Council members have questions for the Sheffield administration about who will foot the bill for cleaning up arsenic and lead-contaminated soil found at neighborhood demolition sites across Detroit.
The city is testing more than 500 demolition sites and released results from 59 properties so far. A Detroit Free Press investigation found some residents living near the sites, which in some cases are clustered within a few city blocks, were unaware of the possible exposure risks.
Public commenter Dakota Bruner called on the City Council on Tuesday to mobilize its Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness to screen residents for arsenic exposure.
Demolition contractor Gayanga Co. and its owner Brian McKinney were temporarily suspended from working with the city last September to investigate its alleged use of contaminated dirt to backfill demolition sites. Gayanga’s suspension was extended three times to allow more time for investigation.
Council Member Angela Whitfield-Calloway requested that Detroit’s inspector general brief the council’s Internal Operations Committee on Wednesday. The suspension expires on Feb. 9.
McCampbell said he’s seeking conversations with the Sheffield administration about the potential cost of cleaning up the sites and replacing the dirt. Shortly before leaving office, former Mayor Mike Duggan estimated each site would cost $18,000 — potentially putting the total in the millions of dollars.
“When we talk about accountability with contractors, that has come up time and time again with residents,” McCampbell said. “If we’re saying that (a contractor) used contaminated dirt, and then it’s going to be on the taxpayers’ dime, that doesn’t seem right to me.”
McCampbell said the possibility of spending more money on demolition sites highlights the consequences of an aggressive demolition campaign the city has nearly finished.
“This brings up the overall view of how we’re approaching structures in the city, and if we’re going to say that we’re demolishing, we have to make sure we’re doing it the right way,” McCampbell said.
“We have to look at how we can rehab as many structures as possible. Originally the argument was that it (cost) much more to rehab this building (rather than) tear down, but here we are. We’re potentially paying out more to make it right.”