Residents at special Flint City Council meeting urge preservation of Hasselbring senior center as council lacks quorum

At a special Flint City Council gathering that lacked a quorum, residents urged the council to preserve the Hasselbring Senior Community Center and criticized city officials for what they described as attempts to remove or repurpose the center. Because fewer than a majority of council members were present, the council took no formal action and allowed public comment while standing at ease.

Residents said the senior center is a community resource that serves people across wards and objected to what they called a pattern of city decisions that target longstanding community programs. "It's an atrocity to what this city is trying to do to this center," said Tiana McIntyre, a Hasselbring member and Genesee County resident. AC Dumas, a Third Ward resident who participates at the center, said, "I think it'll be very favorable, in my opinion, for Hasselbring in court on Thursday. I think the judge is looking." (Date of the court appearance was not specified in the meeting.)

The presiding council member, Councilwoman Winfrey Carter, opened the special session and the clerk read a roster showing multiple members absent. City counsel and the presiding officer said the council could not take votes without a quorum but could hear public comment; the meeting therefore proceeded as a public-comment session while the body awaited additional members. The clerk reported that several absent members had notified the office that they would not attend.

Speakers described a range of concerns tied to the center: loss of a community gathering place, the impact on seniors and programs such as meals, yoga, literacy and social activities, and claims that the administration is prioritizing other development goals over longtime residents. "It might sit on city property, but it belongs to the seniors," said McIntyre. Several speakers linked the center's status to broader grievances about city governance, municipal transparency and the distribution of water-settlement funds.

Some commenters accused the mayor and administration of improper motives or conduct. Elizabeth Taylor, an 81-year-old resident, and others said they believed the mayor and allied officials were not representing long-term residents. Percy Knapp, chairman of the board at House of Brains Center, framed the issue in moral terms: "I'm charging the mayor and all those that are missing... they should be servants for the people," he said.

Speakers also referenced legal and procedural questions. At one point a resident cited the city charter's quorum rule, Section 3.203, arguing that without a quorum there was no meeting and therefore no public comment; the presiding officer and the city attorney disagreed and allowed comments while noting the council could not vote.

Several commenters referenced prior hearings and evidence-related claims. McIntyre and other speakers said they had not seen proof supporting city allegations that the center had been involved in alcohol sales or other violations; she said the claims presented in court appeared circumstantial or unsupported. AC Dumas and others said a court hearing on Hasselbring was scheduled for "Thursday," but the meeting did not record a calendar date.

Because the meeting did not attain a quorum, no motions were made and no council votes were recorded. The public comment period ended after a series of residents spoke about the center, representation from specific wards and broader concerns about the administration's priorities.

Community members said they will continue to press the issue in future meetings and in court. Councilwoman Winfrey Carter and staff noted that the council would reconvene when a quorum is present; no formal direction to staff or votes were made during this session.