publication for website

ocial and Political Change Bolsters
the Call for a Housing Court
The 1970s were a difficult decade for Cleveland. Still smarting from the legendary 1969 Cuyahoga River
fire, the city lost almost one in four residents between 1970 and 1980 as homeowners, jobs, and wealth
fled the city for the suburbs. As the population fell, the city’s aging housing stock suffered from decay and
abandonment. Cleveland became the first major American city to enter default since the Depression.
In the midst of these struggles, Cleveland experienced a heyday of community organizing. Community
development corporations and grassroots community groups led the charge in creating a new generation
of organizers set on combating poverty and its effects. The new federal block grant program, which gave
neighborhood groups a voice in how to spend blight-fighting funds on a local level, empowered these
groups in their efforts. The Ohio General Assembly also overhauled Ohio’s landlord and tenant laws. The
Ohio Landlord-Tenant Act clarified the obligations of both landlords and tenants, expanded tenant rights,
and created clearer consequences for owners of substandard rental housing. 18
Community and legal advocates stepped up calls for a new approach to property-related code enforcement.
For many years, ineffective processes and procedures plagued the city’s housing code enforcement program.
This effectively allowed owners of blighted and unsafe properties to avoid significant penalties and fines for
code violations. Few code violation cases made it to court; even when charges resulted in fines, many went
unpaid. In 1971, city inspectors identified over 37,000 violations, but referred only 309 for prosecution. 19
Advocates were concerned that housing cases passed like hot potatoes from judge to judge, resulting in
delayed resolution and inconsistent or weak penalties.
9