Resident-led public record
Lincoln Park, Michigan · September 2026
This resident-led account follows two separate Lincoln Park stories: higher water bills and a housing dispute documented through City records, a private inspection, and court notices.
Water and sewer bills rose September 1. Depending on use, news reports put the increase at roughly 15% to 28%. The City says aging infrastructure, operating costs, and water that enters the system but is not billed forced the change.
One number needs a warning label: unbilled water is not the same as proven leakage. City records and reporting point to physical leaks, failing meters, and other system losses. Whatever the mix, residents are paying higher rates while asking how the problem ran this long.
The Facebook link opens Henry’s public profile, not a direct video link. Linking to her material does not imply her endorsement.
Why this case is here
I reported dangerous and unhealthy conditions, asked the City to inspect, paid for a private inspection, and went through court. City correspondence, the inspection display, and the court file document official activity. They still do not give a resident a straight account of what was found, what was fixed, or when key decisions became official.
When Lincoln Park residents carry the consequences, who gives them a straight answer? The housing records below show what was documented and where answers are still missing.
Read my documented housing experience ↓
The case in two minutes
I sent written notice. I asked the City to inspect. I paid for another inspection when the answers still did not add up. Then I faced a nonpayment case. Repairs were hard to pin down. The paperwork had no such trouble.
I reported electrical, moisture, heat, stair, and sanitation concerns. My preserved July 4, 2025 message shows what I sent; it does not show who read or forwarded it. Source S2
City personnel corresponded with me, received three photographs, and scheduled an inspection for July 23. The City display records completion on July 25 with the result “Partially Complied.” Sources S3 and S5
The files reviewed for this site do not show, item by item, what the inspector found, what was repaired, who checked the work, or what the City told the owner. Other records may exist; they were not in the reviewed files.
I withheld rent because the concerns remained unresolved. The records reviewed here do not settle payment, tender, escrow, refusal, or legal justification. On October 16, a third-party private inspection documented multiple “Repair Needed” findings. See the findings
The complaint was dated October 29 and filed October 30. It alleged $750 in October rent and checked a box stating that the property met repair and health-and-safety requirements. The City record separately showed “Partially Complied” in July, and the October private inspection still listed repairs needed. Source S8
I reported an oral ruling November 24. A proposed judgment was submitted later. MiFILE records a court transmission November 25. The signed judgment and official register entry are still missing from this account. Why the dates matter
Three source-supported findings
01
It shows a July 23, 2025 scheduled inspection, July 25 completion with “Partially Complied,” a separate July 31, 2024 “Complied” reinspection, and certificate CR24-0247 displayed as “Suspended.”
If 2024 is correct, this is not an eight-day repair sequence. If it is wrong, the record needs correction. The status meanings and certificate history remain unanswered.
Review the source explanation02
The October 16 report identifies deck-board and construction issues, furnace servicing, inadequate service-entrance grounding, and moisture damage in multiple areas.
This was a private inspection, not a City ruling. The report also says heat worked that day and that a moisture source may have been corrected.
Read the plain-language summary03
The reviewed record separates a resident-reported oral ruling, proposed-judgment activity, and a later court-attributed MiFILE transmission.
The signed judgment and official register entry have not yet been integrated here, so the exact official chronology remains unanswered.
See the court sequenceWhat the private inspector found
The complete 40-page Holsey Inspections & Consulting report is dated October 16, 2025. The captions below state what the report says; photographs show visible conditions, not their cause.
Loose boards and boards showing signs of rot were marked “Repair Needed.” The report also described generally poor construction and missing or improperly installed joist hangers. Report pp. 9–10.
The inspector reported that the furnace functioned but needed cleaning and service. The service-entrance ground appeared inadequate and was referred to a licensed electrician. Report pp. 4, 14–16.
The report marked moisture damage in living-room walls, master-bedroom walls, and the stairway. For the room findings, it said the source “may have been corrected” and recommended further examination. Report pp. 31, 33, 39.
These six photographs are from the private inspector’s October 16, 2025 report, not the City inspection. They do not establish present conditions. The inspector’s arrows are retained; no visual enhancement was applied. The full report is not published here.
Compact chronology
This displayed date predates the 2025 inspection. It is not an eight-day 2025 repair sequence; whether the year is accurate remains unresolved. S5
The preserved message documents its contents and sending, not receipt or knowledge by every landlord-side actor. S2
City personnel received three photographs; the City display lists the inspection as scheduled that day. S3/S5
The display records completion at 9:10 a.m. The item-level audit trail is not integrated here. S5, physical PDF p. 24
The 40-page report documents the repair-needed findings summarized above. S7
The complaint was dated October 29 and filed October 30. S8
The first is a contemporaneous resident account. The second is documented MiFILE activity. Neither alone establishes signature or official entry. Court sources
MiFILE records the court electronically sending “JUDGMENT”; the listed type remained “Proposed Judgment/Order.”
The process ended with the loss of my home. The reviewed files do not establish an exact execution, lockout, or move-out date.
Evidence before interpretation
The entries below summarize the private records supporting this account; they are not document downloads. Six inspection photographs are published above. Public reporting links open the original publishers’ pages.
Meanwhile, outside my case
Residents have confronted flooding, infrastructure failures, and higher rates. These reports cover separate events, not my housing case.
How to contribute: The buttons below open your email app; nothing is submitted until you send the email. If a button does not work, email jzre@duck.com. Start with a short account or a link to a public record. For a correction, include the page, the sentence in question, and a supporting source. Submissions are reviewed before publication.
Private review—not automatic publication
Tell us what happened, when, and what records may exist. Choose whether it is for private review only, whether you want contact before any use, or whether it may be considered for publication after review.
There is not yet a secure upload form. Email is not a secure intake portal: do not send Social Security numbers, financial account information, medical records, children’s information, or unredacted identity documents.
Start a private story emailQuestions, records, and corrections
Have a record that answers a question on this site? Send a public link or describe the document and its date. For private records, describe what you have before sending files with personal information.
Contact does not create confidentiality or a lawyer-client relationship.
Email evidence or a correction