Hundreds of communities in the U.S. rethinking controversial ordinances
Hundreds of communities across the U.S. have been using “crime-free” or “public nuisance” laws for decades to address crime, gangs, and other neighborhood issues. These laws allow landlords to evict tenants when emergency crews or the police are repeatedly called to the same addresses. However, these ordinances have faced criticism for being ineffective and disproportionately targeting poor neighborhoods and people of color. They are now facing scrutiny for potentially contributing to mental health discrimination.
Department of Justice finds discrimination against people with mental health disabilities
Last November, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) made a groundbreaking finding that a Minneapolis suburb’s enforcement of a crime-free law unlawfully discriminated against individuals with mental health disabilities. This finding has sparked a movement among cities and jurisdictions to reconsider, rewrite, or repeal similar laws. Over 2,000 cities in the U.S. have implemented crime-free policies since the 1990s, with at least 3,000 international cities also adopting them.
Landlords face fines and license revocation for not evicting tenants
Crime-free ordinances empower landlords to impose fines or revoke rental licenses if they fail to evict tenants whose actions are deemed a public nuisance, such as drug dealing or suspected criminal activity. Landlords may also be required to screen potential tenants and limit the number of occupants in a home or apartment. However, the specifics of each ordinance vary, including what is considered a public nuisance and how enforcement is conducted.
Subjective ambiguities lead to discrimination
Critics argue that the subjective nature of these ordinances has resulted in discrimination against specific groups. While federal fair housing laws prohibit landlords from inquiring about disabilities or refusing to rent based on disability, many crime-free laws direct landlords to screen rental applicants based on their interactions with law enforcement or emergency services. This screening process may inadvertently target individuals with mental health disabilities. Additionally, some jurisdictions share detailed information about emergency calls with landlords, perpetuating discriminatory practices.
Enforcement frequently targets poorer neighborhoods and communities of color
Studies and lawsuits highlight the disproportionate enforcement of nuisance laws in poorer neighborhoods and areas with predominantly minority populations. Data from Rochester and Troy, New York, revealed that these laws were most aggressively enforced in impoverished and heavily minority areas. Similar patterns have been observed in other cities, where the ordinances were implemented as a response to an influx of residents of color. Such discriminatory practices have far-reaching consequences, often leading to homelessness or cycling between institutions and homeless shelters for individuals with mental health disabilities.
Efforts to reform and challenge ordinances
Several states have taken steps to limit the impact of crime-free laws. Maryland passed legislation prohibiting the penalization of landlords based on the number of police or emergency calls to their properties, while California has significantly restricted the use of these policies. Housing advocates and civil liberties groups have also challenged these ordinances in various states, resulting in cities rewriting or repealing them as part of legal settlements. Some communities, including Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, and Bloomington in the Minneapolis area, have voluntarily repealed or amended their ordinances in response to the growing concerns.
Disclaimer: This article was written based on the information provided in the original news article. The accuracy of the content is subject to the reliability of the original source.
