Northern Mi Environmental Action Council v. City of Traverse City, 332590

This is a concurring/dissenting opinion by Judge Sawyer in a Michigan Court of Appeals case involving NMEAC and Townsend challenging a city special land use permit (SLUP) for a nine-story development.
Townsend undisputedly has standing; NMEAC sought to assert organizational standing based on its members’ interests.
NMEAC alleged three bases for standing: environmental concerns (bird impacts), change in area character, and tax concerns.
NMEAC submitted an affidavit from William Scharf, a biology professor and NMEAC board member, opining that the building would harm birds by causing fatal collisions with glass.
The concurrence concludes NMEAC lacks standing because its asserted interests are shared by the public and its members did not show a special, personal injury different from the general citizenry.
The concurrence also finds Scharf’s affidavit insufficient to show his own special injury because it expresses expert opinion about bird harm without alleging personal, particularized injury to his studies or activities at the site.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NMEAC has organizational standing to sue	NMEAC: its members suffer environmental, neighborhood-character, and tax injuries from the SLUP	City/Pine St.: asserted interests are public in nature and not particularized	NMEAC lacks standing because injuries are shared by the public and not special or particularized
Whether NMEAC may rely on member affidavits to establish standing	NMEAC: Scharf’s affidavit shows member has special expertise and will be affected by bird impacts	Opponents: affidavit is general/expert opinion, not a personal, particularized injury	Scharf’s affidavit insufficient; it states expert opinion, not a personal, site-specific injury
Whether a member’s professional expertise alone confers standing	NMEAC: Scharf’s expertise studying birds distinguishes him from the public	Opponents: expertise alone does not show a substantial, personal right harmed by this project	Expertise alone is inadequate without allegation that member’s specific studies or activities will be harmed
Effect of lack of member standing on organizational standing	NMEAC: organization stands to the extent its members do	Opponents: organization cannot stand if its members lack standing	Because members did not show standing, NMEAC likewise lacks standing

Trout Unlimited, Muskegon White River Chapter v City of White Cloud, 195 Mich. App. 343 (1992) (nonprofit has standing only to advocate interests of members who themselves have sufficient stake)
Lansing Sch. Ed. Ass’n v. Lansing Bd. of Ed., 487 Mich. 349 (2010) (organizational/member standing requires a special injury different from the public at large)