Clawson council votes to put Renshaw senior apartments sale on November ballot amid resident protections debate

The Clawson City Council voted June 2 to place a question on the Nov. 3, 2026 general-election ballot asking voters to allow the council to sell or otherwise dispose of the city-owned Renshaw Senior Apartments at 121 Renshaw.

The decision came after nearly three hours of discussion and public comment from residents and housing advocates who urged the council to preserve the building as affordable senior housing and develop concrete protections for the 15 current tenants before pursuing a sale.

Resident Joanne McCauley, who lives at Renshaw, told the council the building “seems to be serving the tenants’ needs well” and said maintenance has been routine; she cited $40,000 a year budgeted for maintenance and an annual rent roll of about $88,740 if fully occupied. “Please don’t evict our neighbors from their affordable homes,” McCauley said.

Alex Morford, a nearby resident and housing volunteer, urged the council to look for nonprofit partners and county funding rather than selling to a private buyer who might eliminate affordability. “If the city does decide to sell, the city should look for a partner to manage these apartments as affordable homes,” he said.

Council members debated two main approaches: those who said the ballot is premature without detailed resident protections, deed restrictions or prearranged nonprofit partners; and those who argued voters should be given the choice and that council could set sale terms after voter approval. One council member urged a deed restriction that would encumber the property so it must remain senior housing, while staff warned deed restrictions can reduce market value and that certain legal steps require voter authorization.

City staff reviewed background materials with council: the city’s Renshaw fund balance was cited at approximately $434,000 and staff noted earlier market-based estimates of fair market value between $1.5 million and $1.75 million. A more conservative assessing estimate from the city’s assessing provider was later cited in discussion at about $937,300 as a “true cash value.” Staff also noted the city has been reviewing a 2023 ADA building audit that described accessibility shortcomings relative to current ADA standards but characterized some issues as structural limitations tied to the building’s age.

The city’s insurance representative, Keith Potter, said the city’s municipal insurance pool (MRMA) underwrites based on building construction and that the city carries a $75,000 self-insured retention for liability; he said tenant lease provisions (including tenants’ liability insurance) are one way landlords seek to manage risk but did not present insurance as an absolute obstacle to disposition.

City Attorney (as recorded) outlined draft ballot language the attorney’s office could submit to the state attorney general for review: a concise yes/no question granting authority for council to sell or dispose of the property and stating that any proceeds would be directed toward the sustainment or improvement of senior services in Clawson. Staff stressed that voter approval would grant authority but would not itself complete a sale; council would still determine sale terms, timeline and arrangements affecting current residents.

At roll call the motion to place the sale on the Nov. 3 ballot passed (recorded votes in the meeting transcript: yes — Council member Tinland, Council member Duberstein, the Mayor Pro Tem (as recorded in council roll call), Council member Pelton, Council member Speak; no — Mayor Susan Moffett, Council member Sinsky). The motion passed and will move to the next steps: attorney review of ballot language and final submission to the county election office by the local deadline.

What happens next: the city attorney will prepare a ballot question and explanatory language and submit it to the Michigan Attorney General’s office for review and possible edits; if approved and returned, council will finalize the exact wording and a yes vote in November would authorize the council to sell or dispose of the property subject to whatever conditions council sets.

Why it matters: Renshaw is a 15-unit senior residential building owned by the city that currently houses senior residents who and advocates say could be displaced if the property is sold without binding protections. Council members and residents differ on whether voters should decide now or whether a fuller plan — deed restrictions, a nonprofit partner or a concrete relocation plan — should be developed first.

The council’s vote does not itself change ownership or tenant arrangements; it will put the question of allowing a sale before voters this fall and leave final terms to later council action.