THE BLACK RECEIPTS

Columbus, Ohio — Citywide Housing Policy Outcomes

​

Purpose & Scope

This page presents a citywide summary of housing-related policy outcomes in Columbus, Ohio, based on publicly available records, budget data, and neighborhood-level indicators.

The analysis does not assess personal intent, motivation, or character of individual policymakers.
It documents observable outcomes that occurred during the period in which policies were enacted, funded, or not enacted.

​

CITYWIDE HOUSING SNAPSHOT (Outcomes Overview)

The following indicators reflect aggregate conditions experienced by residents across Columbus over the past decade:

• Decline in Black resident population in multiple neighborhoods

• Increased eviction filings and housing instability

• Declining Black homeownership rates

• Rising rents and property valuations

• Expanded use of tax abatements and redevelopment incentives

• Limited adoption or enforcement of anti-displacement safeguards

These trends provide context, not attribution.

​

POLICY OUTCOME VERDICT

DISPLACEMENT — CONTRIBUTING

Based on available data, housing outcomes during this period indicate that displacement pressures were not meaningfully offset by policy interventions.

CategoryOutcome

Resident RetentionFailed

Home Ownership ProtectionLimited

Anti-Displacement FundingFailed

Anti-Speculation ControlsFailed

Accountability & EnforcementFailed

Outcome designations reflect results, not policy intent.

​

POLICIES SUPPORTED (CITYWIDE)

The following policy approaches received sustained legislative support through majority votes and budget allocations:

• Tax abatement and incentive-based redevelopment programs

• Market-rate housing expansion strategies

• Public-private development partnerships

• Incremental affordability requirements tied to development incentives

These measures coincided with continued displacement pressures in several historically Black neighborhoods.

​

PROTECTIONS NOT ENACTED OR NOT ENFORCED

During the same period, the following measures were not enacted, not funded at scale, or not meaningfully enforced:

• Anti-speculation controls

• Vacancy or land-banking taxes

• Limits on bulk investor acquisitions

• Binding displacement offsets

• Robust enforcement mechanisms tied to affordability commitments

Absence of these tools reduced the city’s capacity to mitigate displacement effects.

​

IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOODS (Illustrative Examples)

Linden

Status: Adverse Outcomes Observed

• Elevated renter turnover

• Persistent public safety challenges

• Limited housing stability indicators

• ​

Bronzeville / Near East Side

Status: Adverse Outcomes Observed

• Significant population displacement over time

• Rapid escalation in property values

• Loss of long-standing residents and cultural continuity

Neighborhood examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.

​

COUNCIL MEMBER EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Council member grades displayed elsewhere on Black Receipts are derived from:

• Recorded votes on housing-related legislation

• Sponsorship or leadership roles on relevant ordinances

• Budget priorities during the evaluation period

• Alignment between supported policies and observed outcomes

Grades reflect policy alignment with outcomes, not individual intent or ideology.

​

DATA SOURCES

This analysis draws from:

• Columbus City Council legislative records (Legistar)

• City of Columbus annual budgets

• U.S. Census Bureau / American Community Survey

• Franklin County Clerk of Courts

• Columbus Police Department public dashboards

• Columbus City Schools enrollment data

• Local investigative and archival reporting

All sources are publicly accessible.

​

EDITORIAL STANDARD

Black Receipts evaluates whether outcomes materialized, not whether policymakers “tried,” “meant well,” or acted with specific intent.

The question addressed is not why a policy was supported, but what resulted.