Akron voters to decide on rental fees and criminal history measures

Akron voters will decide on two ballot measures that would ban rental application fees, allow security deposits to be paid in installments, and prohibit landlords from declining to rent to, or engage in real estate transactions with, people who have criminal histories. While similar efforts exist in other U.S. cities, Signal Akron reported that the Akron proposals go significantly further by introducing criminal penalties for violations and embedding these rules directly into the city charter.

This isn’t just a debate over paperwork or deposits; it’s a fight over the foundational rules of the local housing market. If passed, Issues 11 and 12 would shift the power dynamic between landlords and tenants in a way that few other American cities have attempted. By moving these rules into the city charter—the city’s founding document—the proposals make the laws much harder to change than standard legislation.

Criminal penalties replace civil fines

In most cities that have capped or banned rental fees, a landlord who breaks the rule faces a civil fine—essentially a ticket. Akron’s proposal changes that. Under Issues 11 and 12, these violations would become criminal offenses.

Akron to vote on housing proposals on rental fees, criminal records

The stakes for landlords are high. Donzell Taylor, CEO and chair of Welty Enterprises, has already paused plans to convert the CitiCenter building downtown into 115 apartments.

The struggle for security deposit flexibility

The push to allow security deposits to be paid over several months is designed to help people move quickly without needing a massive lump sum of cash. This mirrors a 2021 law in Columbus, Ohio, where security deposits can be paid over three or six months.

Akron voters to decide on tenant-landlord ballot issues

However, the “fine print” in Akron differs from the models in Columbus and Seattle. Most cities provide exemptions for some landlords to ensure rental units from small landlords stay on the market. In Columbus, the rule is for landlords with five or more units. In Seattle, owners who live in the property they are renting out are exempt. Akron’s proposal offers no such carve-outs; the rules would apply regardless of how many properties a landlord owns.

City/State	Security Deposit Installments	Landlord Exemptions	Penalty Type
Akron (Proposed)	Allowed	None	Criminal
Columbus	Allowed	Landlords with 5 or more units	Civil
Seattle	Allowed	Owner-occupied	Civil

When asked about the economic fallout, Melissa Benson, administrator of the Housing Stability Division in Columbus, said the policy has not hindered city growth or caused landlords to flee the community. Seattle’s experience was slightly different; some landlords initially raised first-month rents to offset the loss of a large upfront deposit, though Roat says market forces eventually corrected this behavior.

Akron Voters Face Decisions on Housing and Police Oversight Proposals

Banning application fees and the fraud debate

Issue 11 would completely eliminate application fees, a move that would make Akron one of the few places in the country to do so. Vermont and Massachusetts are the only places to completely ban application fees.

Landlords often argue that these fees prevent fraud and cover the cost of background checks. But Chad Maisel, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, argues that these fees are a “huge pain point” for renters and should not be revenue generators.

The reality on the ground can be messy. In Vermont, some landlords have attempted to bypass the ban by charging “credit-check fees” of up to $25. Jyoshu Tsushima, a managing attorney for the housing practice group of Legal Aid of Southeast and Central Ohio, notes that while some Ohio laws limit third-party management fees, enforcement is often lacking, leaving desperate renters to pay whatever is demanded.

Housing the formerly incarcerated

Issue 12 addresses one of the steepest hurdles in the housing market: criminal history. The measure would prohibit landlords from declining to rent to, or engage in real estate transactions with, people who have a criminal history. This is a direct attempt to break the “revolving door” of recidivism, as people who have been to prison are 10 times more likely than the general population to be homeless or housing insecure, according to Wanda Bertram of the Prison Policy Initiative.

“When there’s a shortage of anything, and someone is deciding who gets it and who doesn’t, when people are undesirable, people find ways to exclude those people.”

The proposal isn’t without critics, even among advocates. Bertram noted that Issue 12 lacks a “lookback period”—a limit on how far back a landlord can look into a person’s history—which was a feature of a similar recommendation by Unify Akron. She also warned that such policies can sometimes backfire. A 2023 Federal Reserve Bank study in Minneapolis found that restricting background checks actually led to an increase in discrimination against Black men.

Seattle attempted a similar path with its Fair Chance Housing Ordinance in 2018, which banned “unfairly denying” housing based on criminal history. However, a 2023 court ruling stopped the enforcement of the portion of the rule that banned a landlord from asking about it.

The risk of the City Charter

Perhaps the most contentious point for city leadership is not the policies themselves, but where they are written. By amending the city charter rather than passing a city ordinance, Akron is locking these rules into its foundational governing document.

Steve Millard, president and CEO of the Greater Akron Chamber, expressed concern that any necessary “tweak” or correction to the law would require another full trip to the voters. Mayor Shammas Malik has echoed this opposition, arguing that the charter is the wrong place for such specific regulatory language.

If the measures pass, the immediate question becomes one of implementation. With no exemptions for small landlords and the threat of criminal charges, the city may face a wave of legal challenges. Whether these laws actually increase housing access or simply drive small landlords out of the market remains an open question that Columbus and Seattle have yet to answer with definitive data.