Detroit City Council recently conducted a public hearing regarding a proposed ordinance affecting evictions in the city.

The following is a summary of the hearing.

July 28, 2006 Public Hearing, Detroit, MI
Detroit City Council Meeting & Public Hearing regarding Proposed Ordinance to Amend Chapter 22, Section 22-2-84 of the 1984 Detroit City Code., Handling of Solid Waste and Prevention of Illegal Dumping. 

Attendees: Dean Cherchiglia on behalf of Safeguard, numerous local attorneys, industry representatives, city residents, landlords, City of Detroit Law Department, and outside counsel.

Background and Summary:
In his May 2006 State of the City address, Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick specifically mentioned plans to aggressively pursue individuals and companies who trash the community and who do not maintain their properties. To further this objective, the City of Detroit's Illegal Dumping Taskforce (“Taskforce”), consisting of several city, county, and state agencies, set out to identify top priority issues that contribute to illegal dumping and property maintenance violations.

The Taskforce recently presented an amendment to the Detroit City Council “to address issues that lead to illegal dumping, while strengthening enforcement effort.”  On Friday, July  28, 2006, City Council held a public hearing on amendments to Chapter 22, Section 22-2-84 of Detroit City Code. The proposed ordinance to require landlords /mortgagees to provide, PRIOR to an eviction, a large approved movable container ("container") into which the Bailiff would remove and store the debris and contents of a home following an eviction. This container would then have to be removed within 48 hours following the eviction.   At the hearing, a representative of the Taskforce identified the eviction process as a “major target of their concerns.”

The Public Hearing:
Council Chairperson Kwame Kenyatta called the public hearing to order at 1 p.m. and Council and City Department members described the ordinance.  Council debated its pros and cons for about 20-30 minutes.  Afterwards, public comment was solicited.

Comments for and against the ordinance were presented by several attorneys representing lenders, creditors, property preservation companies, interested residents and business owners, Bailiffs, and Department of Public Works members.  Safeguard's General Counsel noted its opposition to the proposed ordinance. A summary of the public objections to the proposal are listed below.  One of the only public comments made in support was by Detroit resident Otis Mathis, who expressed concern that loose property created a dangerous potential nuisance to young children.

Council members and the Law Department made their presentation.  The discussion began with a statement that tenant evictions were the number one concern of the Taskforce and this proposed ordinance is the solution.  The limited time that the container would remain on the property was emphasized.  Council then played a Detroit Fox News video of an eviction of property placed on the curb that was scattered along the yard and became a playground for neighborhood children.  The concept of notice to the evicted tenants or mortgagees was debated, with the Law Department noting that a tenant receives several notices of imminent eviction.

Council discussed the concern of the container on the property as a blight issue and its potential use by neighbors and passers-by to dump trash, food, and other debris.  In response, Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers introduced an amendment to the proposed ordinance to require that the movable container be placed behind the home whenever possible.  Opposition to this amendment included the danger of theft and tampering, limited space considerations, vermin infestation, and the idea that the removed personals might not be legally removed from the property.  Council also discussed the potential danger to any contractor or third party working out of sight on a container behind the house.  No vote was held regarding the proposed amendment to the ordinance.

Time was then allotted for public comment with a 2-minute time limit per person. Concerns were expressed that the proposed ordinance would: 

• Result in a significant increase to operating costs for smaller, local individual landlords because of the cost to procure a container.
• Discourage investment in residential real estate in the inner city.
• Cause containers to be a visible blight on the property.
• Cause containers to be used by neighbors, passers-by, and others to dump their trash, debris, food and other hazardous materials.  It was noted that this concern is heightened as the City recently terminated Department of Public Works service for the pick-up of larger items.
• Create liability issues following an eviction as to the dumpster and its contents--who is responsible for damage, loss and other tort issues.
• Create premise liability issues and legal questions regarding who has "dominion and control" of the property once the container is placed upon the property PRIOR to the eviction
• Result in property placed in the container to be damaged in the process of moving and placing it. 
• Cause the containers to be an attractive nuisance and a danger to children who play in them
• Increase the danger of violence and vandalism to the property because of the placement of the container on the property before the lockout, particularly if the container is moved behind the house per the suggested amendment to the ordinance.
• Create a problem because not all properties have enough items to uniformly require the use of a container.
• Be a potential issues because containers may not be able to fit on all lots.
• Containers may cause damage to the property (lawn, curb, driveway, public hydrants)
• Increase concern of trespass and breach of the peace issues with the container being placed on the property prior to the eviction.
• Delay property preservation or securing services while waiting for a dumpster to be placed
• Create a potential conflict with Michigan State eviction procedures.
• Diminish available resources in the Bailiff's Office and local companies supplying the containers.

Finally, in a public comment, one of the City's Bailiff's, Mr. Jackson, suggested that the intent behind the ordinance is valid, but that the means to achieve it is flawed.  The Bailiff suggested that Council appoint a taskforce or subcommittee to meet with landlords to solve the problem without needing a drastic measure like the proposed ordinance.

The proposed amendment to Ch 22 was not set for decision, nor ruled upon at the conclusion of this hearing. Following the meeting, Safeguard's General Counsel was approached by the legislative assistant to Council Woman Martha Reeves who requested that Safeguard and others provide assistance to her in rewriting the proposal to properly address some of the concerns expressed on the record at the public hearing. Safeguard will be taking full advantage of this offer and will request a meeting to discuss the issues that were raised