On August 31, council approved three charter change amendments to appear on the November 3 ballot. These amendments were brought forth in a community petition drive led by the Freedom Bloc and two of them could drastically reshape the relationship between Akron’s landlords and tenants. And while the ballot language is not complete, I’m concerned that these will either drive rental rates up or face legal challenge before Akron can enact them. I’ll discuss my thoughts on the third amendment in the October newsletter.
The first ballot issue will require landlords to offer three or six month security deposit installment plans, banning retaliation for using plans and prohibits landlords from charging for application, tenant screening, credit and background check fees. While all of this sounds good in theory, especially for landlords who abuse these fees, it will become a burden for good landlords who want to play by the rules. I’m not so concerned with the installment plan for security deposits, but prohibiting prospective tenant application, criminal background and credit check fees could possibly raise rental rates in Akron.
The average cost of a background and credit check is about $50-$60, so if a landlord has 20 people apply this cost balloons to $1000, before any tenant is approved. That’s well over 2/3 the amount of an affordable rent of an Akron 2 bedroom apartment. This boils down to simple economics; if costs go up, so does the selling price, and in this case it will raise monthly rental rates to over these costs. I also feel we’re setting a dangerous legal precedent on private businesses, and what will be next?
The second ballot issue establishes criminal history and source of income as a protected class for housing, which means landlords cannot reject applicants based on their criminal history or for having used housing vouchers in the past. On criminal history, it does exclude sex, offenders, and arson offenders as not being in this protected class, and is proposed that the Akron civil rights commission has the tools to enforce the statute. Once again, I have some concerns especially on criminal history piece. To begin, there is already a process in place by the State of Ohio called the Certificate of Qualification for Housing for those with criminal records. The idea is that someone can show they have been rehabilitated and should not automatically be excluded from housing.
I also believe good landlords want to provide a safe environment for their tenants and in order to do so they need to make judgments on whom they choose to become a tenant. Ohio Law specifically allows a landlord to make these individual decisions and can hold the landlords responsible when criminal activity occurs at their property. How safe will the single mother ( or anyone) feel when an individual with a recent and lengthy criminal background is allowed to move next door?
I fully understand there are bad apple landlords who abuse the system, I just don’t want an industry painted with such a broad brush approach to regulations. This rules are reactive and why we need is responsible legislation. I’m asking your to consider this before you cast your votes.