Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, business owners and church leaders clash with city over code enforcement, towing and nuisance claims
Summary
Several residents, the owner of Motor City Bar and Grill and leaders from Harvest Time Christian Fellowship criticized city enforcement actions and media coverage; they said towing of church vehicles, seizure of equipment and a pending nuisance review of a bar were harming vulnerable residents and small businesses.
Multiple residents and representatives of local organizations used the public-comment period to dispute recent enforcement actions and media coverage involving Motor City Bar and Grill and Harvest Time Christian Fellowship.
Pastor Curtis Ashtosh of Harvest Time Christian Fellowship and other speakers said the church’s food-pantry operations serve thousands monthly and that the city’s property-maintenance unit recently confiscated dumpsters, a refrigerated truck and other equipment the church uses to store and distribute food. Pastor Ashtosh said the church had worked with inspectors and was surprised by enforcement actions taken the day after a court session; he said the actions harmed people who rely on the pantry. "They took equipment. They took ladders. They took pallets. They took empty milk crates," he said.
Several speakers, including volunteers and beneficiaries, described the church’s humanitarian work and urged the council to facilitate, rather than hinder, the pantry’s operations. Speakers asked for transparency and for the city to coordinate with the church on corrective steps instead of immediate removal of property.
Separately, community advocates and the Motor City Bar owner said a recent news report and subsequent city attention had led to threats of license action under the nuisance ordinance. Advocates criticized council members’ public comments (one comment suggested changing music at the establishment) as unfairly targeting a predominantly Black clientele. The council did not adopt a new nuisance ordinance action at the meeting; council said enforcement and due-process procedures remain governed by existing code and court processes.
Ending: Council did not take immediate enforcement action from the dais; several council members acknowledged receipt of public concerns and asked administration and legal staff to follow up. Affected parties said they will pursue further legal and administrative remedies.
