Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on water affordability, retiree clawbacks and speed-hump health concerns
Summary
During public comment, residents urged action on water affordability and a foreclosure moratorium, criticized retiree clawbacks and raised health concerns about speed humps. The committee heard a related LPD memo on particulate matter and agreed to follow up with law and LPD on feasibility.
Several Detroit residents used the committee's public-comment period on Sept. 8 to press officials on water affordability, retiree restitution and public-health issues tied to traffic calming.
Tahir Ahmed told the committee that a University of Chicago analysis of Detroit’s 2025 assessment process found the city “continues to illegally inflate the value of its lowest value homes,” and said state constitutional limits mean property cannot be assessed at more than 50% of market value. Ahmed urged the council and City Treasurer Eric Sabree to impose a foreclosure moratorium this year on what he said could be more than 800 homes.
Cecily McClellan urged the council to codify a water affordability program, saying Detroit’s Lifeline program lost major funding and eligibility dropped from more than 60,000 to fewer than 8,000 people currently served; she argued easy-pay plans do not eliminate arrearages and proposed group plans for retirees who have not reached Medicare age.
Other public commenters raised related concerns. A caller labeled 'Not That Karen' criticized pension-board accountability and said retirees deserve restitution after what she called pension-clawback losses. Owner Papa urged the committee to reconsider speed-hump installations, arguing they increase particulate matter and worsen asthma; earlier in the agenda the Legislative Policy Division submitted a memo correlating particulate matter and speed humps (item 6.25), which the committee received and filed.
The chair asked the Law Department and Legislative Policy Division whether the city had explored a water-affordability ordinance; the Law Department said it had not received proposed ordinance language and described the measure as not financially practicable for the city alone. The committee asked LPD to resend prior materials for review.
No formal ordinance or moratorium vote occurred at this meeting; speakers urged follow-up and the committee scheduled technical and legal review where applicable.
