## Facts

- The City of Detroit planned to construct an outdoor public swimming pool in Palmer Park.
- Owners of nearby apartment buildings opposed the project and claimed the pool would create a public nuisance.
- The City held public meetings and, after objections, relocated the pool site within the park to a location about 400 feet from the nearest plaintiff’s property.
- Plaintiffs alleged the pool would increase noise, traffic, and parking congestion and asserted there were more suitable locations in the park.
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop construction, characterizing the claim as an anticipatory nuisance.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations of likely future noise, traffic, and parking impacts from a proposed public swimming pool stated a claim for public nuisance (anticipatory nuisance) warranting injunctive relief.
2. Whether a court of equity may interfere with a municipality’s discretionary decision on the location of a public facility absent fraud, bad faith, or clear abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the City.
- The court held the complaint did not state a cognizable public nuisance/anticipatory nuisance claim because the alleged harms were conjectural and not shown to be substantially probable.
- The court held it would not interfere with the City’s discretionary siting decision in the absence of fraud or clear abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally will not enjoin or otherwise interfere with discretionary municipal decisions on public improvements absent fraud, bad faith, or a clear abuse of discretion.
- An anticipatory nuisance may be enjoined only when there is a strong probability the proposed activity will cause substantial, unreasonable injury; speculative or contingent harms are insufficient.
- A public nuisance requires substantial, unreasonable interference with a common public right; ordinary inconveniences associated with lawful recreational park uses do not, without more, establish a public nuisance.

## Conclusion

Because the alleged adverse effects of the proposed swimming pool were speculative and the municipality’s siting choice involved discretionary judgment untainted by fraud or clear abuse, injunctive relief was unavailable and summary judgment for the City was properly affirmed.


Brent v. City of Detroit, 27 Mich. App. 628, 183 N.W.2d 908 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)