ARLINGTON, Virginia -- On any given night, more than 10,000 Ohioans experience homelessness. Yet in Akron, it’s against the law for volunteers to provide shelter to people who need it the most.
Now the Ohio Supreme Court could hear a case that could vindicate the right to private property and right to shelter. Currently the case is pending with no arguments scheduled.
The case centers around Sage Lewis and a nonprofit called The Homeless Charity, which have fought with the city of Akron for years over the right to shelter homeless people on Sage’s property.
Sage began providing shelter in January 2018, when the local park district started to evict tent encampments to make way for a bike path. With nowhere else to go, some of those evicted asked Sage if they could pitch their tents on the backlot of a commercial building he owns.
Sage agreed. More people came seeking shelter and safety. Sage and the charity provided services from the commercial building, which became a day center for the homeless and other impoverished people. It offers free meals, showers, laundry, clothing, and use of desktop computers and Wifi access.
The area became a haven for those in need.
There are hundreds of homeless people in Summit County. Housing is difficult to obtain, and emergency shelters often fill up. Being homeless is dangerous, from sky-high risks of violence to inclement weather.
Staying on Sage’s property was an immense relief for those with nowhere else to go.
However, Sage’s activism soon earned the ire of City Hall.
When Sage sought a conditional use permit to legalize the permanent tent village, a divided Akron City Council refused to let Sage provide shelter on his own property. As winter approached, Sage and the charity worked with social-service providers and city officials to get people out of tents and into housing.
They were so successful that the property was nearly empty of tents by early December (while the day center remained). But the City sought to force out the few remaining homeless people. Sage and the charity complied while seeking a variance to allow a handful of tents in life-threatening emergencies.
Even this was too much for Akron’s zoning board, which denied the variance on the grounds that the proposed “campground” was “not harmonious” with the surrounding area. In other words, the city would rather force people out on the streets than tweak its aesthetic pretensions.
All this in a city that has the state’s highest eviction rate.
This is not only wrong, but also unconstitutional.
The Ohio Constitution offers even stronger protections for private property rights than its federal counterpart, explicitly protecting the “inalienable rights” of “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.”
Using one’s own property to provide a safe harbor for those who desperately need it surely qualifies. And it is a tradition that Ohioans have long embraced — using their private property to help slaves on the Underground Railroad and caring for those who lost everything in the Great Depression, among others.
Moreover, the government is barred from wielding its power in arbitrary ways and for irrational ends.
Blocking an emergency-only shelter imposes immense harm, and yet Akron could only cite a vague (and subjective) interest in harmony to justify its decision. By taking Sage’s case, the Ohio Supreme Court can protect the rights of the most vulnerable.
Diana Simpson and Nick Sibilla work at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm based in Arlington, Virginia, that represents Sage Lewis and The Homeless Charity.
Have something to say about this topic?
* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.
* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments or corrections on this opinion column to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com.
Ad Choices