Adams Outdoor Advertising v. East Lansing , 439 Mich. 209 ( 1992 )

Griffin, J.

(dissenting). I share the dissenting view of Justice Levin that authority for a city to promulgate an amortization provision cannot be found in the language of § 4i(5) of the home rule act, MCL 117.4i(5); MSA 5.2082(5). Nor can such authority be inferred, particularly in light of De Mull v City of Howell, 368 Mich 242; 118 NW2d 232 (1962). Without intimating disagreement concerning part hi of Justice Levin’s opinion, I shall reserve judgment as to questions of constitutionality until they are before this Court for decision.