A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Students urge Ann Arbor to bar proactive encampment sweeps on city property

May 13, 2026 | Ann Arbor City, Washtenaw County, Michigan


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Students urge Ann Arbor to bar proactive encampment sweeps on city property
A group of University of Michigan social‑work students presented to the Ann Arbor Human Rights Commission on harms from encampment sweeps and urged the city to formalize protections for people living outdoors.

Shauna Chester, a social‑work graduate student, cited local and national data and described the loss of documents, medication and other essential items during sweeps. Chester said point‑in‑time counts showed “842 people were homeless as of December of 2025, which is an increase of 42% from the previous year,” and warned that removals can “set people back” by destroying access to IDs and jobs. She recommended an ordinance that would prohibit proactive sweeps on city property, require a 14‑day notice tied to clearly stated legal or safety reasons, have an outreach team such as PATH on site to collect and store belongings, and maintain those items in city‑funded storage for 45 days.

Commission members pressed presenters on operational details. Commissioners asked who currently stores possessions after a sweep and whether county, state or university landfalls outside city authority; presenters said the police sometimes store items but that storage practices and jurisdictional responsibility are inconsistent and need clarity. Council member Gassi Edwin noted past incidents where county actions led to state police removals inside city limits and called for intergovernmental protocols.

The students and commissioners discussed whether a resolution or ordinance is the better legal tool: students said a resolution could be politically expedient but that advocates argue an ordinance offers stronger, enforceable protections. Commissioners and presenters agreed to consult city attorneys and county partners before drafting formal language and to return with more specific examples from other municipalities.

The commission did not vote on policy at the meeting; members directed staff and advocates to continue discussions, gather legal guidance and report back to the commission.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee