The current housing shortage in the United States has been most devastating for those who need affordable rental housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, no state currently has an adequate supply of affordable housing for the lowest-income renters. In Ohio, only 37 affordable rental units exist for every 100 extremely low-income households.

In an attempt to address the lack of affordable housing in Akron, Freedom BLOC, a local community organization, led a successful petition drive to place two issues on the Nov. 3 ballot. If passed, they would amend Akron’s city charter — but the unintended consequences of the measures would create new problems and erase most benefits.

Issue 11 would “require property owners or operators to permit security deposits for residential rentals to be paid over three or six month periods,” and also criminalize “the collection of an application fee for residential rentals.” These provisions would apply to all landlords, from large rental companies to individual landlords who own few properties.

I own two side-by-side homes in Akron’s West Hill neighborhood. I live in one and rent out the other, which is my primary income source. Like many of my tenants, I live below the federal poverty level and understand how difficult it can be to come up with the first month’s rent and security deposit at lease signing. I support Issue 11’s first provision.

But I will vote no for Issue 11 because of its second provision.

When my rental turns over, I list it on zillow.com. Interested parties apply on the website, which runs secure credit and background checks and sends them to me. Zillow’s $35 application fee is only a few dollars more than the cost of running the checks. It is a seamless and ideal service for a landlord with limited means.

If Issue 11 passes, however, I will have to pay for every prospective tenant’s background and credit checks. My house is leased to four unrelated roommates; their applications would have cost me $140. Furthermore, not everyone who applies ends up renting, which means each rental turn-over could cost me hundreds of dollars.

As forgoing background and credit checks would be reckless, landlords like me will need to increase rent to offset this expense.

Issue 11’s goal is to lower renters’ costs, but it will have the opposite effect.

Issue 12 would add a protected class to whom landlords cannot refuse to rent: people with a criminal history, except for sexual or arson offenders. It also would prohibit refusing to rent to someone based on “income as it relates to real estate transactions,” which is vague, but significant.

I am not opposed to renting to someone with a criminal history, but excluding only arsonists and sex offenders is too narrow. Forcing landlords to rent to those with a criminal history of domestic violence and drug trafficking, for example, will put families and neighborhoods at risk, and potentially lead landlords to sell their rental properties. It will not solve the re-entry problem Issue 12 seeks to remedy.

As for the vague language forbidding source-of-income discrimination, Freedom BLOC’s ballot literature asserts this to mean a “landlord could not turn away a tenant solely for paying rent with a housing voucher.” But the amendment language does not say that. And Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority, not the landlord, sets the rental price for properties leased to someone with a voucher.

When asked by the Beacon Journal for clarification, a community organizer who helped craft the ballot initiative said Akron already has a requirement that a person cannot be denied housing based on where they receive their rent income.

However, the ambiguity of the ballot language and campaign literature raises serious concerns.

In 2025, AMHA determined I could charge $1,152 a month if I accepted a voucher. That’s less than I charged 15 years ago. My monthly mortgage payment was $952, which would have left me $200 each month, or $2,400 a year. Subtract from that the cost for repairs and maintenance, and I would have lost money renting to someone with a voucher had I not paid off my mortgage the year before. Even without a mortgage, I pay over $5,000 a year in taxes and insurance (both of which have skyrocketed since 2020), plus the cost of maintenance and repairs. Accepting vouchers is not feasible in my case.

Laws forcing private-sector landlords to provide public housing are not sustainable. For public housing to be sustainable, it must be fully funded by governments with buy-in strictly from landlords who choose to participate.

Issues 11 and 12 call attention to the very real affordable housing crisis, but the devil is in the details. As written, these well-intended but flawed amendments will exacerbate existing problems, and create new ones.

The issues should not pass. But immediately after Election Day, the mayor’s office, Freedom BLOC and other interested organizations, such as Unify Akron must begin the work on comprehensive housing reform in Akron. Good legislation requires engaging with other stakeholder organizations and should include hearings from interested parties, in this case both tenants and landlords. This takes time, but will lead to better legislation.

This column was first published in the Akron Beacon Journal on Sunday, October 11, 2026.