Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Transfer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caller alleges unfair transfer of 498 Peterborough and delays by inspector general
Summary
A public commenter accused city officials of diverting a tax-auction lot at 498 Peterborough to Midtown Inc. for under $3,000 despite a higher local offer, said an Office of Inspector General report was delayed and inadequate, and claimed the city is trying to push neighbor Cindy Dara from her home; city staff said they are "working with Cindy Dara."
A caller during the Detroit City Council public comment period alleged the city improperly removed a neighboring lot at 498 Peterborough from a tax auction and transferred it to Midtown Inc. for less than $3,000, despite a higher offer from adjacent homeowner Cindy Dara. The caller said Midtown or related parties later sold the lot to Peterborough Properties for a substantially higher sum.
"Then the city took it out of the tax auction to give to Midtown Inc for less than $3,000 even though Cindy offered 25,000," the caller said, and later added that documents they had seen showed a subsequent flip to $150,000 and then an asking price listed at $750,000.
The same commenter said the Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed a complaint and delayed its findings, stating the report was of poor quality and that the OIG "sat on it through 2 inspectors for about 2 and a half years." The caller also alleged the city is taking actions that could force Dara from her residence, including shutting off her water.
On the record, a council staff member responded to the caller: "We are working with Cindy Dara on this issue." No further details or documents were provided during the session and no staff speaker addressed the specific chain of title, sale prices, or the OIG finding on the record.
Why it matters: allegations of irregular property transfers and slow or insufficient inspector general reviews raise transparency and potential conflict-of-interest concerns for affected homeowners and the public, and they may prompt follow-up inquiries by council members or oversight offices.
What remains unclear: The public commenter referenced documents and an OIG report; the session did not include a presentation of those documents, nor did a city official provide a detailed response or timeline. The status of any formal complaint, the precise sale prices, the parties involved in each transaction, and whether utilities were shut off remain "not specified" in the public record from this session.
Next steps: Council staff indicated they are engaging with the homeowner; the council did not take action or hold a discussion on the record during this meeting. Further inquiry or a formal agenda item would be needed to disclose official records, timelines, and any corrective actions.
