Last summer, I met Catherine Lang at a Starbucks in Tinley Park, Illinois.
Though it felt unusual to share such a personal story with a stranger, Ms. Lang detailed how crime-free housing laws had profoundly affected her life.
In 2021, at age 31, Ms. Lang was arrested for alleged drunk driving. Following her arrest, law enforcement informed her landlord that she needed to be evicted from her Tinley Park apartment within weeks.
Several months later, a jury acquitted her of the charges. By then, however, Ms. Lang had relocated to her parents' home in a nearby town and was saving to purchase her own home, deciding that renting no longer felt secure.
Our meeting marked the conclusion of extensive reporting into crime-free housing laws—local ordinances that can penalize tenants for interactions with police.
An investigation spanning 2019 to 2024 uncovered over 2,000 instances across 25 Illinois municipalities where officials notified landlords of tenant violations under these ordinances.
While these laws aim to protect communities by evicting dangerous individuals, more than 1,300 of these cases involved misdemeanors or noncriminal activities.
Nearly 500 tenants, and sometimes entire households, were displaced during this period—frequently due to minor offenses or accusations that were either unproven or not fully investigated.
The investigation originated from a tip about a woman suing Richton Park after eviction under these laws for reporting a shooting. Initially, such cases appeared isolated.
However, further research revealed that housing advocates had long struggled to collect enforcement data, citing difficulties in identifying affected individuals, especially among communities of color and low-income renters.
Legal professionals shared stories of clients facing eviction for tenuous reasons, such as a tenant being targeted after their son’s friend listed their address during a shoplifting arrest.
Motivated by these accounts, a systematic effort was made to track enforcement of crime-free housing laws throughout Illinois.
Fifty-five municipalities with such ordinances, many administered by city or police departments that train landlords to monitor criminal or nuisance behavior, were identified. Records requests were submitted to all these jurisdictions.
Thirty cities either denied requests, failed to respond, or claimed they did not maintain enforcement records.
Where data was available, it often comprised enforcement letters notifying landlords of problematic activity, eviction documentation, and internal city and police reports.
These records, however, were frequently incomplete or redacted to remove tenant names and demographic details, confirming advocates’ concerns about transparency.
Many tenants vacated their homes after receiving brief city or landlord notices, leaving little formal record. Eviction filings rarely cited crime-free housing as the underlying reason, and many affected individuals were reluctant to discuss their experiences due to the stigma and hardship involved.
To uncover more stories, outreach efforts included canvassing Chicago suburbs, posting flyers, attending courthouses to review cases, and contacting individuals via social media.
Ms. Lang was the first among numerous interviews conducted during this investigation.
We documented multiple instances where tenants faced eviction due to offenses committed by someone other than the leaseholder. Several recounted hardships such as living in their vehicles or relying on friends for shelter while seeking new housing.
Supporters of crime-free housing programs emphasized that many flagged tenants had histories of repeated or serious misconduct, arguing that problematic cases are exceptions rather than the rule.
Originally designed to safeguard neighborhoods, this investigation invites reflection on whether the current enforcement of these laws, which can affect individuals not convicted of crimes, may cause more harm than benefit.
0 Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!