The opinion
*162 J. P. Swallow, J.
(dissenting). The Legislature, by enacting § 8(b) of the building authority act, MCL 123.958; MSA 5.301(8b), clearly intended to provide the electorate a check and balance over a governing body which would seek to encumber municipal revenue to guarantee the financial success of any building project; in this case a conference center and parking ramp.
The petitions in question were timely filed, meticulously canvassed by the city clerk and found to contain sufficient valid signatures of registered voters so as to qualify for ballot placement. The reason for refusal to certify as given by the city clerk is that the petition format fails to disclose the Lansing Taxpayers Association as the organization responsible for their circulation.
The building authority act does not expressly require such disclosure. To support that requirement, the city clerk must layer together § 8b of the building authority act with §25 of the home rule cities act, MCL 117.25; MSA 5.2104.1 disagree with that construction of the statute for, in my opinion, judges should strictly construe statutes which impose requirements of form upon petitions when the eifect of invalidation would be to deny public referendum upon a governing body’s power to impose a public burden. Alan v Wayne Co, 388 Mich 210 ; 200 NW2d 628 (1972). See also Newsome v Bd of State Canvassers, 69 Mich App 725 ; 245 NW2d 374 (1976), lv den 397 Mich 833 (1976). I would also note that the record below does not show that any petition signer was misled because of nondisclosure of the organization circulating the petitions, nor is it claimed that anyone who signed the petitions would have refused to sign them had they known the identity of the circulating organization. The petitions, in my opinion, are clear on *163 their face and anyone signing them should have understood their purpose and intent.
I would hold that there has been substantial compliance with the statute and direct the city clerk to certify the petitions.