Grand Rapids climate plan sparks tax, business fears

A global warming plan in the city of Grand Rapids will raise taxes on residents and drive business out of the city, landlords and property owners said in feedback to the city, according to records Michigan Capitol Confidential obtained.

The climate plan uses the amount of greenhouse gas emitted by municipal operations in 2008 as its benchmark, setting a goal for Michigan’s second-largest city to reduce its emissions 85% by 2030 and 100% by 2040.

The plan aims to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions by 62.8% per capita by 2030, with 2019 as the benchmark. The city wants to boost solar energy, use less energy, have more green space, and produce less food waste.

CapCon obtained more than 400 documents that residents and business owners sent to city officials, giving mixed feedback on the plan. Some supported the climate plan while others opposed it.

Sara Karasinski, a Grand Rapids resident, opposed the plan, saying it would lead to tax increases.

“It doesn’t identify the foundational pieces that must be put into place for the rest of the plan to function, essentially just making it a 100+ page document outlining the city's hopes and dreams,” Karasinski wrote. “How will these strategies be funded? Though tax increases? The word ‘funding’ is found over 37 times in this document but doesn’t share any specific funding sourcing, but rather notes that ‘funding’ will need to be identified and secured.”

Karasinski said that government shouldn’t take away the right of residents to choose whether to use natural gas or electricity to heat their homes or cook their meals.

“My family has made adjustments to our lifestyle in support of our environment, but I don’t believe in the government forcing residents to give up their right to choose. An example of this is wanting to ‘electrify’ all new buildings, meaning the removal of gas or wanting to ‘Require that 10 percent of any plantings be edibles, preferably edible perennials, within required Parks and Open Spaces (as defined by the Community Master Plan).’ This is clear overreach and needs to be addressed.”

CapCon reported on the climate change plan in January 2025.

The plan’s top 20 priorities appear in the document embedded below.

20 Priority Actions CAAP 2025 (2) by mcclallen

Marcel Burgler of CCIM Prime Development said the climate plan will drive building owners and investors out of the city.

“As a businessperson, I make decisions where to locate and invest based on taxation, imposed regulations and the burden of compliance,” Burgler wrote. “The proposed strategies, goals, measurements, and implementations outlined in your Climate Action Plan will simply make building owners and investors avoid the city. Your good intentions will lead to unexpected negative consequences. It will take a while, but ultimately this will lead to lower investment, lower employment and reduced growth in your city.”

Sam Cummings of CWD Real Estate Investment and Mike Van Gessel of VG Investments wrote that the climate goals conflict with the goals of growing the city’s population and increasing the amount of housing.

“Our Community Master Plan and economic development strategies emphasize the need for more housing options, increased density, and inclusive growth – in downtown and citywide. If the (climate plan’s) implementation results in added regulatory burdens on existing building owners and increased costs for developers, or limitations on land use flexibility, we risk undermining these goals.”

One couple, David and Julie Bernstein, urged Commissioner Lisa Knight to support the plan.

“I fully support the goals of Grand Rapids City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and urge you to vote on August 12 in favor of the Plan,” the Aug. 8 email said. “Given the strange and self-destructive actions elsewhere in government, it is doubly important that we in Grand Rapids stand strong in our dedication to protecting our children and grandchildren — all of them — from the disastrous changes in our planet. Grand Rapids can stand up for the truth, as we best understand it, and protect our citizens from the disastrous effects of ignoring the effects of climate change.”

Tim Vandentoorn, who owns United Properties of West Michigan, opposes part of the plan but not all of it.

Vandentoorn’s property management company manages almost a thousand rental units, primarily in Grand Rapids. About 30% are low-income, and the majority are single-family or small multi-family houses.

“My concern lies in the practical, financial implications for small landlords and renters — particularly in older housing stock,” Vandertoorn wrote. “Many of the energy efficiency upgrades promoted in the plan — like insulation, window replacement, or HVAC system electrification — will inadvertently trigger federally mandated lead hazard remediation in pre-1978 homes. This isn’t theoretical; it’s a regulatory reality tied to disturbing painted surfaces, and the cost of compliance can quickly spiral into $10,000–$30,000 or more, not including the complications of tenant displacement.”

The Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce said in an Aug. 5 letter that it supports parts of the plan but has at least seven serious concerns.

1. Too big, too vague: The plan outlines 197 actions, 71 programs, 84 processes and 38 policy changes — many unclear, unrealistic, and resource-heavy to implement.

2. Regulation overload: Explores mandated energy reporting, audits, and retrofitting. Seeks to set new local building standards that are more burdensome than state code — creating confusion, risk and costs, especially for small businesses. i. Strategy 3, Action 1 / Buildings and Industry ii. Strategy 2, Action 1 / Buildings & Industry

3. Development deterrent: Could drive up construction costs by advocating for “stronger” building codes and design mandates, making redevelopment harder. i. Strategy 3, Actions 1 & 4 / Buildings & Industry

4. Mixed messages on housing affordability: While supporting positive density and land-use items, it also proposes: • Adopting the most stringent energy codes (they are even tied up in lawsuits for excessive cost) • New cost-prohibitive mandates on incentives like EV charging, solar, and electrification. • More greenspace requirements = less buildable land.

5. Promotes new taxes: Calls for property taxes as an option to fund home upgrades and e-bike programs. i. Strategy 3, Action 3 / Residential Homes + Transportation

6. Picks business winners and losers: Calls to promote certain business models (like cooperatives) as “equitable,” implying other models are not good businesses. That’s a slippery slope. i. Strategy 1, Action 7 / Food Systems

7. More patchwork rules: Proposes food waste bans and plastic bag restrictions — policies that add cost for restaurants and grocers. i. Strategy 2, Actions 6 & 11 / Food Systems

“We all are striving for a community where families and businesses can grow together – it is important that we focus on the things that we must do well and not try to do everything at once,” chamber officials wrote in the letter. “We shouldn’t pretend we can have it both ways and should instead approach challenges such as climate change, housing costs, corridor/downtown vibrancy with the nuance, specificity and depth these issues deserve. Please consider the new costs for residents and businesses, the unintended consequences, and the opportunity costs of such a sprawling, tangled plan.”

David T. Stevenson, director of energy and environmental policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said that rooftop solar isn’t feasible for many Michiganders.

“Without a 30% federal tax credit, most people can’t afford rooftop solar, and many homes don’t have south-facing roofs, or new enough roofs to install panels,” Stevenson told CapCon in an email. “With a 25-year solar panel life expectancy, the panels will outlast the remaining life of the roof. It costs a lot to pull panels and install them again.”

More than a dozen cities in Michigan have enacted a climate action plan.