Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Program Property Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents allege unfair evictions and inconsistent demolition notices tied to city solar program; local lawyer cites multiple lawsuits
Summary
Several residents told council they were denied buyback offers, faced demolition notices despite ongoing home repair efforts, and that the city's solar program has prompted litigation; a local attorney said dozens of eminent-domain and related cases are pending.
Several Detroit residents used the public comment period to say the city's residential solar program and related property actions harmed homeowners and led to inconsistent treatment, demolitions and litigation.
Danielle Mertes, a resident who said she was affected by the solar program, told the council she was denied eligibility for a buyback and was not served an eviction notice she says she should have received. "I was told I wasn't eligible for the buyback program. I never was served an eviction notice," Mertes said. She said she had been told she should have received a six-month redemption period and asked the council to restore the $90,000 offer she said she was previously given. Mertes also said a demolition sign later appeared at 19212 Danbury even though a number on that sign told her no demolitions were scheduled at that address.
David Pianoski described losing a family home and related harm: "I only get to see my son every 3 times a week, 3 hours a week," he said, and said his family had worked to correct blight violations but still lost the property.
Darren McCluskey, who identified himself as providing a legal update, said a wave of litigation has followed land and infrastructure projects and questioned whether eminent domain should be used for solar-related projects. He said the county has seen numerous filings related to construction and easements this year and noted that multiple suits are tied to the solar project; he said, "We have a sacrosanct right for individuals to have dominion over their private property" and urged council to focus on core services rather than new programs.
None of the speakers reported a formal council response during the session; staff asked in-person commenters to submit documentation to the clerk's office for the official record. The council did not take any formal actions on the matter at this meeting because it lacked a quorum.
Speakers requested follow-up from council members and staff; the clerk will accept written documents into the record and staff said IT and relevant departments would address procedural and outreach issues ahead of the next meeting.
