For years, communities across the United States have relied on “crime-free” or “public nuisance” ordinances to address issues such as crime, gang activity, and neighborhood disturbances by empowering landlords to evict tenants in response to repeated police or emergency calls. However, these laws, long criticized for their perceived ineffectiveness and alleged harsher enforcement in impoverished neighborhoods and against people of color, are now facing heightened scrutiny over concerns of mental health discrimination.
Last November, the U.S. Department of Justice took unprecedented action by issuing a finding against a Minneapolis suburb, declaring that its enforcement of a crime-free law violated the rights of individuals with mental health disabilities. This landmark decision has prompted a reevaluation of similar ordinances across the country, with many cities and jurisdictions considering revisions or outright repeals in response to mounting criticism and legal challenges.
What are these local ‘crime-free’ or ‘nuisance’ ordinances?
Dating back decades, anti-crime and nuisance ordinances have become pervasive, with over 2,000 cities in the U.S. and at least 3,000 international cities adopting such policies since the 1990s. These ordinances empower landlords to take action against tenants whose behavior is deemed a public nuisance, such as drug sales or suspected criminal activity. Landlords may face fines or risk losing their rental licenses if they fail to address such issues, and they are often required to screen potential tenants and limit the number of occupants in a rental property.
However, the specifics of these ordinances vary widely, including what behaviors they target, how they are enforced, and the consequences for violations. Many ordinances lack clear definitions of what constitutes a public nuisance, leading to subjective interpretations that critics argue have enabled discrimination against certain groups.
What problems can these laws pose?
Federal fair housing laws prohibit landlords from discriminating against individuals based on disability, including mental health disabilities. Yet, many crime-free laws require landlords to screen rental applicants and may share information about emergency calls with them, potentially leading to discrimination against individuals with mental health issues. For example, a resident in Hesperia, California, was forced to relocate after calling for help during a mental health crisis, as the town’s ordinance required landlords to screen tenants using information provided by local law enforcement.
Advocates argue that these laws contribute to homelessness and exacerbate the challenges faced by individuals with mental illnesses, who may be denied housing due to past hospitalizations or arrests.
Where are the laws most often enforced?
Studies and lawsuits have revealed that enforcement of nuisance laws disproportionately targets poorer neighborhoods and communities of color. Data from cities like Rochester and Troy, New York, as well as Peoria, Illinois, indicate that these laws are often applied more aggressively in minority-majority areas. Additionally, some ordinances have been explicitly linked to efforts to remove residents of color from certain communities, as evidenced by a lawsuit against Hesperia, California, where officials cited an influx of residents from Los Angeles as justification for their ordinance.
Challenges and reforms:
In response to mounting criticism and legal challenges, some states have moved to limit the scope of these ordinances. Maryland and California, for instance, have passed legislation preventing landlords from evicting tenants based on the number of police or emergency calls. Housing advocates and civil liberties groups have also successfully challenged ordinances in multiple states, leading to revisions or repeals in several cities.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding ‘crime-free’ and ‘nuisance’ ordinances continues to evolve as concerns over discrimination and fairness come to the forefront. While some communities have taken steps to reform or abandon these laws, their widespread adoption and enforcement raise broader questions about housing policy, public safety, and civil rights.