Detroit City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting – September 4, 2025
Detroit City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting – September 4, 2025
The Detroit City Council Committee of the Whole met on September 4, 2025, at 6:15 PM. The meeting addressed the continued discussion on the Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), received 13 public comments, and considered numerous unfinished and new business items, including a controversial rezoning request for a garden center. Key votes included sending several contracts to formal session and scheduling further discussions on the MOU for September 11, 2025.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Tracy Peters (District 4) expressed hope for a meaningful MOU and referenced historical housing discrimination. Councilmember Johnson asked her to provide proposed language for amendments.
- Tina Castleberry, owner of The Garden Bug, urged council to rezone her property at 4225 W. Davison from R3 to B2 so she could legally operate a garden center. She stated she invested $195,000 and had community support.
- Leslie Robinson (Russell Woods Sullivan area) supported Ms. Castleberry and questioned why the Planning Commission denied the rezoning.
- Brother Cunningham promoted his cash app and outreach work.
- Ruben James Crowley Jr. accused Councilmember Tate of failing to investigate a death and made political remarks.
- Miko Williams criticized Councilmember Tate for lack of public town halls on the MOU and urged slowing the process.
- Betty A. Bon (Soda Ellsworth Block Association) shared information about the Choice Waiver program for seniors and disabled residents.
- An unnamed caller (referencing the City Charter) argued the council gave away its property powers via the MOU.
- Cindy Dara voiced concerns about trust in government and state laws.
- A caller claimed 100,000 homes were illegally foreclosed and called Councilmember Tate weak.
- Kathy Montgomery (attended Councilmember Waters’ town hall) demanded the DLBA contract not be renewed, citing disrespectful treatment of residents.
- Margaret Manox requested ADA compliance for sidewalks.
Discussion Items
- Land Bank Authority MOU (Line Item 5): Councilmember Tate delivered a lengthy statement, accusing unnamed colleagues of spreading false narratives that the committee is holding up the MOU. He stated the committee had placed the MOU on the agenda multiple times, requested amendments, but lacked cooperation from sponsors to provide detailed legal language. He used the metaphor “calls coming from inside the house” and urged colleagues to work together. The MOU discussion will resume on September 11, 2025.
- Garden Bug Rezoning (Line Item 7.4): Dr. Bolger (City Planning Commission) presented the CPC’s 8-0 recommendation to deny a rezoning from R3 (low-density residential) to B2 (local business) for 4213 and 4225 W. Davison. The commission found the site unsuitable due to shallow lot depth (53 ft) and safety concerns. Councilmembers questioned how the business operated for years without proper permits and zoning. Directors Bell (BSEED) and Bush (PDD) offered alternative locations and expedited permitting. Ms. Castleberry countered that she had followed city directives and created seven off-street parking spots. The item was brought back for one week.
- Real Token Properties (Line Item 6.5): The committee awaited a response from the DLBA on how many properties purchased by real token LLC originated from the land bank. Attorney Anderson stated a response was received that day; the item was brought back in one week.
- Michigan Land Bank Authority Oversight (Line Item 6.6): Attorney Anderson clarified that the council has no authority to compel the Michigan Land Bank Authority to provide information. The MOU discussion will include term limits for DLBA board members.
- 2150 Bagley LLC Abatement Extension (Line Item 7.10): Developer Don Tapp requested a one-year construction extension (third request) for a historic building renovation. Justice Cook (HRD) supported the extension, citing ongoing construction and secured financing. The committee sent the item to formal session with a recommendation to approve.
Key Outcomes
- MOU Discussion: Continued to September 11, 2025. Councilmember Tate requested that colleagues provide detailed amendment language before that date.
- Garden Bug Rezoning: Brought back in one week to allow further conversations between Ms. Castleberry, PDD, and the Ombudsman’s office.
- Unfinished Business:
- Line item 6.1 (income tax preparation) – brought back 1 week.
- Line item 6.2 (ADA/bird safety) – brought back 2 weeks.
- Line items 6.3, 6.4, 6.7 – received and filed.
- Line item 6.5 (Real Token properties) – brought back 1 week.
- Line item 6.6 – received and filed.
- New Business Approved for Formal Session:
- Line items 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 (ARPA and city fund contracts) – sent with recommendation to approve.
- Line item 7.10 (2150 Bagley abatement extension) – sent with recommendation to approve.
- New Business Brought Back:
- Line items 7.4 (Garden Bug), 7.5 (DLBA quarterly report – October 2), 7.14, 7.15 – various bring-back dates.
- Line items 7.13 & 7.16 (Pistons facility) – brought back 2 weeks.
- Line items 7.17, 7.18, 7.19 – referred to departments with 3-week bring-back.
- Public Hearing Scheduled: Line item 7.6 (CPA building historic district) – set for public hearing.
- Member Reports: Vice Chair announced a retiree task force meeting on September 5; Member Johnson promoted a CDBG virtual session and a celebration for the 100th anniversary of the Dr. Sweet house (Sept 7-9).
Meeting Transcript
Saw you in the community, saw you everywhere. We actually got a chance to join forces on some things along the way. So this is just a continuation of what we have been doing throughout the year. All right, is there an approval of the minutes? See no objections that action shall be taken. We'll let everyone know we do have no public hearings today. We do have a discussion that actually will be uh moved. As a matter of fact, uh seeing that we do not uh have a public hearing. Is there a motion to discuss line item five, please? So moved. Thank you so much. So just want everyone to know that line item five is the continued uh discussion on the Detroit Land Bank Authority memorandum of understanding before we left off during uh prior to uh recess. Uh it was noted that we were going to bring it back officially on the 11th. We're bringing it back officially on the 11th. Uh so it is on the agenda a bit premature. So um I don't think we have to do anything else because it's already on the agenda, so we're gonna be talking about this next week. I will say that uh we are continuing the discussion. Uh, there's been a lot of conversation about what this committee has and has not done regarding this MOU. Uh, there was a movie back in the day when I was growing up movie that um you had someone who's making some phone calls, and the phone calls were like real troublesome and created a lot of havoc, or at least trying to create havoc. And to spare you all, at the end of the movie, we found out that the calls are coming from inside the house, and that's what it feels like in this situation right here. Calls coming from inside the house. Uh, this committee is being thrown under the bus uh as the entity that is holding up the MOU process. This committee is the same one that put forward a resolution that was rejected by the full body and sent back to the committee. We've been working on it, placing it on the agenda, asking for feedback for amendments, and we have not gotten the cooperation that we have completely needed to advance this item. We can talk about it all day long, but what we do is not just talk, this is legislation that we have to create. And so there's some amendments that we have before us that just don't have any details attached to it. And you can't add a thought into a MOU. This is about legal language that we have to agree upon, it has details. And I give you an example. This is paraphrasing. There's one that says uh they want enhanced community engagement. You can't just throw that into a MOU. What does that mean? Who's to decide what that enhanced engagement looks like? That's where the the sponsor of the the amendments is supposed to provide information. And once we get that, do are you looking for monthly engagements? Are you looking for engagements in districts? How are you what are you looking for that's different than what's currently on the table and what has been done? And that is what's slowing this process down. So for all of those folks who are confused about what we're doing, all of our meetings are on the record. You can go and we can point you to it. But I also say ask the question of uh what's being done from those who are articulating the fact that this committee is slowing it up, slowing it down. Uh what are you doing to actually move the uh the information as opposed to just talking about it? So as we get the calls that are coming in, the call coming from inside the house. I'm just asking to please heed my call. And the call that I'm asking for is that you work with your colleagues. The call that I'm asking for is that we we we put something together that is not divisive, but is something that we all agree upon that we can get to a point where we're having the best MOU possible for the city of Detroit. But right now, what we have are just for some uh documents, thoughts, ideas, and it's being asked for this committee to just approve thoughts and ideas, and we need details. So I'm hopeful that we'll get better cooperation in advance of next week's discussion on the 11th. I say it again, and for the record, been asked to hold this off until next term.
openpublica.com