Local government: other; process to vacate certain deed restrictions; provide for. Creates new act.
Senate Bill 960, titled the "dark store prevention act," would allow a city, village, or township to ask a circuit court to remove certain private restrictions or covenants from commercial property in its jurisdiction. The bill applies only to commercial property in an area zoned for retail use, with a building or structure that has been vacant for at least two years, after at least one public hearing, and only if the property is blighted as defined in existing law.
Under the bill, the local government would file an in rem declaratory judgment action in the county circuit court naming the property itself, with the property owner and the local government as necessary parties. If the court finds the deed or other instrument contains a qualifying private restriction or covenant and the statutory conditions are met, it must order the restriction removed from the register of deeds records and from the deed or instrument. The bill also allows the county to intervene as a plaintiff and provides for recording fees for the register of deeds.
The bill would create a new legal process in Michigan for local governments to seek judicial removal of deed restrictions or covenants on certain long-vacant, blighted retail commercial properties. It would affect property law, land records, and local government authority by giving municipalities a tool to clear private restrictions that may limit reuse or redevelopment of so-called dark store properties. The measure would also interact with existing blight definitions and recording procedures under Michigan law.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be policy-driven and targeted rather than broadly controversial in the available record. The bill’s framing as the "dark store prevention act" suggests support for local governments and redevelopment interests concerned with vacant retail sites, but no formal vote history or transcript is available here to show broader legislative support or opposition.
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between local redevelopment goals and private property rights. Supporters would likely favor giving municipalities a way to eliminate obsolete deed restrictions that hinder reuse of vacant retail properties, while opponents may argue that the bill expands government power to alter private covenants and could affect contractual expectations and landowner rights. The bill also narrows eligibility to blighted, retail-zoned properties vacant for at least two years, which suggests an attempt to limit the remedy to a specific class of properties and may reflect concern about overreach.