Commission discusses enforcement options for blighted 67 Cass building in Mount Clemens

Mount Clemens city staff told commissioners at their June work session that the privately owned building at 67 Cass remains a public-safety and visual blight and that the city is pressing for a firm remediation timetable rather than immediate demolition.

Rob Shipman, who briefed the commission on the property’s status, said the owner missed a two-week deadline to secure a permanent fence after a storm blew a temporary barrier loose. Shipman said the contractor began removing loose exterior veneer, then stopped, leaving holes in the facade and areas where material continues to fall. "We asked them to secure that properly and they're supposed to turn in an engineer's assessment of the building again," Shipman said, adding that the city’s structural engineer has reviewed the site and requested a remediation plan with firm dates.

Craig, the city engineer who joined the recent site visit, described the hazard this way: "The building's not going to fall down. It's the veneer falling off the building, right? The building isn't going to collapse." He said the immediate danger is falling material and open holes in the facade that require filling or other repair.

Commissioners discussed enforcement tools available to compel remediation. Speakers cited the Administrative Hearing Board (AHB) and the possibility of levying fines and attaching cost-recovery liens to the property tax roll. One commissioner noted that fines can reach up to $10,000, though collection may be delayed and enforcement can require months before a tax lien becomes delinquent and collectible. The commission also discussed requiring boards-to-windows replacement timelines in an ordinance and using repeated-violation fees similar to those charged for emergency-service calls.

Multiple commissioners said the city has tried enforcement for decades and urged escalation. "We have the power to say shape up or ship out," one commissioner said, urging the city to make long-term enforcement more uncomfortable for the owner so a sale or remediation becomes more likely. Commissioners noted offers from multiple developers and reports that asking prices have fallen from figures mentioned previously (discussion ranged around $2.7 million down toward $1.3 million).

Staff described next steps as continued pressure on the owner, pursuing AHB violations where appropriate, refining enforcement language (for example, a time limit for keeping windows boarded), and seeking further engineering assessments to support any court action if necessary. No formal motion or vote to pursue litigation or condemnation was taken during the session.

The commission did not set a formal deadline in the meeting; staff said they will keep the commission informed of developments and continue enforcement actions discussed at the work session.