Detroit council holds dangerous‑buildings hearing; dozens of cases sent back to building department, some demolitions approved

Detroit — The City Council’s dangerous‑buildings hearing on March 14 reviewed roughly 81 properties flagged by the Building Safety and Environmental Department (BCED), with the committee deciding in many cases to give property owners more time to repair or to send cases back to BCED for cost analysis.

Council members and inspectors repeatedly told owners that the quickest way to stop a city‑initiated demolition is to provide proof of ownership, signed contracts with demolition or repair contractors, and the required permits and photos to BCED. “The roof can be collapsed in this situation,” BCED inspector Dilip Patel told the committee while describing several homes that were open to the elements and had significant roof exposure.

Several owners persuaded the committee to withhold demolition while they pursue repairs or sales. For example, representatives for 2881 East Grand Boulevard told the panel that masonry repairs were underway and drawings for reconstruction were in progress; the committee agreed to return that case to BCED and review progress at the next hearing. Similarly, Lennar representatives said they would repair and occupy 1524 Cadillac, and the committee withdrew that property from the demolition list pending verification.

Other cases ended with formal demolition concurrence. For 392420 Fifth Street, BCED cited long‑standing roof exposure and overgrowth; a committee motion to concur with the demolition order was made and the chair said there were no objections. Attorney Robert Cole told the committee the owner of 5536 Burlingame would pursue private demolition; the committee concurred with that action.

Residents used the hearing to raise practical concerns. Crystal McPherson, calling about 5093 Underwood, said she was receiving private quotes of $30,000–$40,000 to tear down a small two‑story home; councilmembers and BCED staff replied that demolitions commonly range from about $15,000 to $30,000 depending on contractor and scope and encouraged her to contact Council member Mary Waters’ office for help finding smaller, possibly minority‑owned contractors. Sonia Brown told the panel she had received certified mail from the department that she said was opened without her signature; the chair said she would seek reports from the inspector general’s office about delivery and notification issues.

The committee also urged owners to document repairs with photos and to email evidence of completed work to the BCED address displayed during the hearing; staff said BCED would re‑inspect properties and remove them from the list if work meets code. Where ownership or notice was unclear, the panel ordered BCED to follow up; on 13176 August the committee asked staff to verify the current owner after a caller said the property was transferred to an LLC in 2020.

The hearing produced a mix of outcomes: many properties were withdrawn after owners showed repairs or permits, several were sent back to BCED for time or further analysis (the committee set May 19 as the next review date for many), and a smaller number were ordered demolished or were confirmed for owner‑led demolitions. The chair closed the session after completing the block‑by‑block recommendations.

The committee repeatedly emphasized that documentation matters: photos, signed contracts and permit receipts are the primary evidence that will keep a property off the demolition list. Council member Mary Waters also offered her office’s assistance to callers who need direct help locating contractors or navigating the process: “Call the office and talk with me directly,” she said.

Next steps: cases sent back to BCED will be re‑inspected and reviewed at the next dangerous‑buildings hearing; owners who believe they were not properly notified were advised to provide BCED and council offices with any documentation so the departments can follow up.