Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dearborn Heights resident cites 8-foot trash pile after eviction; council asks staff to draft ordinance requiring dumpsters
Summary
At a Sept. 30 special meeting, resident Michael Muni told the Dearborn Heights City Council that recurring piles of trash left after evictions are endangering residents. Councilmembers asked administration to work with the ordinance director and Priority Waste and said they will draft an ordinance requiring dumpsters at eviction sites.
A resident told the Dearborn Heights City Council on Sept. 30 that a pile of trash left after a recent eviction on Hopkins had risen "about 8 feet" and spilled onto the sidewalk, creating a safety and nuisance problem for neighbors.
"It is 8 feet high...Little children are playing in that pile," said Michael Muni, who identified himself as a Hopkins resident. He said similar piles have appeared on his block several times over recent years and asked when the city would enforce fines or require landlords and banks to remove debris promptly.
Council Chair (unnamed) explained that eviction procedures vary and that court officers may remove possessions after repeated notices, but the city currently lacks a formal ordinance requiring a dumpster to be on site during an eviction. "What needs to happen is an ordinance that comes out and says ... the city of Dearborn Heights requires a dumpster to be present on the day of eviction," the chair said, adding that an ordinance — rather than a resolution — would allow fines and formal accountability.
Councilman Robert Constant pointed to a Detroit rule as a model, saying that Detroit requires a dumpster to be delivered to the property "in order for the bailiff to evict" the tenant's personal property. He urged adopting similar language locally to prevent household goods from being scattered on public sidewalks.
City staff said they would follow up: the chair reported that Department of Public Works and contractor Priority Waste had been contacted and expected to clean up the reported pile "in a day or two." Councilmembers asked the resident to email photos and the address so staff and the court could track the incident.
An unnamed councilmember who spoke during the meeting said they would meet with the ordinance director and officers who handle evictions and "put something together by next council meeting." The council did not adopt an ordinance at the special meeting; members directed staff to research existing language and return with a draft.
Votes at the meeting were procedural: the council approved the meeting agenda by voice vote and later approved returning from a closed session and adjourning by voice votes. The formal closed session concerned the case Sobe v. Dearborn Heights (see separate item).
The council’s next step is staff follow-up and a possible ordinance draft to require on-site dumpsters or similar controls during court-ordered evictions. The timeline for a formal ordinance was not specified at the meeting.
