The Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed a lawsuit against Michigan State University, alleging it violated the Freedom of Information Act. The Mackinac Center requested public documents concerning the university’s contentious land deal with a government-funded megasite in Eagle Township.

The university did not, according to Mackinac Center, properly fulfill the request to provide a copy of the land agreement and amendments between a now deceased farmer and the university. The small amount of information the university did provide was heavily redacted.

David Morris, an Eagle Township farmer who died in 2009, agreed to donate more than 1,200 acres of his land to MSU. The agreement was made in the early 2000s. The Mackinac Center's FOIA request seeks details on the terms of that agreement.

Cori Feldpausch, a neighbor of the property who is working to prevent construction of the megasite, said neighbors are frustrated at the lack of transparency in disclosing the agreement that will impact property owners close to the proposed site.

“We do not have all of the facts. We know there was an agreement that the property would be used for agricultural purposes for 25 years after the agreement was made,” Feldpausch told Michigan Capitol Confidential. “We do not know if this contract allowed MSU to sell the property to another entity that could then use it for something other than agriculture. Or if the contract stipulates even if sold it has to be used by that entity for the same purpose. At this point, why are they not just disclosing all of the details for transparency and clarity?”

The Mackinac Center attempted to contact MSU’s FOIA office regarding its failure to fulfill the request, but the university did not respond.

The university claims the information is private and related to security issues. The Mackinac Center contends it is highly unlikely all of the redacted information falls within these exemptions. It also notes MSU may not have separated exempt information from nonexempt information.

“This case represents yet another example of Michigan’s lack of transparency,” said Steve Delie, director of transparency and open government at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

“The Eagle Township megasite has been the source of major media attention, but details on the project are sorely lacking. Michigan’s citizens deserve to know the details of how the underlying land came to be in MSU’s possession, and MSU needs to be held accountable for relying on improper redactions to withhold key information.”

Michigan State did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Michigan brewers who want to sell nonalcoholic beer in their taprooms face an obstacle: state officials who want to regulate the beverage as if it contains alcohol.

While the demand for nonalcoholic beer is rising, breweries find that regulations hamper their ability to cater to patrons seeking a sober alternative.

The Michigan Liquor Control Commission classifies nonalcoholic beer in the same manner as other beer, granting exclusive distribution rights to regional wholesalers and letting them enjoy monopoly profits. This regulatory framework restricts breweries from serving nonalcoholic beer, as they can offer only beer they brew themselves. Meanwhile, breweries can freely offer their customers soft drinks like Coke and Pepsi products. 

Breweries find it difficult to turn a profit when they produce nonalcoholic beer in small batches. As a result, brewers face a dilemma: They can take a loss making nonalcoholic beer themselves or deprive their customers of an increasingly preferred beverage option.

Brewers would not face this dilemma if state alcohol regulators used the Michigan Constitution to define alcohol. The constitution says an alcoholic beverage is a beverage with an alcohol content, by volume, of 0.5% or higher. Nonalcoholic beer would not meet this definition. State regulators, meanwhile, define beer as a beverage that uses grains that undergo a fermentation process. This latter definition means that nonalcoholic beer is subject to the same regulations as its alcoholic counterparts — most importantly, the wholesaler distribution monopoly. 

“It may be a little bit of a regulatory reach,” former state regulator James Storey said of the commission’s approach to nonalcoholic beer in a phone interview with Michigan Capitol Confidential. “To their credit, the staff takes its obligation to regulate alcohol sales to heart and is very serious about it. When products are introduced, they are slow to recognize the impact that these products have. Whether it is illegal or not is a different issue.”

Members of the commission did not respond to an emailed request for comment.