Council Votes 3-2 Against Suing to Block Voter-Backed City Charter Amendment
In a 3-2 vote, the East Lansing City Council rejected a motion to take legal action to block the implementation of Proposal 1, a charter amendment impacting the city’s housing and rental codes that was passed by voters in last November’s election.
The vote came after a string of sometimes contentious discussions about the proposal at city meetings for months leading up to the election. The Jan. 21 meeting also featured some sharp remarks.
“I am ashamed to be affiliated with a council that took their seats through the same mechanism that passed this proposal,” Councilmember Dana Watson said after voting against the motion.

Leading up to the election, supporters of the amendment said it provides needed fixes to city regulations, like allowing homeowners to have long term guests who do not pay rent and gives those in violation of the rental code a notice before they are hit with hefty fines.
Opponents of the amendment said it could have consequences not made clear in its language, like hurting the city’s ability to enforce its rental and housing regulations, and undoing its rental restriction districts. Opponents also said they believe the amendment conflicts with state law.

In the November 2024 General Election, the ballot initiative passed with around 54% of voters favoring the amendment.
It’s unclear exactly how far back council has been considering taking legal action in response to the amendment passing, but proponents for the amendment spoke out against the possibility shortly after it passed. Watson confirmed during her comments at last night’s meeting that council has been discussing the possibility during closed-session portions of council meetings.
Council votes against taking legal action.
Council voted 3-2 against taking legal action, with Councilmembers Mark Meadows and Erik Altmann in favor, and Watson, Mayor Pro Tem Kerry Ebersole Singh and Mayor George Brookover against.
Altmann motioned to “Direct the city attorney to file a lawsuit to challenge the validity of Proposition 1, due to its lack of clarity and violation of state law, using any and all causes he [the city attorney] sees fit.”
Watson pushed back against the motion strongly, saying it is time to implement the will of the voters.
“I feel like council members have abused their power, which is their access to a city attorney, because they didn’t agree with the process,” she said.
Singh said she did not support Proposal 1 at the ballot box, but she will not vote for it to be blocked.
“The people moved forward with signature collection, the attorney general reviewed the language that was applied and put it on the ballot, and it passed,” she said.
Mayor George Brookover said he is voting against the motion, though he thinks the ballot proposal was “seriously flawed.”
Among other reasons for his vote, Brookover said if there are flaws with the amendment, they can be addressed later on in a council-initiated charter amendment process. He also cited the need to ease tension in city discourse.
“I am simply not interested in perpetuating that discord through litigation when we face other significant pending issues, which require us to work together,” Brookover said.
Brookover added that community members are welcome to seek “legal redress” and ask a court to “clarify the propriety of this charter change.”
Altmann and Meadows vote in favor of taking legal action, saying they believe it conflicts with state law.
Leading up to the election, Altmann and Meadows were strong opponents of the amendment, arguing the amendment could have impacts not apparent from its language and that it violates state law.
When arguing in favor of bringing legal action, Altmann again referenced the impacts he believes the amendment would have on the city’s code and rental restriction districts.

“At some point, some investor is going to figure out that there is a lot of money to be made if they can overturn rental restriction overlays and occupancy limits in this Big 10 college town of ours,” he said, adding that the true impact of the charter amendment will be decided in court.
Altmann also said he believes the structure of the charter amendment was improper and violates the state’s Home Rule City Act. He said the amendment included several propositions, and each should have been voted on separately.
“We don’t know the will of the people with respect to each individual proposition,” Altmann said. “This matters, suppose someone wants to pass something unpopular and pairs it with something they see as popular in order to get it across the line.”
Meadows said he believes council has an obligation to take legal action to “get it right.” He said some parts of the proposal are good and referenced the review of city ordinances that is currently underway as an effort by council to address these issues.
Meadows added he believes the amendment conflicts with another state law, the Zoning Enabling Act. He said the amendment causes the city to change its zoning code, and that state law only allows local zoning ordinances to be changed by local governing bodies.
During public comment of the meeting, Patrick Rose, an attorney and one of the leaders of the group that drafted and advocated for the amendment, said there is no legal basis for the city to file a suit to invalidate the amendment, and that doing so would be unconstitutional.
After the motion to take legal action was rejected, Altmann motioned to “Direct the city attorney to draft and publish a comprehensive opinion addressing the lack of clarity and state law violations of Proposal 1.”
This motion was unanimously rejected after City Attorney Tony Chubb said taking this action could compromise the city’s position in future litigation.
“To the extent that we were in a circumstance that the city became a defendant, I would not want the memorandum to be public,” Chubb said.