Highland Park council approves first reading of rental-registration ordinance after heated public comment

The Highland Park City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance on Monday to require registration, inspection and a certificate of compliance for non‑owner‑occupied dwellings, after more than an hour of public comment and back‑and‑forth among council members and legal staff.

Council members and residents said the measure aims to require landlords to maintain safe housing and give the city tools to address blight and unsafe living conditions. Opponents at the meeting said the draft is overly broad, risks unintended consequences for homeowners and lacks due‑process protections.

The ordinance, as read into the record by the chair, would repeal existing section 1,448 and replace it with a new set of rules governing “non‑owner‑occupied” dwellings. Key provisions in the draft include: mandatory registration of non‑owner‑occupied properties; designation of a responsible local agent for each property; a certificate of compliance required before renting; inspection and reinspection requirements based on the International Property Maintenance Code adopted by the city (12/05/2016); posting a copy of the certificate inside premises; fee and business‑license requirements to be set by city council resolution; and provisions for suspension or revocation of certificates when health or safety conditions exist.

The draft also includes an exemption for immediate family members who occupy a property owned by an individual: the exemption applies to immediate family occupancy and would be limited to three properties per owner. The ordinance defines “immediate family member” by reference to Michigan law, and says owners asserting the exemption must be able to establish the relationship by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ordinance says certificates of compliance are not transferable between persons or properties; upon any transfer of ownership a new owner must apply for a certificate within 30 days. The draft requires an owner who transfers property while a notice of violation is outstanding to give the purchaser a copy of the notice and a signed, notarized acknowledgment from the purchaser that the purchaser received the notice.

Supporters at the podium said the ordinance fills an enforcement gap in a city where a large majority of households rent. Code enforcement officer Nashi Malone told council she issued numerous code citations this year and described conditions in some rental units that she said illustrated the need for greater enforcement authority. Malone said she had not issued rental‑related tickets since the council’s earlier moratorium but reported writing other orders and pursuing court cases.

Opponents said the draft invites overreach. “This rental ordinance is more than just the rental ordinance, and we need to be fair to these residents in the city,” resident Carla Oliver said during public comment. Kurt Swanson, who described several procedural and due‑process concerns, criticized the lack of a posted fee schedule and said the draft gives too much discretion to a code official to deny certificates indefinitely.

Councilmembers discussed process: legal counsel explained the municipal steps (first reading, opportunity for amendments before the second reading, and adoption only after a second reading if council votes to approve). Councilmember Monica Martin asked that specific edits — including clearer definitions of “duly authorized agent,” procedures around lockouts and inspections, and whether certain occupant‑listing requirements should be removed — be added in writing and returned to staff for incorporation. The chair instructed councilmembers and residents to submit proposed amendments to the city’s legal staff through the mayor’s office so changes can be compiled before a second reading.

Councilwoman Manuka moved to approve the first reading; Councilwoman Martin provided a supporting motion to approve “with amendments.” After roll call, the chair announced, “First reading has been approved,” and directed that additional suggested changes be submitted in writing to the administration.

What happens next: the ordinance will be revised to reflect the amendments proposed at the meeting and in written submissions, then placed on a subsequent agenda for a second reading and final council action. Several council members and staff said they expect additional changes to be submitted and incorporated before the second reading.

Residents who spoke at the meeting were sharply divided about the draft: some called for stronger enforcement of housing standards to protect tenants; others warned that the draft could be used to target low‑income homeowners or to accelerate gentrification. Councilmembers repeatedly stressed that any final ordinance must balance tenant protections, due process, and the city’s limited administrative capacity.