Leaders of Groups For and Against Proposal 1 Explain Their Stances
For months, the community has debated a proposed city charter amendment that would impact the city’s housing and rental regulations if it is supported by voters at the Nov. 5 election.
Proponents for the amendment say it would protect the homeowners’ right to have long term guests who do not pay rent. Those against the amendment say it would hurt the city’s ability to enforce its rental and housing regulations, and undo its rental restriction districts.
To help voters better understand what is being decided, ELi and the League of Women Voters of the Lansing Area teamed up to host a program that featured a speaker for and a speaker against the proposed amendment.
The program, which lasted a little less than 50 minutes, featured Mark Grebner speaking in favor of the proposal. Grebner is an attorney, Ingham County commissioner and one of the members of the group that worked to get the proposal on the ballot.
Speaking against the proposal was Kathy Swedlow. Swedlow is an attorney, member of the city’s police oversight commission and a member of the group that is campaigning against the proposal.

The program showcased many key disputes between those for and against the amendment, notably differing interpretations of the city’s current regulations for long term guests, and what parts of the code the amendment would have an impact on.
The speakers alternated who responded first to each question throughout the program. The questions asked were developed using feedback readers gave to a survey ELi posted last month. Candidates had two minutes to respond to each question.

The following is a summary of responses Swedlow and Grebner gave to each question at the forum. ELi encourages voters to view the full program.
What current issues does the amendment pose to remedy?
Swedlow answered this question first. She said the proposal is a “solution in search of a problem” and that the existing code has worked for decades. She said the current code is flexible and allows for diverse living situations. She also pointed to City Attorney Anthony Chubb saying at the Oct. 1 City Council meeting that homeowners can have long term guests, unless they live in a house with a rental license.
Grebner said in his work as an attorney, he has represented about 30 clients in the last 10 years who have had issues caused by East Lansing’s unusual rental license regulations. He said the amendment leaves the rental license system, zoning and rental restriction districts in place, but fixes two things. First, Grebner said the current code converts guests to illegal tenants after they stay in a home for 30 consecutive days, disputing Chubb’s claim. Second, he said there is no notice for violations currently and residents breaking the code can receive 10s of thousands of dollars in fees retroactively.
Is an amendment to the East Lansing city charter the best approach to dealing with these issues?
Both candidates responded “no” to this question. Grebner said the amendment is necessary due to years of inaction from City Council. He said ordinance changes should have been made when courts have found parts of the current ordinances to be unconstitutional. He said the charter amendment is a way to force the city to comply with the state constitution and U.S. constitution.
Swedlow said the city charter is a “local constitution” and that housing regulations should be addressed through ordinance changes because they can be amended more easily. She said if the proposal has unintended consequences, which she believes it does, those consequences can only be addressed through a city-wide election, as that is the process for all charter amendments.
What will be the impact of the amendment on the city’s current definition of a family?
Swedlow said that if the proposal passes, it will eliminate the city’s ability to define a family. She said the current definitions are broad, forward thinking and reflect the city’s values. She said the current code is designed to allow freedom for families and provide safety for non-families – she specifically mentioned college students.
Grebner said the city’s definition of family is made up of biological relationships and is unconstitutional. After listing precedent-setting cases on the matter, he said the city can’t restrict the biological or social connections that make up a family, and a court determines if a family exists. Grebner then said that the amendment would not change the city’s definition of a family, as it is not mentioned in the proposal’s “definitions” section.
Currently housing is regulated in East Lansing by city ordinances, which are approved by city council, while the current city charter is silent on housing. Adding the proposed amendment to the city charter, means that housing regulations will be governed by both the charter and ordinances. What impact would the proposed amendment have on current and future city housing ordinances? Particularly rental regulations and overlay districts, which are areas in East Lansing with rental restrictions.
Grebner led by saying the amendment doesn’t impact the rental restriction overlay districts, zoning, the regulation of rentals or the requirements for rental licenses. Grebner said that it is not correct that rentals are governed only by ordinances, because they exist in the context of the city charter, and state and U.S. constitutions. Grebner then referenced local cases where judges had ruled against the city because the U.S. constitution forbids excessive fines, and the city had attempted to fine residents upwards of $50,000. He said the city did not appeal these rulings against.
Swedlow countered by saying that if ordinances were found to be unconstitutional, they are no longer in effect. She then said that city ordinances are drafted through a transparent public process that includes public input, and this amendment does not include that process. She said there are issues with the proposal, like that the seven-day notice requirement does not provide a fast solution for hazardous or emergency situations. Swedlow reiterated that if the amendment passes and issues arise, those issues must be remedied through another vote to amend the charter.
Residents are concerned with the focus on “rent-paying tenants.” Is it a valid concern that this notion may be abused? For example, could people offer compensation in other forms, like sharing household responsibilities, in lieu of rent, and still be considered guests?
Swedlow said this is a valid concern. She said if the amendment passes, hypothetically, she could have two college students stay with her and do household chores. No rent would be paid, but the students may live in unsafe rooms and their cars would cause more street congestion. Swedlow said these living situations already exist, but they would become more prevalent if the amendment passes. She said the proposal is a “non-rent loophole” and it creates a gap in the housing code.
Grebner said that the laws governing rentals go in two sectors, one sector covers tenants, tenancy, leases, landlords and housing court – which includes the requirements for an eviction. The other covers families and family situations that are based on relationships. He said no commercial landlord would pretend a large number of their tenants are family members because that would limit the landlord’s ability to do evictions, among other things. Grebner said the proposal would allow people to have others in their home to do chores, but it also allows for things like caretakers without the city “nitpicking.”

Many of the community questions reflect the nature of the community: a college town with many students and many retired people. Here are some scenarios that have raised concerns. Can you speak on these concerns?
· Older people sharing responsibilities at a residence or having live-in caregivers (not as renters);
Grebner said this is a part of the current code his group is concerned about. He said the code has exemptions for caregivers in the existing code, but the requirements make these exemptions insufficient. He said, for example, caregivers must be single and can’t come with a child. Additionally, Grebner said there are hour requirements to meet the exemption. He said the amendment allows caregivers without nitpicking.
Swedlow said a group of people living together and sharing responsibilities is covered by the “domestic unit” exemption in the existing code. Additionally, Swedlow said there is already a medical caregiver exemption and the only requirement is it must be medically prescribed. She then mentioned the new ordinance revisions introduced by City Council that the Housing Commission has reviewed at its past two meetings. She said if these ordinances pass, they will make the code even more flexible.
· A parent buying a house for a student to live in as an alternative to renting or living in a dorm, and the student getting non rent-paying roommates;
Swedlow said there are many different scenarios for how this situation could play out, depending if the child’s name is on the deed or not, and urged residents to visit the FAQs on her group’s website for a more complete explanation. She said there are a lot of “de-facto” rentals already, and these living situations will “blow up” if the charter amendment passes.
Grebner said the city’s ordinances already allows for parents to buy a house, put their child on the deed and then the child can have a roommate. He said the charter amendment does not touch this part of the code.
· An Academic going on sabbatical and renting the house or installing a non-renting house sitter or doing a house swap.
Grebner said the amendment does not touch this part of the code, but the group opposing it is using the scenario as a bogeyman. The code currently has a house sitting exemption for two years in a five year period, and Grebner said he believes a homeowner could charge rent to the person staying in their home.
Swedlow said the code allows for house sitters, and there is a military and non-military category. She said the military exemption allows for those in active service to have a house sitter for more than two years. She again referenced the ordinance revisions before the Housing Commission, and said if the revisions are eventually approved by City Council they would loosen house sitting regulations even further.
We often hear about a time limit of 30 days for a non-renting guest, for example, a visiting researcher living with a resident. Under current ordinances, are there time restrictions regarding unrelated guests? Will time restrictions be impacted by passage of the amendment?
Swedlow said there are not time restrictions on guests in homes that do not have a rental license. She again referenced Chubb saying this at the Oct. 1 City Council meeting. She also pointed out this was printed in the city’s newsletter, Dialog. She said having long term guests should be a non-issue because it is already covered by the code.
Grebner said for 25 years the city has considered guests illegal tenants if they stay for more than 30 consecutive days, and could be subject to large fines. He said it sounds crazy, but many of his clients have found out this is the current code. Grebner also pushed back against using Chubb as a source, as he was prompted by a council member against the amendment. Grebner said this goes against long-held policy, and the charter amendment is still needed to protect residents long term.
Why do you believe that the proposed amendment will either harm or enrich our East Lansing neighborhoods?
Grebner said the intent of the amendment is to protect the rights of individuals, and the amendment was not drafted to impact neighborhoods overall. He said the right to a notice of violation, right to be treated fairly by the city, right to have a caregiver in your home, and the right to live with a relative or friend of your choice are motivating factors behind his group drafting the amendment.
Swedlow said the amendment could cause serious harm to the city’s neighborhoods by undoing rental regulations, and a best case scenario, if the amendment passes, is there is only a rise in “de-facto” rentals. She acknowledged that she and Grebner have different interpretations of legal aspects surrounding the proposal. She said disagreements that arise if the amendment passes will go to court and be decided by a judge. She said ordinance changes are a better way to address any issues.
Closing remarks
Grebner highlighted the lengthy process his group went through to get the amendment on the ballot. He said it was carefully written, reviewed by many people and rewritten a number of times. He said the details within the language for the proposed amendment make it clear that the amendment would not upend anything, and the campaign against is reliant on scare mongering, instead of engaging in the language of the proposal.
Swedlow used her closing statement to reemphasize her group’s three main points. She said the two groups disagree about the content of the charter amendment, and disagreements will be settled in court if the amendment passes. She then said the correct way to resolve any issues is through ordinance changes, not by amending city charter. Finally, Swedlow said the current code is fine. She said the code is flexible and protects tenants.