Neighbors are taking legal action against the City of East Grand Rapids – FOX 17 West Michigan News

Report on Urban Development Dispute in East Grand Rapids and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Conflict in Sustainable Urban Planning

A lawsuit has been filed by a citizens’ group against the city of East Grand Rapids concerning the approved concept plan for the Gaslight Village development. This legal action highlights critical tensions in local governance and urban planning, directly engaging with the principles of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The core of the dispute revolves around procedural integrity, community participation, and the vision for sustainable urban growth, reflecting challenges central to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Procedural Disputes and Institutional Accountability (SDG 16)

The lawsuit alleges that the city failed to adhere to established legal and democratic processes, undermining the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions (Target 16.6) and ensuring responsive, participatory decision-making (Target 16.7). The primary points of contention are two citizen-led petitions.

1. The Protest Petition: This petition, filed under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, was intended to trigger a super-majority vote requirement (five of seven commissioners) for the plan’s approval. Proponents argue this mechanism is designed to protect the rights of immediately affected residents. The city commission approved the plan with a 4-3 vote, and the city attorney determined the petition was inapplicable because the approval was administrative, not legislative. The lack of a formal, timely response from the city on this matter is a key grievance, raising questions about institutional transparency.
2. The Referendum Petition: A subsequent petition gathered 1,482 signatures, surpassing the required threshold to put the development plan to a public vote. This action represents a direct attempt by citizens to engage in participatory governance. The city clerk, however, deemed the petition inadequate due to technical deficiencies in the forms, despite validating 1,270 signatures. This decision has been challenged by the petitioners, who assert the forms comply with state law and are now seeking judicial review to ensure access to justice.

Challenges to Creating Inclusive and Sustainable Communities (SDG 11)

The Gaslight Village development plan, as approved, raises concerns regarding its alignment with the objectives of creating inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable human settlements. The residents’ group, “East Grand Rapids Responsible Development,” advocates for a planning process that is more aligned with the principles of SDG 11.

• Inclusive and Sustainable Urbanization (Target 11.3): The lawsuit underscores a breakdown in participatory urban planning. Residents express that the current plan, particularly with proposed 70-foot buildings, negatively impacts adjacent properties by creating shadows and increasing density without adequate community consensus.
• Sustainable Infrastructure and Public Space (Target 11.7): Concerns over overflow parking from the new development into existing residential areas point to potential deficiencies in infrastructure planning. The impact of large-scale buildings on the character and accessibility of community spaces is a central theme of the opposition.
• Strengthening Development Planning (Target 11.a): The call from residents to “open the process back up again” and “work as a community towards an agreement” is a direct appeal for stronger, more collaborative local development planning that balances economic, social, and environmental considerations, a cornerstone of SDG 11.

Current Status and Official Response

The lawsuit has been filed in Kent County Circuit Court, with the city having 21 days to respond. The plaintiffs, representing “East Grand Rapids Responsible Development” and the ballot committee “Gaslight Village Responsible Development,” have expressed a desire for a resolution that re-initiates a collaborative development process. In an official statement, City Manager Shea Charles confirmed that the city’s determinations were based on guidance from legal counsel, the City’s charter, and state election law. The outcome of this litigation will serve as a significant local case study on the implementation of principles related to sustainable development, institutional accountability, and participatory governance.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The article discusses a conflict over the “Gaslight Village development” in East Grand Rapids. This directly relates to urban development and planning. The citizens’ group, “East Grand Rapids Responsible Development,” is advocating for a community-driven approach to development, which aligns with the goal of making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Their legal action is a response to a perceived lack of participatory and inclusive planning by the city.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• This is a central theme of the article. The entire narrative revolves around citizens using legal mechanisms to challenge their local government. The lawsuit alleges that the city “failed to follow its own laws” and improperly handled citizen petitions. This highlights issues of institutional accountability, transparency, access to justice, and responsive decision-making. The conflict between the neighbors and the city commission is a clear example of challenges related to building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at the local level.

Specific Targets Identified

Targets under SDG 11

• Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
  • The neighbors’ efforts to use a protest petition to require a super-majority vote and a referendum petition to put the development “up for public vote” are direct attempts to engage in “participatory… planning and management.” The lawsuit stems from their belief that the city’s actions undermined this participatory capacity.

Targets under SDG 16

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
  • The neighbors have taken legal action through the “Kent County Circuit Court.” This demonstrates citizens seeking “access to justice” to ensure the “rule of law,” specifically the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act and state election laws, is upheld by their local government.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
  • The article highlights a perceived lack of accountability and transparency. Jerry Anderson states that “six weeks after the protest petition was submitted, neighbors still have received no official response from the city explaining why it was not considered applicable.” This points to a failure in institutional transparency and effectiveness in responding to citizen concerns.
• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
  • This target is at the core of the dispute. The neighbors believe the city’s decision-making process was not responsive to their petitions, not inclusive of their concerns, and not participatory because their legal attempts to influence the outcome were dismissed on technicalities. The 4-3 vote, which would have failed under the super-majority sought by the protest petition, further underscores the issue of representative decision-making.

Indicators Mentioned or Implied

Indicators for SDG 11

• Indicator 11.3.2: Proportion of cities with a direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management that operate regularly and democratically.
  • The article implies a problem with this indicator. The protest and referendum petitions are “direct participation structures.” The lawsuit alleges these structures did not operate democratically or as legally intended, as the city attorney and clerk determined they were inapplicable or inadequate, thereby preventing citizen participation in the decision on the development plan.

Indicators for SDG 16

• Indicator 16.3.3: Proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism.
  • The article provides a direct example of this indicator in action. The neighbors experienced a dispute with the city and, after their initial attempts (petitions) were rejected, they “accessed a formal… dispute resolution mechanism” by filing a lawsuit in the Kent County Circuit Court.
• Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability and population group.
  • While the article does not provide a statistical proportion, it strongly implies that a significant portion of the population believes the decision-making was not inclusive or responsive. The 1,482 signatures gathered for the referendum petition, exceeding the required threshold, serve as a proxy measure of public sentiment and dissatisfaction with the city’s process.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: fox17online.com