© 2025 Michigan State University Board of Trustees
Public Media from Michigan State University
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

East Lansing City Council opts to not pursue legal challenge to housing-related charter amendment

A photo of Downtown East Lansing south of Grand River Avenue.
Arjun Thakkar
/
WKAR-MSU

Updated February 2, 2025 at 1:33 p.m.

In a 3-2 vote at their January 21 meeting, the East Lansing City Council rejected an attempt to block a housing-related charter amendment that was passed by voters last November.

Proposal 1 bans the city from restricting the “types of relationships of persons living together as a household,” so long as they are not rent-paying tenants.

The proposal sparked debate leading up to the vote. Supporters expressed concern that long-term guests or live-in medical assistants were not protected within the city charter, while opponents worried the measure would prohibit the city from enforcing nearly any housing restrictions.

A list of the provisions of the charter amendment. The list has been reproduced at the bottom of the story.
Courtesy

In the January meeting, Councilmember Erik Altmann moved to challenge the amendment, citing what he said was ambiguity in the language. He said one reading of the amendment could result in overturning some rental regulations.

“At some point, some investor is going to figure out that there’s a lot of money to be made if you can overturn rental restriction overlays and occupancy limits," Altmann said.

After the meeting, Patrick Rose, an attorney and member of the East Lansing Charter Amendment Committee, which championed Proposition 1, rejected those claims.

“The first sentence preserves City power to limit or ban rental relationships, imposing safety rules to protect tenants,” Rose said. “Prop 1 does not change occupancy limits, which are based on the number of persons living in a home and are not based on relationships. So, Prop 1 will not change the rental housing, safety or occupancy limit regulations as applied to tenants.”

But Councilmember Mark Meadows, who joined Altmann’s call to challenge Proposal 1, said its passage violated the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act.

“Amendments to our housing ordinances cannot be made or proposed by an initiative petition, and/or a vote of the people unless specifically provided for in state statutes," Meadows said.

Proposal 1 supporters say the Michigan Constitution gives voters the authority to amend city charters.

“The Attorney General reviewed Proposition 1 and made no finding it violates state zoning law or any other state statute,” said Rose. “The Michigan Constitution authorizes this amendment and state zoning law is not violated.”

Another issue cited in the challenge was whether voters should have been allowed to vote separately on different parts of Proposition 1. “[V]oters were presented with multiple propositions lumped together into one paragraph. I think we need to clarify whether the form of the ballot proposal violated voters' rights,” said Altmann, citing the Home Rule City Act. “It’s important because currently we don’t know which individual propositions voters supported.”

Mark Grebner, an Ingham County Commissioner and a member of the East Lansing Charter Amendment Committee, told WKAR that what the Home Rule City Act prohibits is the inclusion of provisions that are unrelated.

“Altmann complains our amendment both requires the city to give notice of a violation before a fine accrues and also says that the City will define ‘tenant’ the same way state law does,” Grebner said. “Both of those Prop 1 subjects are related to allowing homeowners to host long-term guests who are not tenants in their home without being fined thousands of dollars retroactively without notice. These are related subjects, and each are addressed to accomplish a single goal.”

Among those voting against the challenge was Councilmember Dana Watson.

“I am ashamed to be affiliated with a council that took their seats through the same mechanism that passed the proposal,” Watson said. "I feel like council members have abused their power, which is their access to a city attorney, because they didn’t agree with the process.”

Mayor Pro-Tem Kerry Ebersole Singh also rejected the challenge, saying that while she did not support Prop 1 itself, it was not the council's place to step in once voters had their say.

“The people moved forward with signature collection,” she said. “The Attorney General reviewed the language that was applied and put on the ballot. And it passed.”

Mayor George Brookover also voted against the motion, despite calling the ballot proposal “seriously flawed.” But he said there would be opportunities to address any ambiguities in Prop 1’s language while still complying with its intent.

“[To] the extent the recent proposition is flawed,” Brookover said, “those flaws can be repaired by the council via a council initiative charter amendment process at the appropriate time in the future.”

Produced with assistance from the Public Media Journalists Association Editor Corps funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation funded by the American people.

Updated: February 4, 2025 at 1:35 PM EST
This story was originally published on January 24, 2025, and has been updated to include additional context.
With new leaders shaping policies in Michigan and Washington, WKAR remains committed to providing trusted coverage of the changes that impact you. Your support keeps this vital news freely accessible to our community. Donate today to power the reliable journalism you value.