Detroit council presses for faster action as Leland House tenants seek belongings and answers

City officials and dozens of residents spent much of the Detroit City Council’s March 3 meeting focused on the fate of Leland House residents displaced after the senior building was locked out last winter.

In a briefing early in the session, Law Department attorneys told council they will ask a U.S. bankruptcy court to approve proposed tenant-asset removal procedures at a March 12 hearing and said tenant-union counsel has until March 10 to file objections. Jason Harrison, speaking for the city, said the plan would have professional movers pack apartments and allow each tenant a prescribed “two-hour” window to retrieve the most important personal items while movers box the remainder.

"We will be filing our motion today with the court so that the court will, we hope, approve the procedures that we have proposed," Harrison said.

Council members repeatedly pressed for clarity on timing and notification. Pro Tem Coleman Young asked whether any Leland residents hold Housing Choice vouchers; Chelsea Nedlet, chief of housing services, said HRD’s casework so far shows no vouchers at the property but pledged to reconfirm and to continue relocation case management until permanent housing is identified. Nedlet said HRD has relocated 15 of 32 households supported so far.

Residents and housing advocates rejected the city’s characterization that tenants had approved the plan. Donovan McCarty, an attorney for Leland residents and director of the Housing Justice Clinic at Michigan State University College of Law, told council the tenants did not sign off on the city’s plan and that parts of the proposed agreement would require broad legal releases that many tenants find unacceptable.

"They can walk up the stairs. They can get their belongings. If it's cold, they can wear coats," McCarty said, arguing that physical barriers are not the only reason access has been denied. "Next week, it's gonna be 70 degrees. There's no reason they cannot get back in this building to retrieve their belongings other than obstruction."

Several tenants recounted lost property, security breaches and damage after the lockout. A resident represented by Karen Lipkowitz read a statement saying a forced lockout on Dec. 10 left more than $45,000 in belongings behind and described severe stress-related medical symptoms tied to the displacement.

Other public commenters urged the city to use stronger tools if private owners fail to maintain properties. "When private ownership fails, public power must step in," activist Steven Rimmer told the council, urging consideration of eminent-domain remedies.

The law department said it had filed a public-nuisance case and had tried a consent agreement with the property owner; attorneys said a developer’s interest and a reported $1.2 million financing package in January influenced earlier pacing of court filings. The department said it is prepared to ask a state court to appoint a receiver if the bankruptcy process does not resolve the situation.

Fire Marshal Thomas later told council he would not lift the department’s no-occupancy order while the building is out of compliance, citing safety concerns, but said the fire department is working on ways for residents to participate in retrieving belongings in safer conditions.

Council members asked staff to convene a meeting with tenant representatives, HRD and the law department to press for faster, clearer steps and better communication. The city promised an update after the March 12 hearing.

What happens next: the bankruptcy hearing is scheduled for March 12; tenant-union counsel must object by March 10 to the city's proposed removal procedures. Council members asked staff to report back immediately after those filings and to be prepared to reconvene on the issue at next week’s meeting.