December 12 Update
Seasons Greetings!
Yesterday the City of EGR responded to the complaint that was filed on Wednesday, Nov 19. As expected, the City is denying the two counts. However, the good news is the City did not move to have the case dismissed. That is legal talk. The reason it’s good news is because we would have had to fight the motion to dismiss, which would have taken time and money.
Instead, we now have time to prepare for the litigation. Our attorney is starting the process to file our response. It may be January before the information/documentation to answer has been gathered. Between now and then, we will fundraise to continue to pay our attorney.
Thanks for checking our updates and continuing to spread the word.
Hope you all have a wonderful holiday time!
Update November 25
On October 6, 2025 a Protest Petition was given to the City Clerk. This petition is enabled by state law and City Code. It allows neighbors immediately bordering the site of a proposed zoning amendment to voice opposition to the zoning change. When filed, it forces the amendment to pass the city commission by a super-majority vote. In our case, a vote of 5-2 or greater is needed to pass the amendment.
At the City Commission meeting on October 6, a vote was taken regarding the proposed amendment to the Gaslight Village PUD. The vote was 4-3 in favor of allowing the amendment to proceed. This did not meet the super-majority threshold required by the Protest Petition, yet the City Commission declared the vote to have passed.
As a result of ignoring the protest petition, the decision was made to circulate a referendum petition. Referendum petitions are enabled by state law and City Code and are a means for city residents to force legislative decisions of the Commission to go to a city-wide vote. The referendum petition was circulated by over 50 volunteers and signed by over 1,400 residents of East Grand Rapids and presented to the City Clerk within the required amount of time. The City refused to accept the referendum petition.
On November 15, the referendum petition was deemed inadequate by the City due to “technical difficulties” in the petition form: that it did not match state approved forms. This claim is untrue. The forms used were the most recent forms approved by the state, and they were used under the guidance of an attorney who specializes in municipal law.
Because the protest petition was ignored and the referendum petition was denied two complaints were filed against the City with the Kent County Circuit Court on Nov. 19.
The first, regarding the protest petition, was filed by EGR Responsible Development (EGRRD) on behalf of the residents that signed the Protest Petition. Signers of the protest petition are not liable for anything related to this. The second, regarding the Referendum Petition, was filed by EGRRD on behalf of the volunteers that collected signatures and residents that signed the referendum petition. (Signers and volunteers involved in either petition are not liable for anything related to this.) Both complaints are asking the court to require the City of East Grand Rapids to follow its own City Code and accept both the protest petition and the referendum petition.
EGRRD has hired attorney Chris Zdarsky of the law firm Butzel Long as legal representation in the case filed in Circuit Court. We are confident that our case will succeed and that Chris will do a top notch job.
Oct. 20 City Commission Meeting East Insider
(Excellent recap by Commissioner Groff-Blaszak)
City Commission Meeting Oct. 6
Oct. 6, 2025 Jerry Anderson The commission did vote to approve the Concept Plan and the accompanying resolution. We presented a protest petition. According to state law, filing this protest petition meant that the proposal could not pass unless the vote was a super-majority, 5-2. A 4-3 vote would deny approval. The commission voted 4-3.
Before the vote, the City Attorney, Mr. Huff, gave his opinion that the petition was not valid for two reasons: first, that signers did not prove they owned the land that they own. Yet, the signers included their parcel numbers, addresses, and business identities on the petition. The city has access to all the information they need if they want to disqualify a signature. The law does not specify that the citizens must include proof of ownership at the time of submission. The city may disallow a signature if they can show that it is not valid. Mr. Huff also stated that the petition does not apply to "administrative decisions." The law, however, clearly states that it applies to any amendment decision, and does not use the words 'legislative' or 'administrative'.
Although Commissioners Groff-Blaszak and Hunter asked repeatedly for a more detailed discussion, one was not granted. The mayor did, however, show her allegiance when she asked the developer's attorney to share his opinion, but refused to let the attorney that presented the petition on behalf of citizens to speak again.
We will, of course, press on and support that the protest petition is valid. Unfortunately, the City Manager has stated and made clear that he would rather be sued by the residents than by the developer. Unfortunately, in today's legal environment, being right still costs (a lot of) money. That is why we need your support.
A copy of the state law regarding protest petitions follows:
125.3403 Amendment to zoning ordinance; filing of protest petition; vote.
Sec. 403.
(1) An amendment to a zoning ordinance by a city or village is subject to a protest petition as required by this subsection. If a protest petition is filed, approval of the amendment to the zoning ordinance shall require a 2/3 vote of the legislative body, unless a larger vote, not to exceed a 3/4 vote, is required by ordinance or charter. The protest petition shall be presented to the legislative body of the city or village before final legislative action on the amendment and shall be signed by 1 or more of the following:
(a) The owners of at least 20% of the area of land included in the proposed change.
(b) The owners of at least 20% of the area of land included within an area extending outward 100 feet from any point on the boundary of the land included in the proposed change.
(2) Publicly owned land shall be excluded in calculating the 20% land area requirement under subsection (1).
Tomorrow we will also begin the process of making this a referendum decision to be decided by a vote of the residents of EGR. This will take a lot of work and require the involvement of a lot of people. We welcome and encourage open discourse on this important decision. The people of East Grand Rapids should have the final say on what is best for their city.
Jerry Anderson for egrRD-Save the Charm
September 15, 2025 City Commission Meeting Recap
A brief synopsis by concerned citizens of the City Commission meeting on Tuesday September 15
Regarding the proposed development project in Gaslight Village (the”PUD”), the City Commission meeting was a continuation of the past eight months of the Commission’s deliberations. The meeting was more of the same. The proposed plan offers a very congested project to be built on 6 acres of land adjacent to Gaslight Village which will change the character of Gaslight Village and be significantly detrimental to the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Those opposing this plan want to allow development, but to have it reduced in scope so it fits the existing charm and character of Gaslight Village and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
For a number of weeks now the discussions by the Commission have reduced themselves to 4 members being in favor of permitting the development to happen and 3 being opposed. The mayor together with the city staff are very intent on pushing the PUD through to approval. The 3 commissioners that are opposed to the PUD would like it revised to blend into the adjacent properties. At the meetings the mayor dismisses any objections and seeks votes to move the project forward. The city manager regularly acts as the spokesman for the developer with his comments.
This is a project that was started over 20 years ago and has floundered for over two decades. The same person is still the primary spokesman for the development. The utter lack of progress and the failure of the developer to live up to its prior commitments are ignored by the commissioners in favor of the project. It is unclear why the past failures of the developer are never addressed by those in favor of the project. It is likewise unclear why the mayor and three commissioners choose to ignore the overwhelming sentiment of those that elected them.
The meeting had the usual inconsistencies as the agenda published the prior Wednesday was not followed and updates were sent out by the city manager an hour before the meeting. Questions and objections by the commissioners opposed to the project were either passed over or ignored by the mayor. The meeting went on until about 9:45pm.
The feeling one gets from attending these meetings is that the city staff and the mayor are intent on pushing this to approval and that the niceties of following the published agenda and rules of order may be bypassed to achieve approval of the proposed project.
If you would like to support the citizens who are seeking to reduce the project so that it fits the existing character of Gaslight Village and provides ample public space and access, please contact:
EGRResponsibleDevelopment@gmail.com
EGRResponsibleDevelopment.com