Residents tell Mount Clemens council code enforcement is inconsistent, cite mistaken notices and fees

At the council’s public-comment period, several residents described what they called inconsistent and mistaken enforcement by city code staff.

Tricia Staley of 430 Esplanade said she and her husband have been treated as if their house were vacant since last July, that the sheriff visited and suggested they did not lawfully reside in the district, and that city records and the assessor’s office had contradictory information. Staley said an affidavit of vacancy costs $170 and a notice of the need for a certificate of occupancy is another $160 "prior to closing," and she urged the council to address what she called poor record keeping. "It is interesting to say the least how these notices state the date of 'inspection' is the date of the letter," she said.

Matt Logik, speaking after Staley, said code enforcement acted quickly after the family installed a lamppost and questioned whether enforcement is targeted at new residents. He called the lighting ordinance outdated, said Mount Clemens appears to enforce it when neighboring municipalities do not, and asked the council to revise ordinances and clean up records. "Is it code enforcement's job to enforce city ordinances only when a crazy city gadfly makes a complaint and tries to scare off someone who is a new resident?" he asked.

Dolores Kseniak of 250 Euclid described receiving violations she said were issued in error when an enforcement officer was in an alley and did not list the correct address. She said she has reported nearby properties with junk cars and weeds but has not seen consistent enforcement and urged a change in the enforcement office.

Council members responded by encouraging residents to contact city administration; Commissioner Kim asked administration to seek a resolution, and Commissioner Midtser (S3) directed residents with blight complaints to contact Brian Tingley, the community development director. The transcript records no formal action on ordinances at the meeting; council members said administration would follow up with residents.