Committee advances Mammoth Building demolition contract despite owners' court filing

The Detroit City Council Public Health and Safety Committee voted to send contract 6006978 — the Mammoth Building demolition — to new business with a recommendation to approve, despite a pending motion filed by the building owners asking the court to reconsider earlier rulings.

The vote to advance the item occurred after public comments from nearby residents urging demolition and remarks from the building’s new owners that they have invested in securing the property since acquiring it in 2023. Corporation Counsel Conrad Mallett told the committee the owners’ recent filing asking the court to reconsider does not legally prevent the city from moving forward.

Why it matters: The long-vacant Mammoth Building on Grand River and Greenfield has been cited by neighbors as a public-safety hazard and an eyesore. The committee’s recommendation would move a multi-million-dollar demolition contract closer to final approval; opponents and at least one council member said they would prefer waiting for the court to act so the owners could attempt to preserve the structure.

Committee discussion and evidence: Neighbors who live behind the property told the committee the building is open, unsafe and unsightly. Colin Matthews, a longtime Detroit resident, said the structure "is a danger to the community" and urged demolition. A nearby property owner who said they purchased the building across the street said they and prospective tenants are ready to redevelop but have not been allowed onto the Mammoth site.

Jihad Nagi, who identified himself as one of the new owners who acquired the property in September 2023 and said the group now owns the "Grand Detroit Mall, the old mammoth building," told the committee the owners have "invested over $720,000 in securing and stabilizing the building" and have attempted to repair the roof with a building permit. Nagi asked the committee to consider preservation and noted prior successful efforts to save other Detroit landmarks.

Corporation Counsel Conrad Mallett said the owners filed a motion seeking reconsideration of earlier court rulings but that the filing "is simply a request" and "is not anything that should hold us back." Mallett said the owners are in default in the earlier litigation, the receiver recommended demolition, and the court previously confirmed that recommendation. He told the committee, "There is no legal impediment whatsoever to this legislative body moving this matter forward. There is no impediment whatsoever to the city of Detroit continuing forward with the demolition process."

Director Bell (department title not specified) told the committee the building "needs to come down." He said it is not an immediate emergency but has been reviewed by at least two engineers, the receiver and the court, and those reviews support demolition. Bell also said the work previously attempted on the building was done without a permit and was stopped by the court while the receiver evaluated whether the building could be saved.

Council response and outcome: Council Member Mary Waters recorded an objection when the committee moved the item forward; she said she would prefer waiting for the judge to act so the owners could demolish the property themselves if ordered, and to avoid additional litigation or the appearance of taking property. Despite her objection, the motion to send 5.1 to new business with a recommendation to approve carried.

Votes at a glance: A motion was made to send item 5.1 (contract 6006978) to new business with the recommendation to approve. Member Mary Waters registered an objection; the motion nonetheless passed and the item was sent to new business with the recommendation to approve.

What was not decided: The full council has not yet voted to execute the demolition contract; the committee forwarded the recommendation. The judge assigned to the owners’ motion (Judge Sullivan, business court) had not yet set a hearing date at the time of the committee meeting.

What comes next: The item was sent to new business for the full council’s consideration. The court’s schedule and any future judge’s action remain separate legal steps identified by counsel; committee staff said the city may proceed with the demolition process notwithstanding the pending motion.

Ending note: Residents and property owners on the West Side said they want the site addressed quickly; council members expressed differing views on whether to wait for the court or to proceed immediately to protect public health and safety.