Cuyahoga County Debates 'Pay-to-Stay' Eviction Policy

Proposed ordinance aims to prevent avoidable evictions, but landlords argue it would unfairly burden them

Published on Feb. 12, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Cuyahoga County Council is debating a proposed 'pay-to-stay' ordinance that would give renters a chance to stay in their homes if they can pay all the rent and fees they owe before a judge orders them out. Supporters say it would prevent avoidable evictions and promote stability, but landlords argue it would unfairly burden them and potentially drive property owners out of the rental business.

Why it matters

The debate highlights the ongoing tension between protecting tenants from eviction and ensuring landlords can effectively manage their properties. The proposed ordinance aims to strike a balance, but has faced pushback from some landlords who say it goes too far in favoring tenants.

The details

The proposed 'pay-to-stay' ordinance would allow tenants to avoid eviction if they can pay all the rent and fees they owe before a judge orders them out. Supporters say this would prevent avoidable evictions and promote housing stability, while opponents argue it would unfairly burden landlords, especially smaller property owners, and potentially drive them out of the rental business. Some landlords say they already informally practice 'pay-to-stay', while others maintain they should be able to evict tenants who are even a day or dollar short on rent.

  • Cuyahoga County Council President Dale Miller revived discussions on the 'pay-to-stay' ordinance last year.
  • In the last two months, Miller said he's 'sent out notices far and wide' to get feedback on the proposed legislation.

The players

Dale Miller

Cuyahoga County Council President who revived discussions on the 'pay-to-stay' ordinance.

Adam Whiting

A landlord who works with tenants when their rent is late, helping them avoid eviction.

Scott Kroehle

A landlord who owns 33 units on Cleveland's west side and supports the 'pay-to-stay' ordinance, arguing it would help level the playing field for responsible landlords.

Nebal Ali

A real estate agent who manages 20 rental units and owns 10 of her own, and opposes the ordinance, arguing it would unfairly interfere with how she runs her business.

Sunny Simon

A Cuyahoga County Councilwoman who expressed concern that the ordinance might hurt good landlords who simply want to be paid on time.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Why should responsible landlords be subsidizing the worst operators in the market? Because that's what happens without pay-to-stay.”

— Scott Kroehle, Landlord (cleveland.com)

“If I have gotten to that point for an eviction, there's no hope. Now the courts want to come in and they want to tell me how to run my business? I just don't feel that it is fair to do that.”

— Nebal Ali, Real estate agent and landlord (cleveland.com)

“I don't want to turn a unit. It's costly. It takes time. It's always going to be more cost effective if I can find a way to help that person stay there.”

— Scott Kroehle, Landlord (cleveland.com)

What’s next

Cuyahoga County Council has not scheduled a vote on the 'pay-to-stay' ordinance as members consider the recent testimony, legal concerns, and potential amendments, including limiting the number of times a tenant can use the defense and whether landlords should be able to recover additional enforcement costs.

The takeaway

The debate over Cuyahoga County's proposed 'pay-to-stay' ordinance highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing tenant protections with landlord rights. While supporters argue it would prevent avoidable evictions, landlords contend it would unfairly burden them, potentially driving some out of the rental business. The council must weigh these competing interests as it considers whether to move forward with the legislation.