Mary Bullock, speaking through a representative, objects to sale of Mount Clemens vacant lot, alleges suspicious outside offer

Mary Bullock, represented by Ruthie Stevenson, told the Mount Clemens City Commission on Jan. 5 that she opposes the planned sale of a city-owned vacant lot identified in testimony as "95 Ines," arguing the city should prioritize long-standing neighborhood owners over outside buyers.

Speaking during the public-comment period, Ruthie Stevenson said the landlocked lot adjoins Bullock’s property and that Bullock submitted an offer based on comparable market values. Stevenson said the city told Bullock a new competing offer had appeared shortly before the sale decision and described that offer as "exorbitantly above market value," calling it suspicious because the purported buyer was reportedly out of state.

"The offer was said to be from an individual living in Arkansas and the offer was exorbitantly above market value," Stevenson said, describing conflicting information she received about the competing bid’s origin (first reported as Arkansas, later as Alaska).

Stevenson asked the commission to follow local practice that favors nearby, established residents when selling small neighborhood lots. She argued the city should not sell to "somebody outside who has no vested interest in the community," and urged officials to consider long-term neighbors when making disposition decisions.

The commenter also described past neighborhood experiences in which residents believed maneuvering had favored outside buyers for other properties, and she recounted that the lot at issue became city-owned after it was sold to someone who later lacked ties to the community.

Meeting participants noted additional information reportedly provided to the city indicating a nearby property owner lives at "93 Ines" and that a family member is serving in the military in Alaska; that detail was offered in the meeting but was not presented as a formal city finding during the public comment record.

The commission did not take an immediate public vote on the land sale during the meeting; commissioners later moved to postpone agenda item 9A for two weeks, citing new information and follow-up needs.

Clarifying details extracted from testimony include the commenter’s repeated reference to the parcel as "95 Ines," the characterization of the competing offer as "several thousand above market value" (described in testimony with the phrase "$5,000 mind you"), and the resident request that adjacent long-term owners be given priority when the city sells small neighborhood lots. The exact written offer amounts and the city’s full procurement record were not presented during public comment and were described as "not specified."