Posted on November 30, 2017 at 7:42 PM, updated November 23, 2022 at 1:46 AM Print
Take a look at a recent Maxine Goodman Levin School of Urban Affairs publication:
Who is a Nuisance? Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances in Ohio by Joseph Mead, Megan Hatch, J. Rosie Tighe, Marissa Pappas, Kristi Andrasik, and Elizabeth Bonham
- CANOs disproportionately impact renters, people using housing vouchers, and people of color
- Race and class stereotypes surface in public discussions of CANOs, and are sometimes invoked to justify the establishment or enhancement of CANOs
- CANOs are frequently applied beyond their scope to target minor, non-criminal behavior
- Many cities across Ohio put survivors of domestic violence at heightened risk of eviction by defining domestic violence as a “nuisance activity”; in some cities, more than half of CANO letters are sent in response to domestic violence incidents
- If emergency services are sent to a home in response to a call made to a suicide hotline, that property can be deemed a nuisance
- Seeking medical assistance for someone experiencing a drug overdose crisis is a common reason that properties are placed on a nuisance list
- It is often difficult or even impossible for a property owner or tenant to challenge a mistaken nuisance designation
While the findings presented in this report center on Northeast Ohio, residents in the thousands of other cities with CANOs across the country may be experiencing similar impact. We encourage policymakers, researchers, and community stakeholders to use this report to inform deeper conversations on the implications of CANOs, and to expand research on the use and consequences of these laws.
To see all Maxine Goodman Levin School of Urban Affairs publications go to our Engaged Scholarship page.