MARSHALL, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The case of Committee for Marshall-Not the Megasite versus the City of Marshall heard oral arguments after the former sued the City regarding the results of a failed petition over land allocated to Ford in a preliminary injunction hearing Wednesday morning. 

Originally, the first court was scheduled for early July, but was delayed until Wednesday morning at 9 am before the 37th Circuit Court in Calhoun County which was presided over by Hearing Officer and Judge William Marietti.  

MORE NEWS: Train Crash Kills One in Kalamazoo

The plaintiff, the Committee for Marshall-Not the Megasite claims to have garnered more than 800 signatures for a petition against a recent decision by the City of Marshall to rezone land for use other than agricultural land, and also allocate funds to be used towards the Ford Blue Oval Battery Park Plant in Marshall.  The defendants are the City of Marshall, and City of Marshall Clerk, Michelle Eubank, who did not grant the group a letter of sufficiency for the petition. 

One of the five parties seeking an intervention to join in the case, the Michigan Area Economic Development Alliance (MAEDA), expressed its position towards the case through legal counsel James Zdarsky. 

“MAEDA as the current landowner right now, one of the ways we look at this is, we are a trustee of this land and we are acting on behalf and for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries, that being: Ford who is ultimately going to own this land and have the development, as well as the other interveners who are expending significant resources and time to get this site up and running,” he said. 

After hearing nearly an hour of testimony by the five parties who filed for intervention ahead of the court proceeding, Marietti ruled that only MAEDA had the right to join the case.  He did not grant the right of intervention to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), Michigan Strategic Fund (MSF), Marshall Citizens for Jobs and Opportunity (MCJO), nor the Ford Motor Company.  

“To sum up with regard to intervention,” Judge Marietti said, “The court is going to permit the Marshall Area Economic Development Alliance to intervene in this matter, and denies the motions to intervene by the other proposed interveners.” 

 The court heard oral arguments from Zdarsky on behalf of MAEDA. 

“As a threshold matter, MAEDA is the property owner of the parcel that was rezoned as a result of the ordinance,” Zdarsky said in oral arguments, “so it certainly has a property interest relating to the subject of this action. This action is over an ordinance amending the zoning of MAEDA’s property and petitioner’s claim that the ordinance’s enactment was unconstitutional and alternatively for mandamus.”  

MORE NEWS: Bus Service Adds More Stops Between Detroit and Mt. Pleasant

Later, the plaintiff’s legal representative, attorney Robby Dube, raised questions regarding the legality of City Clerk Eubank’s ability to determine that the petitions were insufficient to put to a referendum vote during oral arguments. 

“The city clerk through an unconstitutional administrative interpretation contrary to the clear words of the city charter asserts signatures can only be collected by referendum committee members and that the ordinance is not referable because it contains an appropriation.” he added, “If the city is right, then the city charter violates the petitioners’ first amendment rights and the appropriation in the ordinance is illegal and must be severed.” 

“But the city is not right, and it fails under clear constitutional law and it fails under a straightforward statutory interpretation,” Dube added. 

Attorney Joseph Colaianne followed with oral arguments on behalf of the City and City Clerk Michelle Eubank, arguing that the petitioners claim that the clerk has a clear legal duty under Section 504 of the charter to suspend the ordinance and place it on the ballot didn’t hold up. 

“That argument proves way too much,” he said, “It admits that the clerk has to follow the charter, but the starting point for referendums under the charter is section 5.01 that says there is no right to a referendum on this type of ordinance.” 

MAEDA Representative Zdarsky on behalf of MAEDA and the City of Marshall asked that the status quo be maintained. 

“The status quo is the petition contains an appropriation of money, it is not subject to referendum under the city charter, we can litigate the merits of that claim,” he added, “In the meantime the status quo needs to be that the certificate of insufficiency remains, and we deal with this case and petitioners claims in the ordinary course.” 

Zdarsky answered in the affirmative to the judge’s question about his position that “the actual determination by the clerk that the ordinance includes an appropriation and therefore is not eligible for referendum is a ministerial decision?” 

While not granted the right of intervention, lawyer for the MEDC, Scott Eldrige, spoke about the financial costs of delaying the project for a referendum, who also spoke on behalf of the MSF. 

“MEDC and MSF are indispensable to the success of this project, from start to finish,” Eldridge said, “Money that the legislature, in this case hundred of millions of dollars, has been appropriated to MSF for this very purpose run through the MSF and the MEDC, the MEDC administers the project from start to finish.” 

He added that the project is at a point where Ford could be ready to pour cement later this month, but a referendum could effectively halt the construction. 

“It would mean an immediate loss of $10 million dollars in savings, that’s because in the resolution that the MSF passed approving this project, MEDC has promised certain deliverables on a time table,” Eldrige said, “One of those deliverables is to allow and to make a site or at least a portion of this site building pad ready.” 

The crux of the lawsuit has to do with constitutional rights violations and not finances according to Dube. 

“This lawsuit is only, do the citizens even get to vote at all?” Dube said during a press conference after the hearing, “The other side is constantly trying to jump ahead here.  Saying if we don’t have this rezoning, everything collapses and falls apart.  Okay go make that political argument, go explain why the referendum should fail, that is not an argument for why we are not allowed to have a referendum at all.” 

In May, the Marshall City Council voted unanimously to approve the rezoning of several hundred acres of land to be used for the Ford Project, despite a previous vote by the Marshall Joint Planning Commission recommending against the rezoning of the land. 

Marietti concluded the hearing by complementing both sides for “preparation and thoroughness” and letting all parties involved to expect his written opinion within the next five days regarding whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction regarding the city ordinance.