Web exclusive: City Council approves rental overlay districts in two E.L. neighborhoods
Tweet
After several hours of public comment from East Lansing residents in several districts, the East Lansing City Council unanimously voted to pass three ordinances restricting rental properties in the city at its meeting Tuesday night.
Two of the ordinances — 1230 and 1233 — rezoned sections of the Whitehills Neighborhood/Rudgate area North of Saginaw Street, south of Lake Lansing Road and west of Hagadorn Road to a R-O-1 designation, prohibiting all new rental licenses within the designated district.
The other ordinance — 1232 — rezoned the Pinecrest Neighborhood to a R-O-2 designation, allowing current owners to apply for rental licenses. Future homebuyers would not be eligible to rent their homes.
Public comment brought some tensions to the surface. Tempers flared in the back of the meeting room on more than one occasion, but for the most part, conversations at the proceedings were subdued.
Those arguing in favor of the ordinances cited concerns about property values, inadequate care of rental properties and potential student tenants.
Those against the ordinances brought up issues of socioeconomic discrimination, prejudice against students and misconceptions about renters.
After all was said and done, council members said they were obligated to vote in favor of the ordinances because city code required them to do so.
“We could have tabled it, deferred, denied or conditioned it,” Mayor Vic Loomis said. “From my standpoint, it was pretty specific the way the ordinance was drafted and approved. When the petitioners comply with standards, we are obligated to approve it.”
Council members cited ordinance 1035C as their standard for approving the overlays.
“Each member has taken an oath to uphold the codes of the city,” Councilmember Nathan Triplett said. “We have to abide by the law … by the code of the city of East Lansing. (The petitions) meet requirements of 1035C.”
In lay terms, the council was bound by its duty to the city to approve each ordinance as brought by the petitioners for their respective districts.
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Donnie
(12/02/09 4:21pm)Report
Councilmember Nathan Triplett should read Ordinance 1035C.
“4. If it is determined that the petition is in conformity with the requirements, the Zoning
Administrator will draft the appropriate ordinance and forward it to the City Council
for introduction. Council may make additions or changes in the boundaries of the
proposed area.”
City Council may make additions or changes in the boundaries. City Council could have exempted those owners who did not sign the petition, but chose not to.
Nathan Triplett
(12/02/09 11:02pm)Report
I would encourage State News readers to read the entirety of Ordinance 1035C on the City’s website. Unfortunately Donnie’s quote is not complete. The operative language is left out. Here is the complete text:
“If an ordinance is forwarded to city council pursuant to this section, after consideration of the petition and the recommendations of the zoning administrator, if any, the city council may make additions or changes in the boundaries of the proposed overlay district to prevent spot zoning, to include or exclude areas that logically should have been included or excluded in the petition, to make the boundaries of the proposed overlay district abut boundary lines of other zoning districts and overlay districts, and to adopt an alternate ordinance in conformity with the suggested changes whether or not the two-thirds majority requirement of property owners would still be met with the proposed changes.”
In short, the ordinance sets out specific standards that govern the circumstances under which we are empowered to make “additions or changes.” None of those conditions were met under the proposals the Council evaluated last night. In fact, I fear that exclusions of the type Donnie suggest would cause precisely the spot zoning issues that the ordinance seeks to allow Council to prevent.
The three petitions met the requirements set forth in the ordinance. We had no legally defensible reason to reject or modify them, regardless of any concerns individual councilmembers may have had about the proposals. As I said last night, we are bound to abide by the law we have, not those that we wish we had.
john Rooney
(12/03/09 10:15am)Report
Since my house at 1840 Foxcroft was on the edge of the ‘district’, it’s hard to see how excluding it would be ‘spot zoning’. I think excluding a lot not on the border could be ‘spot zoning’. The lot just north of me is within the Rudgate subdivision but it was excluded from the petitioned district as drafted. Why not include it and the lot across the street from it? They’re both in Rudgate.
CLASS WARFARE
(12/04/09 7:53pm)Report
The wealthy snobs and bigots who misled,and who were misled by, others with scare tactics and irrational fears of loud, beer pong parties, stole property rights from the other 40% of their neighbors who may desire to rent out a single bedroom,out of their 6 bedroom mansions,to a quiet graduate student. Those on fixed incomes, whose jobs have been outsourced, or who have become disabled or widowed, have lost the right to rent out 1 bedroom, due to a xenophobia against lower middle class renters, students, and minorities. The house that prompted the petition,1820 Foxcroft,had been an OWNER OCCUPIED neglected disaster, BEFORE it sold at auction for around $102,375. That same house sold for $190,000 way back in 1998! So do NOT blame the RENTALS. This is an inflexible, knee jerk reaction that demonstrates that East Lansing is loaded with wealthy, selfish snobs and bigots who don’t care about the rest of us. They care more about their own property VALUE$ than other humans’ LIVES.
TRIPLETT CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(12/04/09 8:01pm)Report
Nathan Triplett publicly declared his BLATANT CONFLICT of INTEREST and he IGNORED the MEANING and PURPOSE of it. Apparently, Triplett got a sweet insider deal on a City built and owned home at 647 Virginia Avenue. Furthermore, it appears that Triplett used the City Attorney, paid for with taxpayer money, for his Conflict of Interest problem. His actions suggest that he is in politics to fatten his pockets with more sweet deals, favors, kickbacks, and bribes. Where in the City Code does it say that the Council did not have the right to TABLE the vote?