The Greater Ohio Policy Center (GOPC) has released Local Interventions for Eviction Prevention and Why They Are Needed, a guide for laying the groundwork to support Ohio renters and prevent evictions related to the COVID-19 crisis.

Experts anticipate a tsunami of evictions to begin in January 2021. Given the limited state dollars available and the uncertainty of additional federal dollars, local governments must take the lead to protect their residents.

This Working Paper profiles interventions from around the state in order to provide ideas and templates for communities that need housing stabilization programming.

In the early months of the pandemic, a patchwork of local and federal responses cushioned renters from the worst impacts of the economic fallout. These include a sweeping order from the CDC, which temporarily halts evictions nationwide through the end of the calendar year. The CDC eviction moratorium provides breathing room for low- and moderate-income renters, but by itself does not provide any economic relief for tenants or property owners.

Without additional state, federal, or local intervention, communities that rely exclusively on the CDC moratoriums to prevent eviction spikes are merely postponing the wave of mass evictions to the new year.  As troubling, the moratorium puts at risk large numbers of small and local landlords, who could lose the capital necessary to maintain housing market solvency.

A combination of evictions and landlord bankruptcy could devastate hundreds of neighborhoods, but there are actions that communities can take now to avoid a worst-case scenario. Most importantly, communities can use locally-allocated federal money for direct renter assistance programs and to increase legal access for renters facing eviction.

Guidance from both the state and federal government specify that money from the CARES Act Coronavirus Relief Fund can be used for rent, utility, and food assistance. Additionally, communities can pool money from Community Development Block Grant – Coronavirus Funds (CDBG-CV), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), FEMA, and local sources to seed a Rental Assistance Program.

There are also a number of non-monetary policies that local communities can enact to complement rent assistance programs and bolster efforts to avoid renter displacement. These can include longstanding interventions, like source of income protection for renters, or novel initiatives like a Pay to Stay ordinance. Many communities around the state have already acted to help renters and landlords avoid eviction; these are highlighted in community spotlights throughout the working paper.

Prioritizing investments and programming to stabilize families, ensure fiscal sustainability of housing providers, and mitigate the worst effects of the crisis will require cooperation between local governments, nonprofits, philanthropy, and private sector leaders.

To view the working paper, please click here.

A recent article from Newsday discusses a recent change in Oyster Bay, NY

Oyster Bay expands nuisance law on boarding up homes

The Town of Oyster Bay has expanded its powers to board up houses under an amended public nuisance law.

The town’s old law required that a property be the site of at least two arrests or violations of certain laws in a 12-month period in order for the town to declare it a nuisance. The amended law adopted last month sets that standard at two “incidents.”

“We don’t always have arrests with this type of behavior,” Charles McQuair, a part-time town attorney, said during an Oct. 6 hearing on the law that was adopted on Oct. 20. “So what we did was we added the word ‘incident’ as part of the predicate offense section, which will allow the town, after two incidents, to be able to enforce the public nuisance statute.”

McQuair said the town had been “powerless” to take actions under the old law in recent incidents, including properties rented out through Airbnb and used for parties, residential shootings and squatters living in “zombie houses” — properties whose owners have abandoned the properties and failed to maintain them.

The public nuisance law addresses “acts or continuing acts that endanger, threaten public safety, [or] create quality of life issues for communities and neighbors,” McQuair said at the hearing.

Town officials did not respond to requests to define the meaning of the word “incident” in the context of the amended law. Some of the actions that could lead to a property being declared a public nuisance include illegal drug offenses, the unlawful sale or consumption of alcohol, and having a search warrant executed on the property.

Councilman Louis Imbroto said during the hearing that the amendments would allow the town to shut down drug dealing and prostitution at properties based on “incidents rather than convictions, so that we don’t need a formal criminal conviction in order to enforce our ordinance against public nuisance.”

To view the online article, please click here.

A recent University of Kansas study found a program demolishing more than 500 abandoned residential properties in Kansas City, Missouri, did not significantly reduce nearby violent or property crime.

Hye-Sung Han, assistant professor of public affairs & administration at KU, conducted a study in which she examined 559 abandoned properties in Kansas City, Missouri, and nearby crime rates in the surrounding area. She found the demolition did not lead to a reduction in nearby crime and that localized socioeconomic and housing characteristics were much stronger predictors of any change in crime rates.

Please see below for the Study Abstract.

Please click here for the study.
Please click here for the KU News Release.
Please click here for a news report from Fox4KC.

***Please note the contrast with the previously reported study from Journal of Behavioral Medicine

Uniformity – Benefits and Pitfalls

In the precarious and troublesome arena of blighted and abandoned properties, uniformity, best practices, and opportunity for improvement all compete for the attention of code officials, lawmakers and constituents.

Each community is defined by its unique residents, economic structure, size, social experiences, and needs.  Despite the uniqueness of each community, common problems have common solutions.  As such, uniformity and best practices should be a primary goal.

As an advocate of uniformity, I am of the general opinion to take advantage of best practices and efficiencies without ‘reinventing the wheel’.   Identifying, researching and applying best practices of ordinances from neighboring communities is one such example whereby uniformity can lead to efficiencies for city officials. As best practices and uniformity broaden, compliance will result because fewer exceptions lead to fewer errors.

Cities face two challenges regarding uniformity of existing vacant property registration ordinances – due diligence and execution. Communities that simply replicate an ordinance without proper due diligence can open itself a host of unexpected problems.  Many existing ordinances contain language creating a legal or social risk for the city and/or inadvertently create additional workload for overwhelmed and lean associates.

Perhaps one or both of these challenges led to the only state in the union to retract all vacant property ordinances in effect.  In 2014 Oklahoma passed HB 2620 known as the Protect Property Rights Act, prohibiting municipalities from implementing mandatory property registration programs and immediately repealing active ordinances in several cities across the state.

To a certain extent, one motivation behind the bill may be the impression registries act as a “profit center”, Some early adoption of registry programs were promoted as punishment to big banks and celebrated the cities ability to increase their revenues.  Those practices disappeared as the benefits of improved communication and safety and security for the neighbors came to the forefront.

Leading community development and housing experts discourage the creation of registries to serve as ‘profit centers’. Additional concerns regarding registration fees (the source of the revenue) prompted the introduction of new legislation in New York State.

Other concerns that prompted the legislation in Oklahoma are independently addressed and “debunked” by a 2018 piece from the Greater Ohio Policy Center, pertaining to vacant property registries.

For city officials and code enforcement officials outside of Oklahoma, avoid assumptions regarding neighboring registries and seek guidance from tenured experts who can help maximize the effectiveness of your program by leveraging the benefits of uniformity appropriately.

For communities in Oklahoma, sometimes being the “exception” to the rule is not optimal. Perhaps, residents, first responders, and code enforcement staff in Tulsa would be in a better position and better equipped to combat their abandoned properties.

MuniReg has advocated registries as a tool not just to address blight but also to prevent future occurrences. A recent report on a collaboration between Hudson County executives and The Waterfront Project, Inc. shines a light on one of the main components of our advocacy being implemented.

“Local ordinances require banks and mortgagees to register as they initiate foreclosure proceedings,” Symes said. “In addition to registering, they must also pay a fee. Both requirements will be central to our Foreclosure Prevention Project’s success. By knowing which homeowners are in distress through the registration, The Waterfront Project can affirmatively reach out to them to offer our assistance. And the fee the banks and mortgagees pay to register helps to mitigate the costs and impacts of foreclosures on our local communities.”

To view the article from the HudsonReporter, please click here.