Committee hears industry support and public concern for bill barring nuisance suits against racetracks (House Bill 5652)
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Supporters of House Bill 5652 told the committee the bill would protect long‑standing racetracks and local jobs, while at least one public commenter urged revisions, warning that 'total immunity' for corporations is unfair and that regulatory cuts matter.
The House Committee on Government Operations heard testimony on House Bill 5652, a proposal to limit nuisance suits against racetracks, as supporters described economic contributions and opponents urged revisions to protect residents and retain environmental and health safeguards.
Sponsor Representative Brian Bagole described the bill as intended to “stop those frivolous lawsuits” against long‑standing racetracks. Industry witnesses said the bill would protect lawful, established facilities from being forced out by newcomers. Tiara Hubbard, testifying for the Performance Racing Industry and SEMA, said, “In Michigan, the performance racing industry contributes about $7,000,000,000 in economic output annually and supports 25,000 full time jobs,” and urged the committee to advance the bill while noting it “does not exempt facilities from environmental laws, safety regulations, or local permitting requirements.”
Dennis Wheeler, who runs operations at Owasso Speedway, described his track’s 87‑year history and said Shiawassee County motorsports produced roughly $32,930,000 in economic impact last year and supported 117 jobs. Woody Sloan of Onondaga Dragway recounted that protracted nuisance litigation previously bankrupted a prior owner and shut his track down, arguing small operators can be undone by a single lawsuit. Brandon Hamby, general manager of Flat Rock Speedway, described decibel rules and scheduling limits his tracks use to reduce noise and said the facilities host community and charity events.
Opposition and concerns were raised in public comment. Ashley Myers, a nurse and farmer, said she opposed the bill "without revision," called “total immunity for a corporation…just absolutely not even fair,” and asked for data on nuisance‑claim payouts. She also warned committee members to consider recent cuts to environmental and health regulations when evaluating claims that the bill preserves necessary oversight.
Industry witnesses repeatedly said the bill was not intended to shield gross negligence or remove regulatory oversight; testimony emphasized that facility upgrades or changes would still require local approvals. The committee heard no final motion or vote on HB 5652 during the meeting.
The hearing closed with no committee action recorded; the bill will be subject to further consideration following any staff reports or committee scheduling.