Who is a Nuisance? Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances in Ohio

Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances (CANOs) are local laws found in thousands of cities throughout the country which penalize property owners if repeated incidents of criminal activity related to their property occur over a set period of time (typically, 12 months). Nearly 50 cities in Ohio have CANOs, including more than 20 in Northeast Ohio.Drawing on extensive public records from a sample of Northeast Ohio cities, this report offers a snapshot of CANOs and how they are being used. • CANOs disproportionately impact renters, people using housing vouchers, and people of color. • Race and class stereotypes surface in public discussions of CANOs, and are sometimes invoked to justify the establishment or enhancement of CANOs • CANOs are frequently applied beyond their scope to target minor, non-criminal behavior • Many cities across Ohio put survivors of domestic violence at heightened risk of eviction by defining domestic violence as a “nuisance activity”; in some cities, more than half of CANO letters are sent in response to domestic violence incidents• If emergency services are sent to a home in response to a call made to a suicide hotline, that property can be deemed a nuisance • Seeking medical assistance for someone experiencing a drug overdose crisis is a common reason that properties are placed on a nuisance list • It is often difficult or even impossible for a property owner or tenant to challenge a mistaken nuisance designationWhile the findings presented in this report center on Northeast Ohio, residents in the thousands of other cities with CANOs across the country may be experiencing similar impact. We encourage policymakers, researchers, and community stakeholders to use this report to inform deeper conversations on the implications of CANOs, and to expand research on the use and consequences of these laws

Deconstructing Neighborhoods

Once characterized by rent increases and upheaval of the poor, the term gentrification today enjoys a broader, more ambivalent definition. Contemporary scholars may retain a negative association with the term, but the visible markers of gentrification are increasingly lauded as positive signs of an improving neighborhood economy, shifting focus away from displacement and toward the experiences of the middle class “resisting” suburbia in search of cafes, galleries, and diversity (Slater 2006). Concerned that scholars were succumbing to the gravitational pull of romanticized notions of “regeneration, revitalization, and renaissance” and allowing questions of displacement to be quieted by calls for the deconcentration of poverty, Slater (2006) implored academics to rededicate themselves to critical research on gentrification (p. 738). In Claiming Neighborhood,John J. Betancur and Janet L. Smith heed that cry. However, rather than focusing solely on gentrification as though it were an isolated phenomenon, Claiming Neighborhood addresses gentrification as both process and product situated in the complex socio-political landscape that defines and controls the concept of “neighborhood.

Know Me Before You Speak for Me: Substantive Public Representation Among Nonprofits

Nonprofit and public administration scholars have increasingly turned attention to the wide variety of channels by which nonprofit organizations may influence public policy, raising critical questions about nonprofit representation. While recent years have brought important work about the extent to which nonprofits are perceived as symbolic representatives of their clients, scholars repeatedly note substantive representation remains understudied. This article seeks to address that gap by offering a conceptual framework of potential nonprofit substantive representation mechanisms. Two categories of mechanisms emerged from a scan of scholarly and practitioner literature—client engagement and client assessment, while an exploratory case study of one nonprofit’s explicit endeavor to improve substantive representation surfaced a third category—immersion. We offer this framework as a useful first step in organizing and presenting mechanisms for consideration, and to encourage future exploration and testing of mechanisms by which nonprofits may come to substantively understand those whom they represent

Deconstructing Neighborhoods

Once characterized by rent increases and upheaval of the poor, the term gentrification today enjoys a broader, more ambivalent definition. Contemporary scholars may retain a negative association with the term, but the visible markers of gentrification are increasingly lauded as positive signs of an improving neighborhood economy, shifting focus away from displacement and toward the experiences of the middle class “resisting” suburbia in search of cafes, galleries, and diversity (Slater 2006). Concerned that scholars were succumbing to the gravitational pull of romanticized notions of “regeneration, revitalization, and renaissance” and allowing questions of displacement to be quieted by calls for the deconcentration of poverty, Slater (2006) implored academics to rededicate themselves to critical research on gentrification (p. 738). In Claiming Neighborhood,John J. Betancur and Janet L. Smith heed that cry. However, rather than focusing solely on gentrification as though it were an isolated phenomenon, Claiming Neighborhood addresses gentrification as both process and product situated in the complex socio-political landscape that defines and controls the concept of “neighborhood.

How Lakewood\u27s Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinance Undermines Housing Stability and Endangers Households in Crisis

Since 2005, Lakewood, Ohio, has used a Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinance (CANO) to penalize property owners for multiple emergency services visits to their properties. Lakewood continues to enforce its CANO despite 7 nearby cities amending similar laws to protect survivors of domestic violence. To better understand the implications of CANOs, we took a close look at their enforcement in multiple cities, including Lakewood. Using the 75 nuisance designations Lakewood issued from February 2014 to May 2016, we found several disturbing enforcement patterns. 1 of 3 nuisance letters are sent to survivors of domestic violence. African American households much more likely to receive a nuisance letter. Having a disability or mental health crisis is a common path to eviction. Tenants lack notice or chance to be heard. We urge Lakewood to reconsider its CANO in light of these finding

How Lakewood\u27s Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinance Undermines Housing Stability and Endangers Households in Crisis

Since 2005, Lakewood, Ohio, has used a Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinance (CANO) to penalize property owners for multiple emergency services visits to their properties. Lakewood continues to enforce its CANO despite 7 nearby cities amending similar laws to protect survivors of domestic violence. To better understand the implications of CANOs, we took a close look at their enforcement in multiple cities, including Lakewood. Using the 75 nuisance designations Lakewood issued from February 2014 to May 2016, we found several disturbing enforcement patterns. 1 of 3 nuisance letters are sent to survivors of domestic violence. African American households much more likely to receive a nuisance letter. Having a disability or mental health crisis is a common path to eviction. Tenants lack notice or chance to be heard. We urge Lakewood to reconsider its CANO in light of these finding

Treating Neighbors as Nuisances: Troubling Applications of Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances

Thousands of cities nationwide enforce Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances that catalyze the eviction of tenants when there are two or more police visits to a property. We report findings of an empirical study of enforcement of nuisance ordinances, finding that cities often target survivors of domestic violence, people experiencing a mental health crisis, nonprofit organizations serving people with disabilities, people seeking life-saving medical intervention to prevent a fatal drug overdose, and non-criminal behavior such as playing basketball or being “disrespectful.” Codifying into public policy a path to homelessness in these instances is not only cruel and counterproductive, but likely violates the Fair Housing Act and the Constitution

Who is a Nuisance? Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances in Ohio

Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances (CANOs) are local laws found in thousands of cities throughout the country which penalize property owners if repeated incidents of criminal activity related to their property occur over a set period of time (typically, 12 months). Nearly 50 cities in Ohio have CANOs, including more than 20 in Northeast Ohio.Drawing on extensive public records from a sample of Northeast Ohio cities, this report offers a snapshot of CANOs and how they are being used. • CANOs disproportionately impact renters, people using housing vouchers, and people of color. • Race and class stereotypes surface in public discussions of CANOs, and are sometimes invoked to justify the establishment or enhancement of CANOs • CANOs are frequently applied beyond their scope to target minor, non-criminal behavior • Many cities across Ohio put survivors of domestic violence at heightened risk of eviction by defining domestic violence as a “nuisance activity”; in some cities, more than half of CANO letters are sent in response to domestic violence incidents• If emergency services are sent to a home in response to a call made to a suicide hotline, that property can be deemed a nuisance • Seeking medical assistance for someone experiencing a drug overdose crisis is a common reason that properties are placed on a nuisance list • It is often difficult or even impossible for a property owner or tenant to challenge a mistaken nuisance designationWhile the findings presented in this report center on Northeast Ohio, residents in the thousands of other cities with CANOs across the country may be experiencing similar impact. We encourage policymakers, researchers, and community stakeholders to use this report to inform deeper conversations on the implications of CANOs, and to expand research on the use and consequences of these laws