Debate About Housing Code Returns to Council; Council Paves Way to Increase Diversity of Public Art
Council continues to hear from residents who believe the city’s housing code is too restrictive, as the city’s definition of family is being called “unconstitutional” by critics who say the city should “start over” on its definition.
Council held a first reading of a proposed amendment to the zoning code to make the definition of “Family” in the city code more expansive at its April 22 meeting. However, many speakers during public comment say that the city should not be setting rigid guidelines on what makes up a family at all, and that both the current and amended versions of the code are unconstitutional.
The proposed amendment adds “cousins,” “foster children” and “persons living with dwelling unit owner under guardianship,” to the family definition, Principal Planner Landon Bartley said.
Council ended up not taking action on the proposed ordinance changes at the April 22 meeting, but the amendments may be approved later on. Councilmember Erik Altmann proposed delaying the first reading of the ordinance to be done with other ordinance amendments that will be reviewed by council soon. Altmann said the ordinance changes are interrelated, so it would not make sense to pass one section now, while another may not pass later on.
The debate around the ‘Family’ definition is so intense because it is used to determine who can live with a home without a rental license. There are many other outlined groups that can live in a home without a rental license besides family members – however the inclusivity of those exceptions has been questioned.
Last year, an amendment to the city charter was passed by voters that proponents said protects homeowners’ rights to have long term guests who do not pay rent. Those who pushed for the amendment pointed to incidents where homeowners faced large fines for having friends and others staying in their homes.
Some city council members voiced strong opposition to the amendment, but did recognize the city needed to conduct a review of its housing and rental ordinances, leading to the proposed expansion of the family definition within the zoning ordinance.
Many of the same people who pushed the charter amendment to victory are opposing the city’s definition of family – both the old and revised versions. Even with the updates, the federal and state constitutions allow for a broader definition of family, they say.
Patrick Rose, an attorney who has frequently spoken in opposition of the city’s housing code, said during public comment that the city code is unconstitutional because of the restrictions it places on who can live in a home. He gave several examples from court cases of relationships that must be allowed, but aren’t under the East Lansing code.
Rose said that courts did establish groups the city can restrict, including students and group houses.
“This is not about stopping students from living in neighborhoods,” he said. “This is about protecting families and protecting our taxpayers, who will pay for your mistake, if you do not fix this ordinance.”
Ingham County Commissioner and attorney Mark Grebner said his concerns about the definition of family go back decades.
“Thirty years ago, I was involved in exactly the same type of controversy about the definition of family,” Grebner said. “I wrote a charter amendment that prohibits the city of East Lansing from discriminating against anyone on the basis of marriage or family status. That charter amendment was placed on the ballot, it was adopted by the voters, it is included in the charter, and the city simply sidestepped it and it has never been followed since.”
Grebner said about 10 years ago a friend told him they had been charged about $20,000 in tickets for illegally renting, even though they did not own a rental and had no tenants.
“That launched me on a very small legal career,” Grebner said. “I’ve represented about 30 people in the face of East Lansing’s housing ordinances.”
Grebner then ran through a series of legal cases that, he said, show East Lansing’s definition of family is unconstitutional because it limits who can live in a home based on legal relations.
“Any group of people living together who live as a family, are a family,” Grebner said.
Grebner said the city can pull its definition into the bounds of the state constitution by using the word family, but not defining it, or taking language from a case he referenced.
One resident read a letter from retired Circuit Court Judge James Giddings. Giddings wrote in his letter that the group opposing the ordinance had written an alternate version of the ordinance. However, they were denied a hearing with the city to propose their amendments.
With council delaying a vote on the first reading, it is unclear how the proposed amendment will fare later on, as majority of council did not indicate how they plan to vote.
Councilmember Dana Watson did take a stance against the city’s definition of family at the meeting. She asked who benefits from the city’s current definition.
She also wondered if the definition is in place as a way to raise money for the city by issuing tickets to residents who mistakenly violate the rental code.
“Our council recently passed an increase in our PACE [Parking and Code Enforcement] officers with the argument that we can gain revenue by handing out tickets to people,” she said. “Our prior council, we approved the [Board of Water & Light] franchise fee, which gave us money, which in turn was problematic.
“And so, now I’m curious, is this to give us money?” Watson continued. “[Are] we meddling so much in who can stay in whose houses because that gives us money as well?”
Watson also wondered if the ordinance could be in place to uphold discrimination against same-sex couples or other people some residents “don’t want to live next door.”
“I’m definitely in favor of slashing a bunch of things out,” she said.
Altmann asked how long the city’s definition of family has been in place.
“If we’ve been unconstitutional, then I’d like to know how long of a period people have had an opportunity to sue us,” he said, though he did not receive an answer to the question at the meeting.
Ordinance amendments pave the way for more public art classes, workshops and a “Sound Garden.”
Council approved changes to the city code that allow for more flexibility on how money in the city’s public art fund can be spent.
The public art fund ordinance requires new developers to commit 1% of their project budget up to $25,000 to public art, either by commissioning art to be displayed or donating to the public art fund. The fund is also supported by the city.
The Arts Commission recently recommended guidelines for the Public Art Fund be expanded, so the money can be used on musical installations, live performances and classes.
“We made these changes to expand the definition of art, clarify allowable expenses from the Public Art Fund and bring the ordinance in compliance with the zoning code,” Art Festival and Art Initiatives Coordinator Heather Majano said.
The ordinance amendments were approved, but not without dissent, as Mayor George Brookover motioned for several changes that would have removed main sections of the ordinance amendments.
Brookover first motioned to remove an amendment that would allow for the art fund to go towards projects on private property, saying he thinks using public money for private property could set a bad precedent.
City Attorney Anthony Chubb, who helped draft the revisions, explained that another provision in the code allows for art projects in highly visible private places, meaning there was a contradiction within the ordinance. The Arts Commission removed the contradiction, clarifying projects can be on private land as long as they are highly visible to the public.
Majano gave the example of murals on businesses as art visible to the public. Some businesses have also commissioned statues that can be easily seen from public areas. Brookover’s proposed amendment failed 4-1.
Next, Brookover motioned to remove several proposed amendments that allow money in the public art fund to be used on classes, performances and purchasing musical instruments.
Councilmember Mark Meadows supported Brookover’s motion, saying he thinks the money could be better spent elsewhere.
Majano clarified a few points about the proposed changes.
First, the Arts Commission does not envision purchasing instruments for musicians to use, she said. Rather, they are proposing the amendment to the ordinance to allow the city to purchase instruments that you would find in a “Sound Garden.”
“They’re next to a garden and you can talk into them and your voice is amplified, so you can sing,” Majano said. “Or there’s xylophones that you can play next to a playground. Or, there’s even some at a local library that… [have] chimes and you can interact with them.
“It’s just a way for people to interact with art in a different way.”
Mayor Pro Tem Kerry Ebersole Singh, who serves as liaison to the Arts Commission, said that the ordinance was amended to allow funding for projects that the community has asked for, including public art that children can interact with, like a Sound Garden.
Brookover said he doesn’t disagree with Singh, but “The Devil is in the details” and he is concerned about the lack of a definition of “musical instrument.”
In response to another question from Altmann, Majano said the art fund cannot currently be expended towards teaching, workshops or events, unless art is produced that remains after the session is finished. She said when the community was surveyed, there was a large demand for art education.
Brookover’s amendment to remove instruments, classes and performances from approved expenditures failed in a 3-2 vote, with Meadows joining him in support. Watson, Singh and Altmann voted against the amendment.
Ultimately, council approved the ordinance changes providing more flexibility in how the art fund can be spent 4-1, with Brookover dissenting.