Opinion: Detroit renters deserve legal representation in eviction court

It's a simple argument: Tenants facing eviction deserve legal representation. The court system is only fair if everyone gets a fair shake, and the scale, in such matters, is tipped against tenants without legal representation.

And that's most of them: In 2017, 30,000 eviction cases were filed in 36th District Court. o. In Detroit, where more than half of households rent, that's one out of five rentals. Only 4% of tenants were represented in eviction court that year, compared to 83% of landlords.

Tenant advocates argue that hose families have a right to counsel — an attorney who can push back against an underhanded landlord who won't repair an unsafe structure, or isn't playing fair with the rent, or who has rented a home with a predatory lease or land contract. If all else fails, a lawyer can help negotiate a tenant's departure from a rental without a formal eviction.

Since the pandemic began, the number of evictions has fallen, thanks in large part to multi-year eviction moratoriums issued by state and federal government, to roughly 16,000 last year, according to 36th District Court records, and around 4,500 so far this year. And the percentage of tenants with lawyers is up, around 20%, thanks to American Rescue Plan Act dollars that have paid legal aid services to staff the courtrooms were eviction cases are heard.

And a lot of hearings now end with an outcome that wouldn't have been possible three years ago: The declaration that a tenant has applied for federal COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance, and that the eviction will be dismissed.

A new wave of evictions?

But those federal dollars won't last forever.

A group called the Detroit Right to Counsel Coalition is urging the city to adopt an ordinance that will fund legal representation for tenants facing eviction. With support from a broad swath of stakeholders, and among members of the Detroit City Council — and, advocates thought, Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan's administration --— the Right to Counsel ordinance seemed on track to adoption. But last month, t the city's CFO and interim corporation counsel abruptly pumped the brakes.

More: A new proposal would offer legal representation for Detroiters facing eviction

More: Evictions make it harder for Michigan families to find safe, affordable housing

The problem? If you can believe it, the administration's objection had a lot to do with the name of the ordinance — Right To Counsel, which is also the name of the national advocacy effort to provide such services.

The city's Interim corporate counsel, Chuck Raimi, and CFO Jay Rising argued that because the ordinance contains the word "right," it creates an "unlimited obligation" for spending that could return the city to state financial oversight. At minimum, Raimi and Rising argued, such obligations must not be funded through the city's general fund.

Tonya Myers-Phillips, leader of the Right to Counsel Coalition, is bewildered by the administration's assertions. An analysis by by New York-based Stout research firm found the highest possible price tag for the ordinance was $17 million. That's if every tenant facing eviction 36th District Court were represented.

Myers-Phillips says 13 cities and three states have adopted such ordinances, and none have been bankrupted. In fact, she says, the Stout study found that after adopting Right to Counsel, cities spent less on emergency services for newly homeless families. And in Detroit, maintaining occupied homes means less blight.

John Roach, a spokesman for Duggan, wrote in an email this week that the administration supports the ordinance. When I asked if Raimi and Rising's objections had been resolved, Roach wrote, "Apparently," but said he could not provide details.

But the objections raised by Rising and Raimi concern Myers-Phillips, who said she was not aware that the administration's objections were apparently resolved.

"There seems to be resistance to investing in systemic solutions to problems in the city of Detroit, using limited grant funding or half-measures, not a systemic way of addressing need," she said.

The Detroit City Council's formal budget priorities, adopted late Thursday night, encourage the administration to dedicate $6 million in ARPA dollars to fund Right to Counsel for the next three years.

"It really baffles us why we have to be at this point, why we can’t simply pass Right to Counsel," said Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio, deputy legal director of the ACLU of Michigan.

Without a lawyer, she said, a tenant who appears before a judge often doesn't know what evidence to present or arguments to raise, or how to introduce issues of fraud and misrepresentation.

"Predatory (rental) practices in the city of Detroit specifically target certain communities that don’t qualify for traditional mortgages, or even have the credit history to enter into a lease with someone who is checking credit or payment history," she said. "They know who to target and how to present options that maybe make it seem like someone has a path to homeownership -- sign this contract and in seven years will own your own home -- but the contract is long and confusing and there’s no one there to walk you through it."

Often, she said, such a contract is really nothing more than a lease with unreasonable requirements that the tenant isn't intended to meet.

Ted Phillips of the United Community Housing Coalition has been practicing in this field since 1983. UCHC attorneys are currently staffing eviction hearings. A lawyer, he said, makes all the difference.

"You can work it out, you can avoid getting a judgement against you, you can get some extra time to make sure you’re not put out in the street," he said. "If (a lease) ends with a voluntary agreement and not a judgement, it can be life-changing."

Studies commissioned by the Detroit Right to Counsel Coalition in cities that have adopted such a provision have shown the rate of eviction drops sharply when tenants have lawyers. In Philadelphia, 78% percent of tenants who didn't have lawyers were evicted; just 5% of tenants who had attorneys faced such displacement. In New York City, 84% of households represented by lawyers were able to stay in their homes.

"If the moral issue of, my god, can’t we keep people off the streets, isn't enough, there’s the impact on our neighborhoods," Phillips said. "It’s more than just the tenants getting evicted, because once they’re evicted, then what? We have vacant homes, and a horrible vandalism problem."

Vacant structures are attractive targets for scrappers eager to strip a home of its furnace, air conditioning units or pipes, all made of metals that can be sold, and can cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace — sums few landlords in Detroit's poorest neighborhoods can or will pay.

"We need to keep properties occupied," Phillips said. "With eviction, not only is the tenant hurt, but the property is damaged from being vacant."

We've paid a lot of attention, in the last decade, to how tax foreclosure drives blight, and how blight and vacancy harm the city. After years of inaction, the city and Wayne County finally adopted the Pay As You Stay program, allowing impoverished homeowners to wipe out unreasonably high tax debt, and stay in their homes.

In Detroit, where most households now rent, not own, the harm caused by eviction deserves the same attention.

Nancy Kaffer is a columnist and member of the Free Press editorial board. She has covered local, state and national politics for two decades. Contact: nkaffer@freepress.com. Become a subscriber at Freep.com.

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Opinion: Detroit renters deserve representation in eviction court