Shared Goal

Akron residents have greater access to safe, well-maintained, and affordable housing.

Outcome

More Investment in Homes & Neighborhoods

Context for Proposals 8–12

Proposals 8–12 show different ways Akron could invest housing dollars. Each one helps a different group, works in a different way, and tries to fix a different housing problem. You don’t have to pick just one. Your facilitator will guide your Trust through an activity where you compare these five options and decide which ones matter most for Akron.

The Proposal

This proposal would use funding to hire more City housing inspectors to identify and address unsafe rental conditions.

Today, inspections are mostly complaint-based. This means a problem has to be reported before the City can investigate it. In Akron, about 49% of households are renters (roughly 41,300 households), but tenants may not report problems because they are concerned about retaliation, such as rent increases, non-renewal of a lease, or eviction.

As a result, issues like broken heat, leaks, unsafe wiring, or sewage problems can go unreported for long periods of time.

Akron already has rules that require rental housing to meet basic health and safety standards, but there aren’t enough inspectors to meet the need. With a limited number of inspectors, the City must prioritize complaints, respond more slowly, and has less ability to follow up or focus on repeat violations.

There is also a legal limit that matters. Under current law, inspectors can’t enter a private rental property without a specific reason. This means that even in neighborhoods with known issues, inspectors are often limited to what they can see from the outside unless a complaint or visible problem gives them cause to go further.

With more staff, inspectors could spend more time in neighborhoods, become more visible, and make it easier for residents to flag concerns. They would be able to catch problems earlier, respond more quickly, and hold repeat offenders accountable.

How the City uses additional inspectors would be an important decision. They could respond to complaints faster, focus on landlords with repeated violations, or spend more time in neighborhoods where problems are less likely to be reported. Another option is to use data, like a building’s age or past complaints, to guide inspections. The City could also move toward regularly inspecting all rental units.

Possible Benefits

Hazards can be identified without relying on complaints
Regular inspections can uncover safety issues even when tenants do not report them.

Faster follow-up on known problems
More staff could allow inspectors to return sooner, close cases faster, and follow through on properties with repeated complaints.

Stronger enforcement of existing housing rules
The City would be better able to apply the standards already in place, not just respond to the most urgent cases.

Improved conditions at the neighborhood level
Addressing the most serious properties on a block can reduce visible deterioration and improve overall housing conditions.

Possible Tradeoffs

Some tenants may be displaced during repairs
If a unit is condemned or must be fixed, tenants may have to move. Without other housing options, this can make things harder in the short term.

Some inspections may feel unnecessary
Well-maintained properties may still be inspected, depending on how the program is designed.

Repair costs may lead to higher rents
Some landlords may raise rents after making required repairs.

Fewer small landlords over time
Higher standards can push out small landlords. Larger companies may take their place, which can change how flexible rental decisions are.

What $100,000 Per Year For 10 Years Could Do

An investment of $100,000 per year for 10 years could fund about 1 additional housing inspector working full-time for 10 years. 

• The inspector would complete about 600 inspections per year

• Total: roughly 6,000 inspections over the ten-year period

• The cost includes salary as well as vehicle, equipment, training, legal support, and training overhead

Note: These $100,000 examples are meant to help you compare the options. Actual costs and results will vary based on program design and may be higher due to administrative needs.

View the Sources