publication for website

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Their concerns were valid — Cleveland’s municipal court system lacked an efficient way to adjudicate code violations cases. Violations sometimes languished for years before offenders were brought to court. As no separate division existed for housing cases, judges rotated through the housing docket, each spending two weeks hearing cases. Frequently, the judges, with few resources to which to refer parties, continued the cases, which then became the problem of the next session’s judge. Meager fines failed to deter offenders, and only reinforced the inferior status of housing cases. A 1966 study found that housing fines were on average less than $15.00. 20 Not only did this process often result in delay, but it permitted serial offenders to hide in plain sight without ever facing elevated penalties. And as cases languished, the problems and the decay in Cleveland’s neighborhoods only got worse. A 1967 study published by the Plan of Action for Tomorrow’s Housing (PATH) described Cleveland as in a “housing crisis,” with an “ever-widening, rotting and impoverished core, surrounded by an affluent and unconcerned . . . ring of suburbs.” 21 These problems further precipitated calls for a housing court in Cleveland. By the 1970s, Baltimore’s housing court was not the only one in the nation. Specialized courts for housing had also taken root in other cities such as Pittsburgh, Boston, and New York. The campaign for a Cleveland Housing Court took on new political viability when Oberlin College student and City Councilman James Rokakis wrote a paper on the idea. Rokakis advocated for a housing court in Cleveland, and enlisted the support of State Senator Charles L. Butts, who sponsored the bill in the General Assembly to create such a court 22, and Terence Copeland to help him lead the effort. “Cleveland at that time was a divided city,” Copeland recalls, “and it was rare for councilmen on the east and west sides of town to partner on anything. But both sides of town had dilapidated housing,” he says. “We thought it would be good for Cleveland to have this Court to address the problem. We worked as a team, speaking at various meetings across the city talking about Housing Court. We made it our goal to let everyone know it was needed on both sides of town, and enlisted the support of about 20 neighborhood leaders and housing advocates to help us.” Despite Rokakis’s advocacy and Butts’s support, the housing court proposal was met with vocal opposition, particularly from the judiciary. The Chief Administrative Judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court, Edward F. Katalinas, opposed the bill, telling the Cleveland Plain Dealer that “[if] you put one judge on housing full time, he wouldn’t know what to do with himself…we have less than one case per day filed for the entire city of Cleveland on the housing code.” 23 Then-Governor James Rhodes also disapproved of the idea. But the chorus in favor of a housing court was louder. Almost as one voice, community groups, neighborhood activists and many lawyers, politicians and judges urged the creation of a specialized court in Cleveland to address the City’s many housing-related challenges and the growing number of housing-related disputes. 24 They recognized, even before its creation, that the Court would need to take a unique approach: seeking compliance, rather than simply imposing fines. On November 30, 1979, the Ohio General Assembly passed a bill authored by Harry J. Lehman of Beachwood, paving the way for the bill to become law on January 1, 1980. 25 Though advocates feared a veto, Rokakis was able to convince then-Mayor George Voinovich to persuade Rhodes to allow the bill to become law without his signature, and the housing court became a reality. 26 The Court’s creation “was viewed as both an important urban reform and a grassroots advocacy victory,” said Robert Jaquay, associate director of the George Gund Foundation and a Housing Court prosecutor in the early 1980s. 27 10
Housing Court – Justice Beyond the Four Walls of the Courtroom “The Housing Division of the Cleveland Municipal Court is now in session.” These are words you normally would hear inside Courtroom 13B at the Justice Center – the heart and home of the Housing Court. But today, these words are being spoken in the living room of a dilapidated single family home in the City’s Slavic Village area. The Housing Court Judge, his bailiff, City prosecutor and the public defenderr stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the defendants, a middle-aged couple who own and live in the house; the court reporter operates her stenographic machine seated on a kitchen chair. The hearing in this Housing Court case was held at the request of City Councilman Tony Brancatelli, whose ward includes the Slavic Village neighborhood—an area often referred to as the epicenter for the foreclosure crisis. invited us back.” violations. They also added new siding, new trim and landscaping, restoring some of the home’s previous grandeur. The Court’s ultimate goal of code compliance was reached. in hand. Beyond Evictions The Court’s problem-solving mission is priority in the civil cases that it hears. Eviction cases comprise the bulk of the Court’s civil docket. Ohio law requires that eviction cases— formally known as forcible entry and detainer actions—move quickly through the court system. To meet this requirement and still provide a complete hearing for related claims, the Court splits these cases into two causes of action—the dealing with money damages and counterclaims. First cause hearings provide magistrates with the opportunity to refer tenants to available social service programs. The Court has established processes to connect seniors and those with disabilities to the a tenant is elderly or disabled, he or she is able to refer the and for connection to other available resources. The Court also mediation services just beyond the doors of courtroom. 11
Page 1 and 2: We Shape Our Cities, And Thereafter
Page 3 and 4: he Housing Court has jurisdiction o
Page 5: It has been my privilege to be the
Page 8 and 9: Columbia, holding Congress could co
Page 11: ocial and Political Change Bolsters
Page 16 and 17: hiring more than one Housing Specia
Page 19 and 20: oactive Court The 1990s ushered in
Page 21: collaborating with the Northeast Oh
Page 24 and 25: The often unscrupulous practice of
Page 27 and 28: evitalization and Resilience As the
Page 29 and 30: first year, 2008, this family-frien
Page 31 and 32: 2000’s 2010’s 2003 The Court be
Page 34 and 35: Notes The Early Years: The Emergenc

publication for website

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?