Written by Tanya Terry, with photos by L.M. Land
Featured photo: Percy Knapp, Dir., Ramona Gillard, Council members Jerri Winfrey-Carter and Tonya Burns and Jowanne Carrigan after the last City of Flint vs. Hasselbring court hearing
A District Court judge has decided to postpone the decision on whether to evict the service provider of the Hasselbring Senior Center until at least February 20, the next scheduled court case on the matter. Although she stated that essentially she believed “the City prevails,” Judge Jessica Hammon decided to wait until after the next Flint City Council meeting to make the final decision on the matter after hearing arguments from attorneys for both the City of Flint and Hasselbring.
Flint City Attorney Joseph Kuptz stated in court: “This is a termination of tenancy action. The operative lease in this matter, according to its terms, expired at the conclusion of September 30 of 2016. So, as of October 1 of 2016, a tenant, which is also, of course, named Hasselbring Senior Center had no possessory legal interest in the property.
“In addition, if the court were to find that, under whatever circumstances there may be, that the tenant has a possessory legal interest, that possessory legal interest was then finally terminated when the notice to quit and accompanied cover letter was issued by the City of Flint to Hasselbring early December. As the court sees from the City of Flint’s pleadings, the operative lease had a provision in it that allowed either party thereto to terminate the lease upon 30 days written notice.”
Kuptz repeated multiple times in court: “There is no triable issue in fact in this case.”
Harrell D. Millhouse, the attorney representing the Hasselbring Center said to the judge of the City: “They’ve already got folks ready to move in, and they’re ready to set and enter a new contract – a contract with another party.”
Millhouse also said in court“…Retaliation. Discrimination. All these things come from the way the City has evicted or tried to evict Hasselbring.”
Milhouse further elaborated to the Courier on this statement and said it referred to the City giving Hasselbring different terms than other entities and retaliating because those representing Hasselbring stated they were not happy with previous negotiations.
Section 2(b )of the August 2024 agreement stated among other things “the lessee” (being Hasselbring) “shall pay the City of Flint 10% of any rental fees paid to them by third parties for use of the property or any portion of the property.”
The lease agreement was postponed indefinitely at a Nov. 25, 2024 Special Affairs committee meeting, according to the Flint city clerk.
Flint Resident and Hasselbring Member AC Dumas said that because the vote to table the matter indefinitely occurred in a special affairs meeting, it “does not count.”
“…It’s very important that the judge recognize that anything that’s done at a committee meeting or a special affairs meeting is not of effect until the full board – City Council- votes in action…”
Dumas added it is the same way with the county and the school board.
He also noted that although the city attorney was “supposed to represent the administration and the council, they don’t” when the council and administration disagree.
“That’s why many times City Council has to get their own lawyers.”
“What right does Hasselbring have to remain in the building?” asked Hammon. “I can understand the argument in regard to the people who are sitting here today. I can understand the argument in regard to the public and what the public wants. But, the court only can operate under the law.”
Kuptz said negotiations for a new lease between the City and Hasselbring were “not relevant to this case”
“There were negotiations between the City of Flint and Hasselbring Senior Center about a new lease,” said Kuptz. “That lease was signed by Mr. Percy Knapp, who is the director of the board for Hasselbring Senior Center when this matter originally came before Special Affairs August of 2024. During public comment, Mr. Knapp and Beverly Lewis, the director of Hasselbring Senior Center, actually spoke during public comment, and encouraged City Council not to adopt the resolution, approving that lease.”
Knapp told the Courier: “We didn’t tell them that. We voiced our opinion on the lease that we signed, that we didn’t think it was fair. But, City Council was the one who decided -they took a look at it, and they didn’t like the way it was either…We didn’t tell them to do what we did. We didn’t state we didn’t want it approved. We didn’t say that…I just hope the truth prevails.”
Councilwoman Jerri Winfrey Carter was present in court and told the Courier she did not think the previously proposed lease was fair. She shared that when she voted to postpone action on voting on it indefinitely, she planned to have further discussion on it at a later date. She said it is not uncommon for the council to postpone items indefinitely and then negotiate matters further at later dates.
The Courier reached out to Attorney Kuptz’s office about statements he made in court, but did not receive an answer or return phone call before publication time.
However, the City recently released the following statement: “We remain committed to transparency and ensuring that the interests of the Flint community, particularly our senior residents, are upheld throughout this process. We encourage the community to stay engaged and informed, and we will continue to
provide updates as new developments arise.”
On Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025, the case will resume at 1:30 p.m.
