Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Dispute topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Caller alleges improper tax-auction transfer and low-price sale to Midtown Inc.; OIG report criticized

Detroit City Council
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A caller said the city removed a lot from the tax auction, sold it to Midtown Inc. for under $3,000 despite a higher offer by neighbor Cindy Dara, and alleged delays and poor work by the office of inspector general; the clerk said staff are working with the resident.

A caller during the Detroit City Council public-comment period alleged the city removed a lot at 498 Peterborough from the tax auction and that Midtown Inc. acquired it for under $3,000 despite a reported $25,000 offer from a neighboring homeowner, identified in the caller’s remarks as Cindy Dara.

The caller said the Office of Inspector General "sat on it through 2 inspectors for about 2 and a half years" and produced a report the caller described as inadequate. According to the caller, documents showed Midtown Inc. obtained the lot for less than $3,000, sold it to Peterborough Properties for $150,000, and it later appeared for sale at a price the caller said was $750,000. "They're trying to push her out of her house," the caller said, adding the city had shut off the resident’s water and cut down trees the caller said were healthy.

The clerk responded that staff were "working with Cindy Dara on this issue." The transcript contains only the caller’s allegations and claimed document figures; no city explanation or supporting documents were presented on the record during the comment period.

Because the claims concern specific property transactions and an OIG review, they would require document review and official responses from city departments — including procurement, housing, and the OIG — to substantiate or refute the caller’s account.

The council did not take formal action on the allegations during the session and the clerk noted staff engagement with the resident.