Akron voters will decide on two major housing proposals on November 3, 2026. Known as Issues 11 and 12, these measures are designed to make housing more affordable and accessible for renters.
On paper, these changes may sound appealing: no more rental application fees, more time to pay security deposits, and better housing opportunities for people with criminal records.
But there’s another side to the story.
Akron Issues 11 and 12 could create unintended consequences that make renting more expensive or finding housing more difficult. And the people most affected could be the same tenants these proposals are supposed to help.
That doesn’t mean the ideas behind the measures are bad, but Issues 11 and 12 are the wrong solution.
What Would Akron Issues 11 and 12 Actually Change?
Both proposals would amend Akron’s City Charter, the document that establishes the city’s governing rules.
Issue 11: Application Fees and Security Deposits
Issue 11 would prohibit landlords from charging prospective tenants application, background check, credit check, and other pre-lease fees. It would also require landlords to offer security deposit payment plans over at least three or six months instead of requiring the entire deposit upfront.
These changes could help people who are struggling to save enough money to move.
However, the amendment also includes criminal penalties for certain violations, including failing to notify renters about deposit payment options.
Issue 12: Criminal History and Housing Discrimination
Issue 12 would prohibit housing discrimination based on someone’s criminal history, including arrests and convictions. The proposal includes exceptions for offenses requiring registration as a sex offender or arson offender under Ohio law.
It would also extend protections involving other forms of housing discrimination and establish enforcement procedures through the Akron Civil Rights Commission.
The goal is to give people who have criminal records a fairer opportunity to find housing.
Housing Quality May Suffer
One of the biggest potential benefits of Issue 11 for tenants is the ability to spread security deposit payments over several months. This is to make moving into a new housing more accessible for lower income tenants who do not have enough cash to front first month’s rent and a security deposit upfront.
However, security deposits exist to protect landlords from damage to their properties beyond normal wear and tear. Without the ability to collect a full security deposit upfront, landlords may be more resistant to replacing flooring, repainting, or doing other typical maintenance items between tenants, due to the increased risk forced upon them.
Free Applications Won’t Be Free, and Will Make Finding a Property to Rent Harder
Nobody likes paying rental application fees, especially when there’s no guarantee of getting approved. Imagine applying to five apartments that each charge $40. That’s $200 spent before signing a lease.
Issue 11 would eliminate those charges for covered rental applications. That’s a meaningful benefit. But screening tenants still costs money, even when applicants aren’t paying for it directly.
Consider a hypothetical landlord who spends $40 screening each of ten applicants for one vacancy. That’s $400 in screening expenses. You can be sure that landlords, like any other business, will pass any cost back to their customers (tenants). So recovering that entire amount through one year of rent would require roughly $33 more per month.
Furthermore, when applications are “free”, more people may apply for properties they wouldn’t otherwise consider. That could give renters more opportunities, but it might also leave property managers sorting through larger applicant pools, so a system intended to make applications easier could become more competitive for some renters.
Could Issue 12 Make Housing Decisions More Complicated?
Finding housing with a criminal record can be extremely difficult.
Someone who committed a nonviolent offense years ago, served their sentence, and maintained steady employment may still face rejection after rejection.
Issue 12 attempts to address that problem, and there’s a strong argument for doing so. A criminal conviction doesn’t automatically mean someone will be a bad tenant. However, the proposed language also raises questions about how landlords would evaluate certain criminal histories.
What about tenant safety?
Issue 12’s specific criminal-history exceptions concern sex-offender and arson-offender registration.
That leaves questions about how landlords could respond to other serious offenses, including certain violent crimes, when considering an applicant’s record.
Existing tenants of multi-unit buildings may reasonably want landlords to address identifiable safety risks. Meanwhile, applicants with past convictions deserve protection from unfair assumptions and blanket exclusion.
Those interests don’t have to be mutually exclusive. An alternative approach could allow individualized assessments that consider the offense, how long ago it occurred, and whether there’s a demonstrated connection to housing safety.
Issue 12 takes a broader approach to criminal-history protection.
Importantly, the proposal wouldn’t require landlords to approve every applicant. Other lawful screening criteria, including income and rental history, could still apply.
The Housing Voucher Provision Many Voters Might Miss
One easily overlooked part of Issue 12 concerns source-of-income discrimination.
The proposed charter language would prohibit differential treatment based on how someone receives their income in a real estate transaction. This could provide greater protection to people who rely on housing assistance, including eligible voucher holders. That’s potentially a significant benefit in a city where affordable housing remains a concern.
But there are practical questions about implementation.
Participating in housing assistance programs can involve inspections, paperwork, and payment procedures that differ from conventional rentals. The proposal doesn’t eliminate those program requirements. Landlords would need to understand how the new protections interact with existing program rules, and tenants would need to know what those protections actually guarantee.
What Happens to Akron Tenants Who Already Have a Lease?
Much of the debate focuses on people trying to rent a new apartment.
But what about someone who’s been living in the same Akron home for a while?
Issue 11’s security deposit rules would apply to leases executed or renewed after the amendment takes effect. That doesn’t mean tenants who already paid a security deposit would automatically receive their money back or have that deposit converted into installments. For many established tenants, the immediate benefits could be limited.
Meanwhile, any broader changes to rental pricing, property management, or housing availability could still affect them over time.
This creates an important distinction between two groups.
Prospective tenants could benefit directly from lower application costs and more flexible deposit arrangements.
Existing tenants might experience fewer immediate benefits, while still being affected by changes in their landlord’s operating costs or future rental decisions.
Neither outcome is guaranteed. But it’s worth recognizing that these measures won’t affect every Akron renter equally.
Why Changing Akron’s City Charter Matters
Perhaps the most overlooked concern is where these rules would be written.
Issues 11 and 12 aren’t ordinary city ordinances, they would become part of Akron’s Charter. That’s important because ordinary ordinances can generally be revised through City Council’s legislative process whereas proposed charter provisions specify that amendments or repeal would require another vote of Akron residents, except as otherwise required by state or federal law.
If an unexpected problem emerges, changing the underlying rules could take considerably more effort.
Both measures direct City Council to enact implementing legislation within 90 days of their effective dates. That legislation could clarify enforcement and administration, but it wouldn’t give City Council unrestricted authority to rewrite the charter provisions.
There’s a reasonable argument that strong protections should be difficult to remove, but the trade-off is that rules designed to protect tenants could also become difficult to adjust if they don’t work as intended.
What Most Discussions Miss About Akron Issues 11 and 12
The debate in the media over these provisions often sounds like a choice between protecting renters and protecting landlords, but that’s an incomplete way to think about housing policy.
A rule can benefit renters in one situation while creating disadvantages in another. Someone who has been rejected because of an old criminal conviction might gain a meaningful opportunity under Issue 12, while someone who needs to leave an unsafe relationship might benefit enormously from Issue 11’s lower upfront moving costs.
At the same time, another tenant might struggle if available apartments become harder to find, screening requirements become more restrictive, or rents rise.
What Akron Renters Should Consider Before November 3
Akron Issues 11 and 12 address genuine problems in the city’s rental market: expensive application fees, large security deposits, and discrimination can prevent people from securing stable housing.
However, tenants should understand that Issues 11 and 12 will raise both Akron landlord’s cost of doing business and the the risk. Akron tenants should therefore expect landlords to pass these increased costs to tenants through increased rent rates, and to rebalance the risk by replacing less material between tenants and screening tenants with stricter criteria.