10/09/2026
This Election Day, Akron voters will consider three proposed amendments to the City Charter related to housing and police oversight. These proposals were drafted by Freedom BLOC, a local organizing group, which collected petition signatures to get these amendments on the ballot. Akron’s city administration was not involved in proposing or drafting these amendments, but with Election Day approaching, Akron Mayor Shammas Malik is sharing a few thoughts about the proposals:
“The issues that give rise to these amendments are real. For too many people, rental housing is unaffordable and out of reach, and it can be especially difficult for individuals with criminal records to find housing. At the same time, changes to our City Charter need to be carefully drafted and legally sound because, once adopted, they become part of the fundamental law governing our city.
ISSUES 11 & 12
These two proposals deal with landlord tenant issues. Issue 11 prohibits landlords from charging application fees and requires them to permit tenants to spread security deposit payments over three months or six months – it also creates criminal liability for property owners if they do not notify tenants of this option, even if a mistake occurs. My main concern is that a blanket ban on application fees and limits on security deposits could result in property owners increasing rents on tenants across the board, which could reduce housing affordability.
Issue 12 prohibits landlords from considering a tenant’s criminal record when deciding whether to rent to them, except in cases involving registered arsonists or s*x offenders. It would mean that a property owner could not consider recent domestic violence offenses or recent drug trafficking activity when deciding whether to rent to a tenant. To me, this criminal history proposal, as written, is really extreme, would put Akron far out of step with other cities, and would move us backward on public safety. I am also concerned that such a sweeping restriction could push responsible local property owners out of the rental market and leave more of our housing stock in the hands of less-engaged corporate or out-of-state owners, creating more instability in our neighborhoods.
I think both Issues 11 and 12 should be rejected. As they are written, they would create more problems than they would solve, and these would be tough to fix as permanent parts of our charter, requiring another charter amendment at another election.
I do think Issues 11 and 12 attempt to tackle real issues – but do not take into account the potential negative impacts to tenants and landlords alike. These issues require solutions that consider these impacts and are debated and discussed widely with the public and with our City Council before they are codified in our city’s charter, our constitution. Our administration has intentionally avoided introducing legislation on these issues while Freedom Bloc has pursued its proposals – specifically to avoid unnecessary division. If these proposals do not pass in November, I am committed to introducing legislation to City Council on both topics before the end of 2026, as we have done on a number of other housing issues this year, and to make sure we have robust public engagement about these issues.
ISSUE 13
Finally, Issue 13 would make a number of changes to the Civilian Police Oversight Board and the Independent Police Auditor’s Office. First, it would change how members are appointed to the board, with some appointments coming from the board itself after consultation with a limited selection of civic groups. Second, it would require responses from the city administration to each of the auditor’s recommendations within 45 days, and would set up a back and forth dialogue process if the administration and auditor disagree. Third, it would purportedly give the board subpoena power, although there are exceptions and legal questions about whether officers could be subpoenaed due to conflicts with the police union contract and state labor law.
In 2022, I helped develop the original charter amendment that created the oversight board and auditor’s office, and I strongly believed both then and now that it should be independent of the Mayor’s office. As such, I am not going to encourage people to support or oppose Issue 13, but I want to add some context about our administration’s engagement with the board and auditor’s office.
For almost three years, our administration has worked hard to partner with the board and auditor’s office. We have not ignored a single recommendation the auditor has written – responding to them deliberately and thoughtfully. Reviewing and responding adequately within a specific and limited amount of time can be challenging, and making specific response times mandatory would likely require us to increase staffing and capacity in this area.
This year, we have responded to 10 reports in which the police auditor disagreed with police findings on cases, and we have responded to more than 50 concurring opinions in which the auditor had additional recommendations despite agreeing with a disciplinary decision. We have changed several outcomes of disciplinary cases after reviewing the auditor’s recommendations, and our Chief of Public Safety and APD leadership now meet monthly with the police auditor and deputy auditor. Each year, we have supported budget increases for the board and auditor’s office and created processes to ensure recommendations receive meaningful consideration and response.
NEXT STEPS
Beyond these charter amendments and Election Day, our administration will continue working on these issues – to expand access to safe and affordable housing, and to build trust and partnership between police and our residents. We will continue seeking to approach difficult issues thoughtfully, listen to different perspectives, and pursue solutions that work in practice, to continue building a city where everyone has a voice and everyone can thrive.”
