Voters to decide contentious East Lansing housing issue

If someone with an extra room in their home gets a call from a longtime family friend or cousin who’s down on their luck, can that person offer the room rent-free until they get back on their feet?

In East Lansing, residents disagree on the answer. Voters will tackle the matter in the Nov. 5 election when they decide on Proposal 1.

Some citizens, including City Council members Erik Altmann and Mark Meadows, have said it would be permitted under the city’s existing code.

On the other side, a resident-led group called the East Lansing Charter Amendment Committee says those same codes restrict “unrelated” guests from accepting such an arrangement for more than 30 consecutive days, or 60 total days in a single year. After that point, according to their interpretation, homeowners would need to apply for a rental license. If they don’t, supporters say, they could face fines of $500 per day.

Retired Ingham County Chief Circuit Judge James Giddings, who helped draft Proposal 1, contended that the city housing code “violates homeowners’ basic constitutional rights without furthering any valid neighborhood concerns.”

Members collected over 1,600 signatures to put the issue on the ballot. The result is a proposed amendment to the East Lansing City Charter.

“The Amendment states the City shall not restrict relationships of persons living together as a household or residing in homes, or interfere with rights of owners to live with persons of their choice, so long as they are not rent‐paying tenants,” the first sentence of the proposal reads.

If passed, the amendment would enact stipulations requiring the city to “make zoning and rental records public,” “give advance notice of housing penalties” and adopt state law definitions for housing terms like “renter,” “rental unit,” “lease,” “tenant,” and “occupancy.” It would also allow the city to pursue misdemeanor changes for “repeat violations of zoning and rental laws” if they are “knowing and intentional,” and residents in active military service would get a house-sitting exemption from existing rental license requirements.

Part of why Altmann, Meadows and other city leaders and residents believe the existing code doesn’t prohibit long-term, nonrelated guests comes through the city’s “domestic unit provision.” Defined as a relationship “having distinct domestic character or a demonstrable and recognizable bond,” the provision was designed to provide flexibility in cases where non-traditional families want to live together without penalty.

Glencairn resident and attorney Patrick Levine Rose, an organizer and outspoken supporter of the amendment, thinks that provision isn’t specific enough to offer true relief. He argued that the amendment seeks to offer greater clarity in what is and isn’t allowed by the city.

“It assures owners they can invite friends and extended family to live in their home while keeping all rental regulations, occupancy limits, overlay districts and safety rules for rent-paying tenants. We can and must have both our rights in our home and our neighborhoods protected by reasonable rules,” Rose said.

Not all his neighbors agree with him. Save Our Neighborhoods EL formed  to combat what some members say is “misinformation.” To date, Save Our Neighborhoods EL has the support of 274 residents, including Altmann and Meadows.

Bailey neighborhood resident Kathy Swedlow, also an attorney, helped bring the group together shortly after the petition began circulating. She began talking about it with other residents who shared fears that the amendment would lead to an influx of student rentals while allowing large property groups to snatch up single-family homes at the expense of the families who would otherwise live there.

“Housing regulation doesn’t belong in a city charter. It’s something that we want to put in an ordinance so that it can be adapted over time. Things change, and if we put it in the charter, then we’d need another election to change or alter it,” Swedlow said.

Rose is convinced that the opposite is true.

“A charter amendment is the best way to secure your basic freedoms to invite guests to live in your home. City Council has severely limited basic rights to have live-in childcare, caregiving and to host long-term guests for decades. We protect free speech and bodily autonomy in our charter, which is our constitution for the city to protect our basic rights,” he said.

Swedlow agreed that the housing and zoning codes aren’t clear enough, noting that “it’s not currently all in one place.” She said the city is working on revising the rules through proposed Ordinance 1538, which the Housing Commission discussed last month.

It includes an “exceptional circumstance” clause, in which residents seeking to bring a nonrelated guest into their home can apply for them to stay in their property for up to one year, with a possibility for renewal. It also expands the home caregiver restriction, allowing for more flexibility for elderly residents who want to bring in a hired hand to live in their home.

On July 31, City Council voted 3-1, with Meadows absent, to add an “explanatory caption” ahead of the ballot question.

As passed, it reads: “The proposed Charter amendment below was initiated by a citizen-initiated petition and not by the East Lansing City Council.”

The caption seemed poised to distance the city from those who initiated the ballot proposal. The schism will come to a head Nov. 5. However, that may not be the end of it, whichever way voters go.

“Whose interpretation is right? I have mine, and they have theirs. We may have to go back to litigation in order to sort it out,” Swedlow said.

Rose believes his group’s efforts have already yielded changes, including the city’s efforts to implement Ordinance 1538. He believes it will pass. But if it doesn’t, he echoed Swedlow’s assertion that litigation would follow.

“The public, judges and juries will demand the city reverse course and not make it illegal and subject to large surprise fines to have long-term guests,” he said.

— TYLER SCHNEIDER