Lansing holds public hearing on repeal of 1986 restroom ordinance

The Lansing City Council held a public hearing April 7 on a proposal to repeal Section 6.84.04 of the city code, a 1986 ordinance that makes using a restroom intended for the opposite sex a criminal offense. Council member Jackson introduced the item and said the change was proposed after the city received letters from residents who said the ordinance left some people unable to use restrooms "in comfort, safety, and with dignity."

The hearing drew more than a dozen speakers and 12 written communications in support of the repeal, including transgender and gender‑diverse Lansing residents who described safety and dignity concerns. "Repealing this archaic ordinance is such a wonderful choice," said Anastofer Hopkins during public comment. Verena Courtney, who identified herself as a transgender woman and Lansing resident, said, "I have used the women's public restroom several times over the past many months without issue," and described harassment faced by some transgender people nationwide. Kimberly Glass, a nearly 20‑year Lansing resident, urged repeal and cited national medical and advocacy organizations about harms of exclusionary policies.

Speakers who opposed repeal raised safety concerns and urged amendments that would include narrow exceptions. Linda Lee Tarver said removing the penalty could, in her view, remove a deterrent to people entering restrooms intended for others and urged the council to amend rather than strike the provision. The council also heard legal and policy arguments on both sides: several commenters emphasized that acts such as voyeurism or assault remain crimes and are not affected by repeal; others said those protections are insufficient to address the stigma and threats faced by gender‑diverse residents.

Council member Jackson told the chamber the city attorney and the council's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion committee reviewed alternatives and recommended full repeal. Jackson said the move would not remove other existing public‑safety laws: "This is not a free reign to go in the bathrooms and do anything because a person can still be trespassed for doing things in the bathroom," Jackson said.

After public comment concluded, President Cost referred the item to the council's Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) committee for further consideration and any recommended ordinance language. The referral was recorded as the council's next procedural step; no final vote on repeal took place at the April 7 meeting.

Why it matters: the provision applies citywide and, as phrased in the 1986 text, made certain restroom uses a criminal offense. Supporters said repeal would remove a legal threat to transgender, nonbinary and gender‑diverse people and align the city with recent changes in state civil‑rights language and national medical guidance. Opponents said repeal could remove a deterrent and urged careful drafting to protect privacy and safety.

The council's next steps will be committee review and any proposed ordinance language returned to the full council for a vote. The item was handled as public hearing item 7 and officially referred to EDI at the meeting.