can control the rules on local roads. If the township board(s) want a local ordinance allowing ORV they just have to pass it. I f the board(s ) don't want a local ORV ordinance and don't want the political blow back they will claim its a county issue.
Here is an exerpt from http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/dataf ... p06731.htm
"The conflicting claims of township and county road commission authority over county roads have been analyzed by Michigan's appellate courts on two occasions. In both instances, township authority prevailed."
"The last sentence of Const1963, art 7, Sec. 29, which confers counties, townships, cities and villages with the reasonable control of their highways and streets, starts with the language "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this constitution." Const1963, art 7, Sec. 16, states that "[t]he legislature may provide the powers and duties of counties in relation to highways, bridges, culverts and airports." Const1908, art 8, Sec. 26, contained similar language. Consistent with Const1963, art 7, Sec. 16, and its predecessor provision, Const1908, art 8, Sec. 26, the Legislature has abolished township roads and placed them under the jurisdiction of county road commissions. See the McNitt Act, 1931 PA 130, which was repealed and replaced by 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.651 et seq; MSA 9.1097(1) et seq, and Union Twp v Mt. Pleasant, 381 Mich 82, 86; 158 NW2d 905 (1968)."
......
"The Michigan Supreme Court held, in Union Twp v Mt. Pleasant, supra, 381 Mich, at pp 88-90, that a city could not construct a pipeline to its water source along the right-of-way of a county road running through a township without the approval of both the county road commission and the township. In reaching that result, the Court squarely rejected the claim that, since township roads are now under the control of county road commissions, townships may no longer exercise reasonable control over these roads within their boundaries. Rather, the Court relied upon Const1963, art 7, Sec. 29, in reaching its conclusion that township approval was required.
More recently, in Robinson Twp v Ottawa County Rd Comm'rs, 114 MichApp 405; 319 NW2d 589, lv den 414 Mich 955 (1982), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a township could enact a truck route ordinance applicable to county roads within the township. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim that townships have no authority to control county roads within their boundaries, holding instead, at p 411, 413:"
Here is an exerpt from http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/dataf ... p06731.htm
"The conflicting claims of township and county road commission authority over county roads have been analyzed by Michigan's appellate courts on two occasions. In both instances, township authority prevailed."
"The last sentence of Const1963, art 7, Sec. 29, which confers counties, townships, cities and villages with the reasonable control of their highways and streets, starts with the language "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this constitution." Const1963, art 7, Sec. 16, states that "[t]he legislature may provide the powers and duties of counties in relation to highways, bridges, culverts and airports." Const1908, art 8, Sec. 26, contained similar language. Consistent with Const1963, art 7, Sec. 16, and its predecessor provision, Const1908, art 8, Sec. 26, the Legislature has abolished township roads and placed them under the jurisdiction of county road commissions. See the McNitt Act, 1931 PA 130, which was repealed and replaced by 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.651 et seq; MSA 9.1097(1) et seq, and Union Twp v Mt. Pleasant, 381 Mich 82, 86; 158 NW2d 905 (1968)."
......
"The Michigan Supreme Court held, in Union Twp v Mt. Pleasant, supra, 381 Mich, at pp 88-90, that a city could not construct a pipeline to its water source along the right-of-way of a county road running through a township without the approval of both the county road commission and the township. In reaching that result, the Court squarely rejected the claim that, since township roads are now under the control of county road commissions, townships may no longer exercise reasonable control over these roads within their boundaries. Rather, the Court relied upon Const1963, art 7, Sec. 29, in reaching its conclusion that township approval was required.
More recently, in Robinson Twp v Ottawa County Rd Comm'rs, 114 MichApp 405; 319 NW2d 589, lv den 414 Mich 955 (1982), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a township could enact a truck route ordinance applicable to county roads within the township. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim that townships have no authority to control county roads within their boundaries, holding instead, at p 411, 413:"
-
Dan Wardlow
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:37 pm
Sooo, what does this have to do with orv use on the roads? It may increase the need for more gravel to repair the roads after they are torn up. If orv's were road ready and approved then they could drive on the roads. There isn't many if any places in Michigan that allow them on the roads. I see one county in Michigan mentioned but can't really attest to its credibility since I don't live there.Gillespie wrote: In 1996 I leased a nearly 40,000. dollar truck to haul and plow with and I was always stunned by my own inane stupidity with which I could have just as easily plowed with a 5,000. dollar truck and hauled with one of my dump trucks.................................a method we use today! I paid 4.75 today per gallon for fuel to make road gravel for you'all, it is becoming very difficult to keep these machines in operation! I wonder if they could be coal fired?? Peace out.......................
I am not opposed to local orv traffic if they need to get somewhere close from there they live or to a trail, but would hate to see Beaver Island opened up to anyone who owns an orv to come over and scrounge and scorch the island. There has been plenty of problems with them on the mainland. I know it isn't the majority of people creating problems but it's the few who do that can cause havic for all. The cost of the Sheriff investingating calls, damage, and other things related to orv's could be put to much better use. Just my thoughts on this as we own a home on the island.
State Debate on ORV use on public roads.
"2007 House Bill 4323 (Authorize ORVs on certain road shoulders ) (House Roll Call 53)
Passed in the House (107 to 0) on March 20, 2007, to allow counties in the northern part of the state to allow off road vehicles (ORV's) to be driven on the "far right side" of the road surface (and probably the shoulders) of some or all streets and roads, as determined by the county commission. The bill does not specify posting requirements. ORVs (which includes off-road motorcycles) could not exceed 25 mph when using a road. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 107 in favor, 0 opposed, and 3 not voting"
"That in rural Michigan -- the kind of area that largely would be affected by passage of HB 4323, the level of government closest to the people is the township. Township officials tend to have a solid sense of what will best serve the interests of folks in their 36 or so square miles.
"The Michigan Township Association opposes HB 4323 is telling. The opposition is based on the fact that through HB 4323 townships would be cut completely out of the loop in decision-making as to whether roads in their areas would be open to ORV traffic. In other words, HB 4323 is yet another big government proposal to centralize power over the people and eliminate local control."
http://www.michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=227422
This Bill has stalled in committee so local governments still have the right to allow ORV use on township roads.
Passed in the House (107 to 0) on March 20, 2007, to allow counties in the northern part of the state to allow off road vehicles (ORV's) to be driven on the "far right side" of the road surface (and probably the shoulders) of some or all streets and roads, as determined by the county commission. The bill does not specify posting requirements. ORVs (which includes off-road motorcycles) could not exceed 25 mph when using a road. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 107 in favor, 0 opposed, and 3 not voting"
"That in rural Michigan -- the kind of area that largely would be affected by passage of HB 4323, the level of government closest to the people is the township. Township officials tend to have a solid sense of what will best serve the interests of folks in their 36 or so square miles.
"The Michigan Township Association opposes HB 4323 is telling. The opposition is based on the fact that through HB 4323 townships would be cut completely out of the loop in decision-making as to whether roads in their areas would be open to ORV traffic. In other words, HB 4323 is yet another big government proposal to centralize power over the people and eliminate local control."
http://www.michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=227422
This Bill has stalled in committee so local governments still have the right to allow ORV use on township roads.
re: ORV's Ordinance
Everything has been tabled until the next meeting, so they can have time to look over the paperwork and make a decision.
Tuneman
Tuneman
-
Dan Wardlow
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:37 pm
ORVs
So without the ORVs being approved, today, Monday, June 16, I observed three gas powered mopeds being ridden by underage teens. Not one of them was wearing a helmet. Twice the youngsters were riding double and traveling back and forth across the road from side to side violating, at minimium, three rules of the road, and, if including the licensing and permit issues, many more. If the current laws of moped use are ignored, how many more laws will be ignored by adding more types of vehicles? Where were the responsible adult parents of these teens?
Today, I also saw two adult males riding motorcycles without a helmet. And with this example being shown by the upstanding adult citizens of the community, we propose to allow other vehicles, which are much more dangerous when driven irresponsibly, on the roadways and probably driven by teens as well.
When sixth and seventh grade students are allowed to ride a vehicle that travels 25 mph without insurance and without a license and without a helmet, why would I support ORVs that would probably be driven in the same manner described above?
Oh well, I guess it will keep our local EMS and our local deputy busy taking care of these irresponsible teens and adults.
I am fully in support of responsible adults following the rules of the road and laws of the state on any legally licensed and insured vehicle, but that's not what I saw today.
Today, I also saw two adult males riding motorcycles without a helmet. And with this example being shown by the upstanding adult citizens of the community, we propose to allow other vehicles, which are much more dangerous when driven irresponsibly, on the roadways and probably driven by teens as well.
When sixth and seventh grade students are allowed to ride a vehicle that travels 25 mph without insurance and without a license and without a helmet, why would I support ORVs that would probably be driven in the same manner described above?
Oh well, I guess it will keep our local EMS and our local deputy busy taking care of these irresponsible teens and adults.
I am fully in support of responsible adults following the rules of the road and laws of the state on any legally licensed and insured vehicle, but that's not what I saw today.
Why should an ORV be different than a snowmobile?
If allowed on the roads ORVs & golf carts should be treated the same as snowmobiles and not be forced to carry insurance that they do not need. I'm sure that I would be less of a threat driving down the road in a golf cart or ORV at 25 mph than I would be driving a snowmobile that can top out at over 80 mph. Wave runners and boats are two more examples of vehicles that don not require the extra expense of liability insurance that are potentially much more dangerous than ORV's or golf carts traveling at 25 mph.
The money I would save by not having to carry liability insurance is money that I can spend in town at the local restaurants, pubs, and stores. The same is true for money I would save on gas by driving a golf cart to town. I own two fairly fuel efficient vehicles but it now cost me $3-$5 dollars to drive into town. The increased cost for gas does reduce how often I come to town and how much I spend. Its hard to justify driving in for an ice cream cone or refreshing beverage when the gas will cost as much as what I purchase when I get there.
I believe that the point of establishing an ORV / golf cart ordinance is to remove unnecessary cost to using alternative transportation. I already have the right to make an ORV or golf cart street legal, put plates and insurance on it so that I can drive it down the road. I would rather put my money into making a golf cart suitable for island driving by beefing up the suspension and tires instead of purchasing safety glass for the windshield etc etc. I shouldn't have to pay 4-6-8 or 12 thousand dollars for an electric car when I could purchase a used golf cart and use some of the savings to make it appropriate for island driving.
People who engage in reckless and/or illegal behavior while operating a vehicle of one kind will more than likely drive another type of vehicle with the same disregard for safety and the law. The fact that these type of people exist is not reason to deny responsible citizens alternative means of transportation.
The money I would save by not having to carry liability insurance is money that I can spend in town at the local restaurants, pubs, and stores. The same is true for money I would save on gas by driving a golf cart to town. I own two fairly fuel efficient vehicles but it now cost me $3-$5 dollars to drive into town. The increased cost for gas does reduce how often I come to town and how much I spend. Its hard to justify driving in for an ice cream cone or refreshing beverage when the gas will cost as much as what I purchase when I get there.
I believe that the point of establishing an ORV / golf cart ordinance is to remove unnecessary cost to using alternative transportation. I already have the right to make an ORV or golf cart street legal, put plates and insurance on it so that I can drive it down the road. I would rather put my money into making a golf cart suitable for island driving by beefing up the suspension and tires instead of purchasing safety glass for the windshield etc etc. I shouldn't have to pay 4-6-8 or 12 thousand dollars for an electric car when I could purchase a used golf cart and use some of the savings to make it appropriate for island driving.
People who engage in reckless and/or illegal behavior while operating a vehicle of one kind will more than likely drive another type of vehicle with the same disregard for safety and the law. The fact that these type of people exist is not reason to deny responsible citizens alternative means of transportation.
ORV's Ordinance
I agree with TJD 100% "People who engage in reckless and/or illegal behavior while operating a vehicle of one kind will more than likely drive another type of vehicle with the same disregard for safety and the law. The fact that these type of people exist is not reason to deny responsible citizens alternative means of transportation."
I take acception to some of the statement made by medic5740 " So without the ORVs being approved, today, Monday, June 16, I observed three gas powered mopeds being ridden by underage teens. Not one of them was wearing a helmet. Twice the youngsters were riding double and traveling back and forth across the road from side to side violating, at minimium, three rules of the road, and, if including the licensing and permit issues, many more. If the current laws of moped use are ignored, how many more laws will be ignored by adding more types of vehicles? Where were the responsible adult parents of these teens?" You as a responsible adult should have reported to the parents of these kids or if you didn't know the parents, you should have called the authorities and reported their illegal activities rather than complain in this forum and condemn the use of ORV's by responsible people. We already have Laws in this country pertaining to everything, we just need Law Abiding Citizens to report to the authorities of the illegal activity if they see them. We don't need to make more laws, we just need to enforce the ones that we already have!!!!
Tuneman
I take acception to some of the statement made by medic5740 " So without the ORVs being approved, today, Monday, June 16, I observed three gas powered mopeds being ridden by underage teens. Not one of them was wearing a helmet. Twice the youngsters were riding double and traveling back and forth across the road from side to side violating, at minimium, three rules of the road, and, if including the licensing and permit issues, many more. If the current laws of moped use are ignored, how many more laws will be ignored by adding more types of vehicles? Where were the responsible adult parents of these teens?" You as a responsible adult should have reported to the parents of these kids or if you didn't know the parents, you should have called the authorities and reported their illegal activities rather than complain in this forum and condemn the use of ORV's by responsible people. We already have Laws in this country pertaining to everything, we just need Law Abiding Citizens to report to the authorities of the illegal activity if they see them. We don't need to make more laws, we just need to enforce the ones that we already have!!!!
Tuneman