An investigation of Detroit city planners is necessary

 Ron Seigel

I recently sent a request to the office of the Detroit’s Inspector General and City Council President Brenda Jones for an investigation of officials in the city’s Planning and Development Department (P&DD).

 The reason for this request was a pattern of secrecy in violation of the law, threats to the environment and basic public safety.

 Section 4(a)(6) of State Act 344 explicitly states that “A local commission, public agency or local legislative body of any municipality shall not approve any development plan unless there has been consultation between...the officials responsible for the development” and the citizens district council representing residents and businesses in the area.

 In 1998 after a controversy over possible nepotism in the biggest urban renewal project in Detroit history (Jefferson Village), the city council itself unanimously passed a resolution stating the community must be involved in planning from its inception.

 When P&DD officials submit a development plan without notifying the community they are breaking the law. If city council members pass this measure, they are breaking the law.

 This is exactly what happened 10 years ago. P&DD rammed through city council a plan for housing in the University City “A” urban renewal area above an abandoned factory site with dangerous chemicals and possible residues of a hazardous pesticide called Cobex, which Canadian officials ordered out of their country.

Members of the area’s citizens district council were not informed about the plan until six months after city council passed it.

When they were finally told, they went before a city council meeting with a lot of spirit and a good deal of factual information. Among other things they presented a statement from state environmental officials that the site was unsafe.

The city council made modifications. P&DD officials actually apologized to the area residents. 

Last year it became clear that the P&DD learned nothing and forgot everything.

P&DD changed the development plan for the Art Center urban renewal area without consulting the citizens district council there. This involves building housing on E. Ferry Street near the I-75 expressway.

A former P&DD employee has warned that because of environmental problems. if the housing is built, those unfortunate enough to live there will be subject to sickness , breathing problems and lead poisoning and children may develop learning disabilities. He said the original development plan deliberately ruled out building there because of its closeness to pollution from the incinerator and a liquid waste plant as well as traffic from the service drive.

Given Detroit’s recent scandals one must ask (and one hopes investigators will ask) whether this under cover planning is covering up under the table deals.

To be fair, the secret plan change in the Art Center area was hatched under the previous administration of David Bing. Officials in the new Mike Duggan administration said they are willing to reexamine it.

If they take back the proposal and allow public scrutiny and input by area citizens (as the law requires) it will be a good step toward restoring public confidence in public officials.

On another subject, now that Washington may provide funds for demolition of vacant buildings, it is necessary to examine how P&DD handled state funded demolition in the past.

In 2003 state inspector Thomas Vincent reluctantly admitted that demolition procedures by P&DD contractors may have allowed the wind to blow asbestos from the houses into the neighborhood. Vincent emphasized such procedures did not violate any federal law. However, Gwendoine Mingo, who chaired the Brush Park Citizens District Council, stated residents complained of breathing problems. One hopes an investigation of P&DD will result in measures to ensure people are not harmed or endangered this time.

A more basic problem is a change in urban renewal.  It began to clear away slums and provide “a decent home for every American family.” It expanded to allow government to seize the property of the poor to bring in business and attract richer folk.

Legally those displaced were supposed to get relocation in standard housing comparable to the homes they lost. but if people moved out on their own, city officials had no obligation to them. This gave officials an incentive to make life so miserable for residents they would be tempted to move out fast.

Sometimes the city cut services necessary for health and safety. Sometimes there were more active measures which the late Councilman Clyde Cleveland denounced as “terrorism.”

For decades community leaders who opposed urban renewal policies said they were personally endangered.

Those who believe these things deserve to be looked into should call Council President Brenda Jones at (313) 224-3443 or the city Inspector General at (313) 628-2517 and support my request for an investigation.