Flint’s rules for approving rental properties violate the Constitution, according to a 62-page lawsuit filed in July by a local property owner.

Karter Landon owns eight rental properties in Flint that he has not rented out for a year. He blames an ongoing dispute with the city of Flint that has so far cost him $50,000 in forgone rental income. The Flint ordinance requires the properties to pass a city inspection before they are occupied as a rental and allowed access to city water.

The city can’t withhold water or deny a landlord the right to rent a property because he’s refused a warrantless search, according to Landon, who’s worked as a landlord for nearly 27 years.

“They can’t pass a law that penalizes you for asserting your Fourth Amendment right,” Landon said in a phone interview with Michigan Capital Confidential, “because landlords will feel coerced to give up their rights.”

In 2016, Landon sued the city over the same inspection program and won. The inspection program was thrown out for several years until the city revived it, according to a 2017 order from U.S. District Judge Linda Parker.

In that case, the judge enjoined the city of Flint from inspecting rental properties or penalizing a landlord or tenant for refusing to allow an inspection without a warrant.

In 2020, the city reinstated the policy with a clause that it would seek a warrant to enter a landlord’s property if access is denied.

Landon will not let inspectors enter the property without a warrant. It is a civil infraction in Flint to rent out a property that the city hasn’t inspected.

The city of Flint did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The city charges $225 per unit every three years plus an initial registration fee of $250, reinspection fees of $120, a noncompliance fee of $450, a water fee of $75, and a water usage fee of at least $70, according to the 2024 lawsuit.

“Flint demands inspections regardless of whether a property is or is not vacant, and (the city) penalizes Plaintiff regardless of whether he refuses entry absent a warrant, or even if his tenant has refused entry without a warrant,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit seeks a permanent court injunction prohibiting the city of Flint from enforcing its search rule. It claims the city’s forced inspection rule violates the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

It seeks compensatory damages for the city’s refusal to provide water to his homes, loss of rental income, increased maintenance with mowing and utility bills, and damage to properties — including wear and tear from squatters.

Landon wants to get his houses back on the rental market. He’s awaiting action on the lawsuit he filed in July.

“A lot of my houses rent for $400-$500 per month,” Landon said. “All of these houses are sitting empty, driving up rental prices everywhere else.”

The Legislature approved Senate Bill 40 Dec. 13 to increase unemployment insurance benefits. If Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signs the bill into law, it will also increase the amount of time a person can claim unemployment from 20 weeks to 26 weeks.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Paul Wojno, D-Warren, would increase the maximum weekly payout from $362 to $614 by 2027, with incremental increases in 2025 and 2026.

Wojno did not respond to an email seeking comment.

“That money goes straight back into the economy and it’s really a buffer for folks who need it,” Sen. Cherry, D-Flint, told reporters after legislative session on Dec. 10, the Michigan Advance reported.

The change will trigger even higher tax increases on employers,Dave Worthams, director of employment policy at the Michigan Manufacturers Association, said in a press release.

“Increasing the weekly maximum benefit with an undefined cost to Michigan job providers is irresponsible and will threaten the state’s competitiveness compared to neighboring states,” Worthams said.

The Senate Fiscal Agency determined that when the maximum payout reaches $612 per week in 2027, it will result in $531.1 million in additional disbursals from the state unemployment account funded by taxes on employers. This would increase total payouts by $1.3 to $1.4 billion at current payout levels, the agency said. If the state experiences an economic recession, the payout total will increase, along with unemployment claims.

This change will do more harm than good, said Wendy Block, senior VP of business advocacy for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

“This is another massive variable and another consequence of rushing public policy that fails to take into consideration these kinds of real impacts that end up causing more harm than good,” Block wrote in an email to Michigan Capitol Confidential.

Private employers will have to pay higher taxes to fund the boosted benefits, Rep. William Bruck, R-Erie, told CapCon.

The Legislature, currently controlled by Democrats, did not work with private employers or chambers of commerce on this bill, he said.

The bill did not go through a committee on the House side, where interested individuals and organizations usually express concerns and request changes, Bruck said.