City Officials Continue to Spar with Residents Over Proposed Charter Amendment

For weeks, members of the East Lansing City Council have been publicly debating a group of residents petitioning for a change to the city charter, and there is no end in sight to the feud. 

The petitioning group claims that the charter amendment they are proposing would simply allow residents to have non-rent paying individuals, such as close friends, stay in their homes for an extended period of time. Two members of City Council – Erik Altmann and Mark Meadows – have said the charter amendment would unravel the city’s housing code and rental restrictions, and lead to a proliferation of non-homeowners living in areas where rentals now are prohibited.

The debate has led to increasingly sharp rhetoric and each side accusing the other of spreading misinformation. 

A broad discussion about the housing code goes back to late last year when there was a rental restriction district proposed for parts of the Glencairn neighborhood. The district, which has since been put in place, essentially prevents residents within the area from obtaining a rental license. Those in support of the rental restriction district said it was needed to keep short term rentals like AirBnB and student rentals from operating in their neighborhood. 

During the lengthy process of putting the rental restriction district in place, many residents expressed concern that they may need a rental license to have someone like a close friend, some relatives or even caregivers stay at their home. The city launched a communications campaign that highlighted exemptions within the code and cleared up many concerns. However, there is still much confusion around the code and whether exemptions go far enough. 

Part of the confusion is definitions and interacting clauses being scattered throughout the expansive city code. Additionally, critical definitions within the code are being interpreted differently by the petitioning group and members of City Council.

There are many people who are explicitly outlined as being allowed to stay in a person’s home for an extended period, like a parent or sibling. However, non-family members may need to fit within an exemption, like those given to caregivers, visiting clergy and more.

One important exemption being debated is the “domestic unit” clause. The clause is what would give homeowners the right to allow many people not explicitly outlined as an exemption stay in their home.

Altmann has argued the domestic unit clause is expansive and would cover a scenario like a friend struggling with addiction who needs a place to stay. Petitioners have argued the definition is more narrow.

Proponents of the charter change also say it would prevent hefty fines that could reach thousands of dollars against homeowners who don’t know they are violating city rental license laws when they allow others to stay in their homes.

While deliberations from the two sides have been tense, there is agreement that the housing code needs to be addressed. The petitioning group believes the charter amendment will provide residents with a clear answer of what is and is not allowed. 

Meadows announced at the Tuesday, June 11 discussion-only City Council meeting that he, City Attorney Tony Chubb and Planning, Building and Development Director Annette Irwin have created a task force to clarify ambiguities in the housing code.

“The objective is to recodify the rental housing provisions into a single chapter or section of the city ordinances,” Meadows said. 

Meadows said the task force would issue recommendations that City Council could then apply through ordinance changes. He said the task force is hoping to have initial recommendations in a month or two, and the recommendations would go through the housing and planning commissions before coming back to City Council. Meadows said he would like input from the employees enforcing the housing laws, and to collect public feedback during the process. 

Meadows highlighted a couple of common areas of confusion that can be cleared up by this review, like organizing the code so definitions and interacting clauses can be found in one place. Additionally, he said the task force may explore expanding some definitions. 

Mayor George Brookover, who has not publicly stated support or opposition to the charter amendment, thanked Meadows for working with the subcommittee. 

“In my perfect world, perhaps if we reorganize and rethink these ordinances, we won’t need dueling attorneys to give their opinions as to what certain language means,” Brookover said. 

The petitioning group claims the amendment provides a clear answer to resident concerns. 

Patrick Rose has been one of the leaders pushing for the charter amendment. He says it simply allows homeowners to have non-rent paying individuals stay in their homes. 

“East Lansing is unique in defining a person who is merely living in a property as needing a rental license,” he said at the June 6 Housing Commission meeting. “We overturn that language, which treats a mere occupant as a renter.”

Rose says it is not right to limit people who can stay in a home based on their relationships to the homeowner, and that numerical occupancy limits can still be set by the city. 

Rose gave the example of empty nesters with several extra bedrooms who host a political campaign worker for longer than the allowed 30 consecutive days as an example of someone who would be in violation of the code, but most people would agree is not doing anything wrong. 

Proponents for the charter amendment who have spoken at city meetings say the ambiguity, confusing nature and inconsistent interpretation of the code are factors that led them to seek the change. 

Rose, who works as an attorney, said a group of 10 non-lawyers and five lawyers, including retired Circuit Court Judge James Giddings, spent months putting the amendment language together. He also said there are about 70 volunteers working with the group, which is still gathering signatures. 

Petitioners are concerned about violating the housing code because of hefty fines that some residents have received as a result of renting without a license. In 2015, the Lansing State Journal published an article that recapped several instances of judges throwing out 10s of thousands of dollars in fines levied against residents charged with renting without a license – though some of these individuals still owed thousands even after the reduction. 

The most frequently touted anecdote by petitioners concerns State Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou. The incident saw Tsernoglou issued 33 citations for renting without a license – one citation for each week she was deemed out of compliance. Tsernoglou had allowed a friend to stay rent free at her condo that she was attempting to sell and faced up to $16,500 in fines. However, former 54B District Court Judge Richard Ball sided with Tsernoglou, dismissing the fines and calling the application of the city’s ordinance unconstitutional.

These fines are levied in bulk when an individual is found to be out of compliance, which petitioners see to be a problem because some people may be violating the code without even realizing it. The charter amendment includes a provision that homeowners be notified they are out of compliance with the city code before they are fined. 

What is not clear is how often the city has been issuing these fines recently. Councilmember Dana Watson said at the June 4 council meeting that she looks forward to the city being transparent about the amount of fines being levied for renting without a license. However, the city was unable to provide that amount when asked by ELi.

Rose said at the June 11 council meeting that the amendment keeps rental regulations and rental restriction districts, contrary to what Altmann and Meadows have said. 

City officials say amendment would undermine housing code and accuse petitioners of spreading misinformation. 

Altmann and Meadows have strongly pushed back against the charter amendment and stated that it could prevent the city from enforcing its rental laws, and undo the city’s rental restriction district system. 

At the June 11 council meeting, Altmann said the meaning of the charter amendment is “ambiguous and will be determined by the courts.” He said one possible outcome is the city cannot regulate non-rent paying tenants, which would lead to people manipulating the system by paying for utilities, groceries or other costs instead of rent. 

“Rent is like water, it will flow around obstacles,” Altmann said. “The policies we have in place right now do a pretty good job. The proposed charter amendment will not work.”

Meadows, who has worked as an assistant attorney general and attorney, said he believes the amendment would “undermine and destroy the ability for us to restrict the number of individuals who would rent a property and [approval] means the [rental restriction] overlay districts become meaningless.”

Renting without a license can be a lucrative practice, which is why the penalties must be harsh, Altmann added. 

Altmann and Meadows have also said that much of the panic about the city’s rental laws is driven by residents misinterpreting the code or misinformation that is being spread. 

“[The misinformation] it’s really quite terrible, and in fact I would say it’s deplorable,” Altmann said at the June 4 council meeting. “To the people who are circulating this misinformation, I’d say welcome to the basket of deplorables.”

At both the June 4 and 11 council meetings, speakers stated their belief during public comment that the city code presents hurdles to older residents staying in their homes. Altmann said that a rental license is not needed for a resident to have an in-home caregiver, as the code includes a caregiver exemption. He said this piece of misinformation is a public health issue and blamed petitioners for spreading the rumor. 

The feud seemed to reach a new temperature when a speaker at the June 11 meeting accused petitioners of harassing residents until they signed. Altmann suggested residents call the police if they feel threatened. 

“People have a first amendment right, I believe, to knock on your front door but they don’t have a right to harass or intimidate or threaten you, or threaten you with retribution if you speak out against their political campaign,” he said. “If you have this kind of experience, call the police.”

So what comes next?

The debate appears to be on course to carry throughout much of the year. 

The petition deadline is Aug. 13, and Rose said the group is “ahead of schedule” in its quest to meet the required 5% of signatures from 21,000 registered East Lansing voters. Once enough signatures are obtained, the petition goes to the state attorney general’s office to review. 

In some cases, like was seen last year, proposed charter amendments can be struck down by the state before reaching voters. Assuming that does not happen, the charter amendment will be decided by voters at the general election in November.

Correction 6/17 9:12 p.m.: A previous version of this story cited reporting that said Penelope Tsernoglou settled with the city and paid a fine. That is incorrect and the story has been updated.