By MAURICE IMHOFF
and KATHRYN PALON
Contributing Writers
Jackson City Council continues to work through a proposed ordinance aimed at addressing unattended personal belongings, tents and other items left in public spaces, an issue that has become closely tied to the larger discussion surrounding homelessness downtown. The proposal drew considerable public comment during the council’s Aug. 18 meeting, with residents and representatives of local and statewide organizations speaking against it. Although the ordinance itself does not use the words “homeless” or “unhoused,” much of the discussion centered on how it would affect those living on the streets. After lengthy discussion, council postponed the second reading and final adoption of Ordinance 2026-03 until its next meeting rather than bringing the ordinance to a final vote.
The meeting came just days after a lengthy community conversation on homelessness at Jackson’s City Center, where representatives from Community Action Agency, Residents in Action, AWARE, My Place, Home of New Vision, Jackson Strength Network and Drive Staffing discussed housing, transportation, substance use, employment and other barriers facing people experiencing homelessness. Tuesday’s council meeting took a noticeably more contentious turn. Some residents held signs during the meeting, including one reading “Don’t Be a Dick.” Mayor Daniel Mahoney interrupted the discussion and asked that the sign be put down, calling it rude, disrespectful and inappropriate for children and families who may have been watching. Someone in the audience responded that displaying the sign was constitutionally protected, leading to a brief exchange before the meeting returned to the ordinance. The incident, which has drawn additional attention to what was already a tense public debate, was not the first time Mahoney has openly called out members of the public attending council meetings when he believed their behavior or comments were out of line.
The property ordinance itself has already changed considerably since it was first introduced. Council removed its emergency designation, which means the measure would not take effect until 30 days after adoption, and eliminated civil infraction fines, leaving confiscation, storage and retrieval as the enforcement mechanism. The latest version also omits references to pets, increases the minimum notice for removing property in designated high-traffic areas downtown from two hours to four hours, and allows people to ask for more time to retrieve stored belongings. Other property would be held for at least 30 days, while essential personal property such as medication, medical devices, identification, vital documents, disability aids, money and items appearing to have significant personal or monetary value would be logged and stored separately. Still, one of the largest concerns remains the amount of property a person may keep in a public space. During public comment, one resident brought a roughly 30-gallon container before council and demonstrated how quickly a sleeping bag, clothing and other necessities could fill it. The Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness also questioned how terms such as “attended property” would be interpreted and how the property limit could be enforced consistently.
City Attorney Matt Hagerty described the proposal as a storage and retrieval ordinance that would apply across public rights of way, sidewalks and parks regardless of a person’s housing status. Nick Cook, director of public policy for the Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness, urged council to pause the ordinance and bring service providers, people with lived experience, law enforcement, business leaders, health care partners and the local continuum of care into the discussion. Other speakers said medical equipment, documents, winter clothing, keepsakes and other necessary belongings would not neatly fit into a small container.
Council members were split on both the ordinance and whether to delay it again. Arlene Robinson, Shalanda Hunt and Angelita Gunn indicated they opposed the ordinance or were not ready to support it, while Mahoney and others said the city still has an obligation to keep sidewalks, parks and rights of way open and accessible. Council Member Connor Wood ultimately moved to postpone the vote, citing the absence of Vice Mayor Freddie Dancy and the possibility of further discussion. Wood, Will Forgrave, Robinson and Mahoney voted to postpone, while Gunn and Hunt voted against delaying the vote.
For now, Jackson’s handling of the issue appears to be more of a work in progress than a standstill. Supporters maintain that sidewalks, parks and other public spaces need to remain accessible to everyone, while opponents argue that limiting or removing belongings does little to address the reasons people are homeless in the first place. Coming only days after community agencies gathered to discuss many of those same challenges, the divided council discussion and even the disagreement that spilled into the audience showed just how unsettled the issue remains. The ordinance has already been changed substantially, and further changes remain possible, but exactly how Jackson will balance the use of its public spaces with the realities of homelessness remains far from settled.
