Mic check.
Mic check one two, mic check three four. Mic checking the mic.
Mic one, mic two, mic three, mic four.
Good?
Yes.
All right.
Or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
Sergeant at Arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to: one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of
signage. Three, food and beverages, including
in glass or metal canisters. Four, backpacks,
large bags, and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted
in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by six inches by
twelve are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace, pepper
spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small
handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a
manner that does not interfere with the ability of other
individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these
rules will be subject to removal from the remainder of the
meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose.
Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
Sergeant at Arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to: one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or
metal canisters. Four, backpacks, large
bags, and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in
color, that do not exceed twelve inches by six inches by
twelve are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace pepper
spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small
handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a
manner that does not interfere with the ability of other
individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these
rules will be subject to removal from the remainder of the
meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose.
Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazard, as determined by the
Sergeant at Arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or
metal canisters. Four, backpacks, large bags,
and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color,
that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12
are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace pepper
spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small
handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a
manner that does not interfere with the ability of other
individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these
rules will be subject to removal from the remainder of the
meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council or
any of its committees. All individuals and their belongings are
subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose. Or three, when asked
to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazard, as determined by the
Sergeant at Arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or
metal canisters. Four, backpacks, large bags,
and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color,
that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12
are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace pepper
spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small
handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a
manner that does not interfere with the ability of other
individuals to view or hear the proceedings
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules
will be subject to removal from the remainder of the meeting by
the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon
request. Individuals must remain seated at all
times except, one, when entering or exiting the
gallery, two, when providing public comment during the
portion of a meeting set aside for that purpose,
or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council. Profane, threatening,
harassing, abusive, or defamatory behavior or
speech, which in the judgment of the meeting's chair or the
Sergeant at Arms may lead to a breach of the peace or
disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting, is not permitted.
Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the stomping of feet,
waving of arms, throwing any item, whistling,
booing, shouting, or other loud utterances are not
permitted when, in the judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at
Arms, such actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly
conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
Sergeant at Arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Glass or metal canisters. Four, backpacks,
large bags, and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted
in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by 7 inches by
12 are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace, pepper
spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small
handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in
a manner that does not interfere with the ability of other
individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules
will be subject to removal from the remainder of the meeting by
the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon
request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery,
two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set-
Good
morning.
Please, we'll ask you to please take a seat. We're about to start.
All right.
Well taken, Mr....
All right.
We'll take the slip, Mr. Blakemore.
I want to welcome everyone to the Committee on Housing and Real
Estate of the City of Chicago. The time is
10:20, and the meeting is called to order.
Before I begin, I want to take a moment to call silence in the
chambers in memory of those lost, missing, and affected by the recent dual
earthquakes in La Guaira, Venezuela.
Our hearts, minds, and souls are with the people in Venezuela, so I'll ask us that
we have a few moments of silence.
Thank you.
We have your pink slip, Mr. Blakemore. We have it.
We have your pink slip, so please have a seat.
You're going to be called for public comment.
Thank you. Today, we have a subject matter hearing on a new renter
landlord policy package. No votes will be taken today.
This is a subject matter hearing. We'll now have a roll call to
establish quorum. Vice Chair Mitchell?
Vice Chair Mitchell present. Alderman Espada?
Present. Alderwoman Dowell?
Present. Alderman Robinson?
Not present. Alderman Harris?
Not present. Alderman Quinn?
Present. Alderman Moore? Not present.
Alderwoman Tavares?
Not present. Alderwoman Scott? Alderwoman Scott present.
Alderman Burnett?
Alderman Burnett not present. Alderwoman Rosana Rodriguez Sanchez?
Present. Alderman Casada?
Alderman Villegas?
Alderwoman Clay?
Alderwoman Anna Happenworth?
Alderwoman Harlem?
Present. That give us...
Oh, I don't know what I missed. Yeah, Alderwoman Mitz, so
that makes 11.
Eleven, including the chair, that give us quorum.
We also have Alderman Cardona, I think I saw as an-- Oh, Alderman Cardona
also as non-member. I'm not sure if there's any other non-members.
And we also have a rule 59 request from
Alderperson Taylor and Fuentes to participate
remotely. Can I get a motion to allow them to be added to the quorum?
So moved by Alderwoman Rosana Rodriguez Sanchez.
All those in favor say aye. All those oppose nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Alderperson Taylor and Fuentes are both now
recognized for quorum.
Public comment. Today we have a really good
participation. I want to thank everybody for coming.
We have
28 speakers signed up for today.
We usually have three minutes, but that will be a long time for public comment,
so we will
give a minute and a half, but we will be flexible so everybody can
finish their thoughts. So everybody has a chance to speak.
So I'll ask you to please try to keep your remarks a little bit
shorter than usual, so that we can help everybody to
participate. Everybody's voice matters.
The first speaker will be Taiwan Sims.
Oh, and we also recognize Alderman Moore
for the quorum. Thank you, Alderman Moore.
We'll make sure you have your packet as well. Do you have your folder?
Okay, I want to make sure that we have your folder as well, Alderman Moore.
Good morning, committee. Good morning.
I wonder if a minute and a half is enough time to address exactly
how this
committee has not addressed any housing issue, the
crises, or the coordinated entry,
what, $2.5 million that was put into it.
That worked in no way for Chicagoans.
But today there'll be no vote on a very important
subject matter. Well, this is just subject matter because there's no
vote. So all of you all came out for nothing.
But it should be a vote because for once we have maybe 12
alderpeople sitting in the quorum
to address this issue of what? Predatory renters,
the fact that the 1901 Project is going to displace
lifelong residents. Not only that, the Obama Center has displaced
lifelong residents. Not only that, all the way from Pullman
with the extension.
And so this is not being addressed.
So what'd y'all wake up this morning for?
Y'all should have known that there'll be no vote.
But the gentleman behind me, they got some interest in it, don't y'all?
They're the renters. They've been talking crap all morning
because there's no benefit here today, no judgment, no
call.
So Chicagoans are once again represented by who and what?
Especially in regards to housing.
I've been homeless now for-- I came here in 2024 addressing my
housing issue.
So...
Thank you,
Mr. Sims.
Next we have Malcolm Williams.
And then after that, we have Mira Pitch, so that we are ready
for the next one.
Malcolm Williams.
Yeah.
Good morning.
Didn't really expect to talk today, but I'm here.
I come as an individual that was once a
renter, now own a property management company, a developer,
real estate investor. And I understand that there
are two sides to the problem that we're looking at, that we're
dealing with, and I feel as though we're only dealing with one side of the issue
versus as the entire problem.
We absolutely have bad owners and landlords,
as I've represented some good landlords and bad landlords.
But on the other side of the spectrum, we absolutely have some bad renters.
And so I think what I've read, and I could be wrong, is that we're
focusing on the owners and not holding the renters
accountable. I think when we hold--
And
don't get me wrong, I do-- Again, there are both sides that need to be
addressed.
But as it pertains to
this problem that we're facing in some of our most underserved communities,
I think we're dealing with that we're missing out the main thing.
And
for me, as I peel back the layers of the onion, is that we're not
realizing that our people, it's not a maintenance issue, it's not a tenant
screening issue, it's a mentality, right?
When you have a person that's willing to live in an apartment and
feel like they don't matter as a renter, they treat the property like it doesn't
matter or temporary. They treat-
Thank you. Next we have Mira Pitch, followed
by Rose
Taylor.
Alderpeople of the
committee, my name is Mira Pitch.
Mr.
Sims, please, we're going to ask you to please...
Mr. Sims.
We're
going to go on recess.
We're going to take a quick recess so that we can address this.
Thank you.
Well, Mr. Sims.
We're going to recognize Alderman Robinson and Alderwoman
Tavares.
So
we're going to resume the meeting
now.
Our apologies. Also want to recognize Alderman Robinson and Alderwoman
Tavares for the purpose of the quorum.
I'm sorry for the interruption. We're going with
Mira Pitch now. Thank you so much.
Alderpeople of the committee, my name is Mira Pitch.
I am a renter in Roscoe Village in the 32nd Ward.
I've heard for the last few weeks as I've toured the ward and spoken to people
there stories of renters who are oppressed by onerous junk fees,
move-in fees, bidding wars for apartments, and even requirements to write cover
letters.
Alderpeople, I believe that the city must take action to ensure that all renters
are comfortable in their homes.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. Next we have Rose Taylor, followed by
Alice Jordan.
Thank you very much.
I rise in support of this ordinance.
I'm a teacher in Chicago Public Schools, and I'm myself a renter in Ward
40. As a teacher, I can see how the struggle to find stable,
affordable housing impacts my students.
My students from wealthier families, I teach at a selective enrollment school, so
we have students from all over, and my students from wealthy families tend to
come from families that own their homes, and they live very close to the
school, whereas my students with fewer resources come from
families who rent and have very long commutes.
This means that they can't access after-school tutoring because they
need to get home before it gets dark, and it means that because of the
CTA and two transfers, two buses, this sort of thing, they tend
to run more tardy to school and miss out on educational
opportunities. So I support any ordinance that gives
renters more ability to move, have control over their housing, and
agency to move in search of educational opportunity.
Additionally, I invite the committee to observe who is here
today and who's able to come to these meetings as this
ordinance moves through the legislative process.
I'm only able to be here because it's the summertime, but some
folks who are able to be here even as sort of part of their jobs, right?
If they're a developer in real estate or something like that.
And so there is maybe a bias in who's able to be at these
meetings. And as this ordinance moves through, I think we'll continue to see that
bias, and I hope the committee thinks of who's not able to be in the room.
Thank you.
Next.
Thank you. Alice Jordan, followed by Anne Finkel.
Good morning.
My name is Alice Jordan. I'm a fifth-generation Chicagoan.
My family survived the fire by running into the lake, neighbors
helping neighbors. My great-grandfather was also a
carpenter for the Chicago Fire Department.
During the Depression, my grandparents lost their bungalow and were
moved into Lathrop Homes. They were one of the first residents.
I was always taught to be grateful for what CHA has done to my family.
My father taught us how to get out of poverty by owning multi-unit
families. He passed that information on to my uncle,
who was born with disabilities and overcame barriers most of
his peers never faced by buying a storefront at 3712 North
Halsted, and he also housed my grandparents.
My Aunt Judy also learned from my father.
My 80-year-old Aunt Judy rents out her home in Logan Square.
She wants to come back. If she does, she'll have to pay relocation fees.
She lives on Social Security. You cannot make housing more affordable by
making it more expensive to provide.
When housing providers and tenants
build long-term relations, professional relationships like my father has
done
for decades, we can make a path to affordable housing.
Don't legislate against those individuals and working-class families.
Please talk to housing providers so we can provide solutions that can help all in
Chicago. Thank you.
Next, we have Anne Finkel.
Anne Finkel, followed by
Bronwyn Horton.
Hi, all. My name is Anne Finkel. I'm a sixth-grade science teacher in Brighton
Park. I'm a proud member of the Chicago Teachers Union and Democratic Socialists of
America. So a few things. First of all, I'm a renter, and I'm actually
looking for a new apartment right now, and so I'm personally feeling all of
the junk fees just associated with looking for a new
apartment are really out of control.
By the end of the search, I'll have spent several hundred dollars just looking for
a new apartment. I also see the impact that this has on students.
I teach about 80 students a year, and about 1,000 over the course of my
career thus far. And again and again, I have seen
all of the impacts that housing stress has on these students.
When students are living in unhealthy living conditions or worried about fights
that their families are having with landlords, or they're worried about having to
make an emergency move, or they do have to make an emergency move, their grades
drop, their disruptive behaviors increase, and most
importantly, their love of learning in school really goes away.
Their childhood is cut short, and they're yanked
out of the support system that schools and teachers and counselors have
so carefully built around students to support them.
My students are 11 and 12
years old, which means they should really be preoccupied with their friends and
with their soccer games and Minecraft and dance recitals
and homework. But when they are instead
preoccupied with unstable housing, it takes all of those
childhood preoccupations away. So this ordinance would go a
long way to addressing and easing this housing stress.
Thank you.
Next, we have
Bronwyn Horton, followed by
Anthony Perkins.
Good morning. My name is Bronwyn, and I'm an immigrant from South Africa and a
resident of Chicago for the last eight years.
Together with my husband, Matthew, we own two three-flat buildings,
one owner-occupied in the north side of Chicago.
We bought our first building in 2020, and as a young married couple, because
we wanted to build a future here in the city that we love.
Instead of moving to the suburbs as so many families in our position do.
My husband works for a mid-size engineering
company, earning the equivalent of a CPS teacher.
We didn't inherit these buildings
or buy turnkey investments. We renovated our first building's basement
while we lived in it,
turning it from a studio apartment into a two bedroom.
We then moved to another
three-flat where we had to also do extensive rehabilitation in
order for it to be habitable by tenants.
I believe Mayor Brandon Johnson's proposal legislation will have the opposite
effect of its stated goals. Most importantly, if you don't talk to
us housing providers, especially the small ones, you get bad housing
policy. You don't make housing more affordable
by making it more costly to provide it.
New fees, administrative requirements, and compliance costs don't just
disappear. We are a small operation.
We do this while working full-time job and raising children.
We don't have HR departments or compliance staff to--
Thank you.
Okay.
Go ahead, Mr. Perkins, followed by-
Good morning
... Martin Longues. And then we also recognize we're going to get a motion
for Alderman Harris after this public comment. Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.
Good morning. My name is Anthony J. Perkins.
I'm a housing leader for One North Side.
My family and I were homeless for 10 years.
Finally, Inspiration Corporation Threshold helped us find
an apartment in Rogers Park, where I lived for 13 years.
In February of 2023, a new management
company named Berkovic informed me that my rent
would be going up $580 per month. My
rent was $850.
He was raising it 70% at the time.
I couldn't afford that.
I'm on disability benefits and already
having difficulty making ends meet.
I couldn't afford it and the increase, so I knew
I would have to move, but I didn't know where I was going to go.
I was terrified of being homeless again.
I didn't know if I'd be able to find a rent that I could afford,
and I didn't know how I would afford to move and pay
application fees and hire a moving company and pay for
a security deposit and all the other expenses that go along with
moving. By the grace of God, I was able to get a
place in CHA Senior Building in Edgewater.
But that isn't the story for most people.
We have so many stories on the North Side of
people who get 120-day lease terminations or
120-day
Thank you.
Before we go to the next one, we have a request for a Rule 59 from
Alderperson
Harris and Moore. Can I get a motion to allow them to
join remotely? So moved by Alderperson Quesada. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say nay. So we have joined Alderperson Harris and
Moore via remote means. Next, we have Martin Lunks,
followed by Kevin Moore.
Go ahead. Thank you.
Thank you for listening today. My wife and I purchased a
three-flat building in Roscoe Village in 1989
when not many people knew what Roscoe Village was
about. Like the previous speaker, we
lived through the renovations of the
apartments.
From the hard work that we put into it,
we did this while we had full-time jobs.
Through the hard work, we were able to acquire, over the years, two more
properties.
Both of my adult
daughters has
worked
in the apartments, cleaning baseboards, turning over apartments.
One of the issues I have with this proposed ordinance is this term
unconscionable.
Who defines that?
What are the parameters on that? Is that a legal term?
So that's
in the provision as far as what the potential rent would be
moving forward. So that's the biggest question I have with this.
How is that defined?
Thank you. We hope to get all those information in the subject matter presentation.
Now we have Kevin Moore, followed by Ahmed Ogunbini.
Kevin.
Good morning. My name is Kevin Moore.
I'm a social studies teacher, George Washington High School.
I also represent the Chicago Teachers Union.
As an educator, I've seen firsthand the negative impact housing
insecurity has on a child's education.
We're nearly 20,000 unhoused students in the district.
I've experienced students' inability to focus during class because of lack of
sleep due to living with other family members, students whose families are facing
evictions, and landlords raising rents to unaffordable prices,
including exorbitant move-in and junk fees that families cannot
afford. How can we expect our students to thrive when there's high
mobility rates because they have to move from place to place to find
affordable housing, which is disruptive to a student's learning?
How can we expect our communities to be safe and stable when our families are
being displaced because they can't afford to live in the communities where they
have roots in, and also impacting their learning, and also making it difficult for
educators to provide them with the education they deserve?
So this is why I support the Protected Renters Ordinance, to hold
landlords accountable, because housing is a human right, and what that means
is that everyone deserves to live with dignity. Please support this ordinance.
Thank
you.
Thank you.
Ahmed, followed by Dottie Willis.
Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to present in such a
grand forum.
For those of you who don't know, my name is Ahmed.
I am a housing provider on Chicago's West Side.
I was able to acquire my first property in 2017, and one of the value sets that
I walked into the business with was do not promote a product that I would not
consume. That being said, in 2020, I actually
joined the Garfield Park community,
and a lot of the members of my community that I serve regarding renters are
everyday people. Think teachers, CTA workers,
mechanics, et cetera.
These individuals are, again, happy with the service that we
provide. Now, I think that the large gap here, once
again, is that the new ordinance was
developed without the input of housing providers.
There is a lot of language that can be misconstrued
dependent upon what side you're on, tenant or housing
provider. Just know that junk fees are not junk fees.
They are screening mechanisms. A lot of housing providers do
not
take security deposits because there are very stringent
measurements that we have to handle those security deposits with.
So I want the ultimate truth to ring.
You cannot make housing affordable by making it more
cost-prohibitive.
Think about that. Work with your landlords.
We're only asking for input.
We want to provide proper housing.
Thank you.
Dottie Willis, followed by John Kozlowski.
Dottie?
Yes. My name's Dottie Willis, and I've been living in my
neighborhood for some while.
What I wanted to say is we voted for you guys to represent us, not your
campaign donors or your property,
or the real estate. We need this because we have
people that are owners who-- Some renters are not right, I agree with
them, but there are owners who are not making repairs in a
timely manner.
We need somewhere where we can go and have owners accountable for their
actions. They need to keep their
apartments in good condition. They need to do the
right thing. Like in my building, elevators go down.
Evergreen, which have very deep pockets in the real estate industry,
if the elevator go down before 5:00,
after 5:00, we can forget it. If it goes down on Friday,
they're not coming. And what we need with this PRO is
another agency to go to. HUD is probably overwhelmed.
NHC is probably overwhelmed, and we voted for you guys to represent us,
not to campaign donors. Can you look at us?
We putting you up, and you have made Evergreen a very powerful
real estate
industry. And we need
some help on our end. We voted for you all to represent us.
And look at us. Look at what we need.
Stop looking at your campaign donors. Stop looking at corporate America donors.
Look at the renters.
We vote you all in. We need, as voters, need to start
voting.
Thank you. John, followed by Sinead O'Sullivan.
Good morning, Chair and members of the committee.
My name is John Kozlowski, and I'm with the Chicagoland Apartment Association.
We respectfully urge you to reject the Protecting Renters
Ordinance. Chicago does not have a shortage of housing
regulations. It has a shortage of housing.
Supporters try to describe this proposal as affordable, a
modernization, and a renter protection measure.
In reality, it is a sweeping expansion of regulation, penalties,
bureaucracy, and legal risk that will make it harder to provide
housing in Chicago and increase costs.
Every new mandate becomes a new rent pressure.
Across cities like Austin, Phoenix, Charlotte, Houston, Las Vegas, and Atlanta,
increased housing production has helped ease pressure on rents.
In many cases, housing providers are offering concessions and incentives to attract
residents. That is what happens when supply catches up with demand and
residents have more housing options to choose from.
If we want affordability, we need more homes, not more hurdles.
This ordinance adopts policies commonly found in some of the nation's least
affordable cities, including New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington,
DC. Cities that build see rents fall, cities that over-regulate
see rents rise.
Remember, this ordinance will push small housing providers out of
Chicago. It will put upward pressure on rents.
It will discourage future housing development and investment at a time when
we desperately need more. And ultimately, the increased rent and less
options will harm the very renters it is intended to help.
We respectfully urge you to reject the rent-spiking Protecting Renters
Ordinance.
Thanks.
My name is Sinead O'Sullivan, and I'm a youth summer housing organizer with Palenke
LSNA. I'm speaking in support of the Protecting Renters
Ordinance. I want to speak in my short time about the power imbalance that it
attempts to remedy, ensuring stability for all Chicagoans.
The Realtors Association claims in their critique of the ordinance that the current
manifestation of the residential landlord and tenant ordinance reflects, quote,
"a balance between the rights and responsibilities of both landlords and tenants,"
end quote. This claim ignores the reality that tenants are currently the victims
of a starkly imbalanced power dynamic.
If the status quo reflected balanced rights, then why are 10,000 tenants displaced
from their homes without just cause each year in Chicago?
That's more than 30 every day. These aren't just numbers.
They're people and their families.
I've watched the negative impact of displacement without just cause unfold
firsthand with my best friend. When we were 10, her single mother was supporting
three children, and they lost their first apartment.
That eviction led to several more within the next year.
I watched her stability falter, each eviction leading her family further and
further away to a smaller and smaller apartment.
These weren't all slumlords, nor were they acting maliciously.
Yet the effect of her evictions are still with her today.
She feels instability in her relationships over a decade later because of the
instability she experienced from the string of evictions when we were 10.
The PRO is a first step to all Chicagoans having a right to stay in their homes.
Displacement is a persistent problem that means more than just a new apartment.
I urge the Committee on Housing and Real Estate to advance the Protecting Renters
Ordinance to the full City Council, ensuring stability for all Chicagoans, whether
they own or rent.
Thank you.
Next, we have Ida Zumzi.
Ida Zumzi, followed by Jeff Winsburg.
Or Weinberg.
What's the name?
Ida
Zumzi
is from Palenke. Also Palenke? Oh, yeah. I think they're here.
And the next one is Jeff Weinberg
after
Ida?
Yeah.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Hello, my name is Ida Zumzi, and I'm a youth leader with Palenke LSNA's
housing department. We are a 501 [c] [3] organization that is a
catalyst for POC and allied communities to uplift and support one another in
social change. Protecting the Renters Ordinance is an essential
addition to our Chicago community.
Just cause for eviction, landlord registry, and free legal support for renters,
which is a constitutional right, are utterly necessary for keeping
Chicago the city we all love so much, Chicago.
My family are landlords. We own your typical Chicago red brick
three-flat. I understand that landlord and big real estate firms'
hesitation to this act because it can seem like you guys feel targeted, but imagine
how renters feel when they get priced out of their homes, their communities, and
their lives.
They are a part of this community. They are the community.
They built this community, and they deserve to stay in their community.
My family has had their fair share of awful tenants, which I could talk about for
three minutes alone. But I won't, because what sticks out to me is my parents'
perspective on their duty as a landlord.
They consistently reiterate that they, landlords, would rather bear the burden of
fees if it meant somebody has a home, a chance at success.
We have the resources to subsidize the cost, and because we do, it's our duty to
make someone's life easier. Because the price of a fee is nowhere near worth as
much as human compassion, as protecting our communities. Thank you.
Jeff
Weinberg, followed by Sam Barth.
Sam.
Thank you, Jeff.
Hi. Thank you. My name is Jeff Weinberg. I'm a lifelong Chicagoan.
My parents were born in the city. I raised three kids in
Lakeview, in the city. I think that there's a lot of mistakes in
this ordinance that's attempting to be passed.
I do believe that renters need some protections, and housing
providers need some education, but there are a lot of
consequences that are going to result from implementing the
PRO the way I understand it today. The city and the
states want us to disclose fees. I have been renting housing
for 30 years, and unlike never before, I have
people lined up looking for apartments when they show up.
So the reason why we're seeing all sorts of fees added on is to slow
down the deluge of people that are coming to look for apartments.
When we put a $20 or $60 rental registry,
that is going to be a fee that's going to be passed directly through to the
tenants. So they're going to pay more money.
When we look at the just-cause eviction,
as a housing provider, if you have an unruly tenant that is causing a
problem, we have no way to get them out, so they're going to be disturbing other
tenants. When people come in looking for an apartment and people who don't
have all the wherewithal, people who have already come up and spoke who are
currently homeless, it's going to become stricter and
stricter for the housing provider to approve that tenant because they have to
renew their lease forever. So there's going to be consequences that are going to
hurt renters as a result of this. I think more time needs to be...
Thank you. Sam
Barth?
Thank you, Sam, followed by Sheila Dantzler.
Thank you.
Hey. Good morning. My name is Sam Barth. I'm an attorney, and I'm also a renter.
I'm here today to talk in favor of the Protecting Renters Ordinance.
There's bread and butter things in here that help tenants.
Limiting late fees to reasonable amounts, limiting junk fees.
But there's also good policy in here.
We need to revitalize the RLTO and
streamline it. We need to change the way that security deposits are handled
in this city. We need a city department that can handle
tenant rights issues, and we need a rental registry.
This city is way behind other cities.
Every major city needs a rental registry.
We have clients who come to us all the time who have been scammed by fake
landlords who are renting out units that they don't own, and
the tenants don't know because they have no way to look up their buildings and
find out who actually owns the buildings.
And we have tenants who come to us who say, "I don't know what to do about this
issue with my building because there's no sign outside of the building." There's
nobody to talk to about building issues, conditions issues.
We need a rental registry. We need PRO. Thank you.
Sheila?
Sheila.
Oh, thank you. And then followed by George Blakemore.
Good morning.
My name is Sheila Dantzler. I am the past chair of
Chicago Association of Realtors Public Policy Committee, and a member of
the Chicago Association of Realtors Board of Directors.
Before I start, I want to note that the Realtors submitted a two-page resource
in your materials for the committee. It is purple and blue for reference.
I want to speak about the PRO today, a policy designed to benefit tenants,
but in my view and in the industry's view, will likely achieve the opposite effect.
Particularly, I want to focus my comments on the cap of security deposit,
ban on move-in fees, rejection of rent increases, which
triggers relocation fees. Again, while on its face, these ideas
could be appealing, they significantly hinder neighborhood housing
providers like myself in managing risk and keeping up with rising
insurance costs, utility rates, property and real estate taxes,
and labor and operating costs. As originally proposed, the
ordinance would allow tenants to reject rent increases as
unconscionable, with no recourse for the housing provider.
Whether these measures are called rent control or not, they create the same
practical problem. Property taxes continue to rise.
Insurance premiums continue to rise.
Utilities and repair costs continue to rise.
That puts responsible housing providers like myself in an impossible
position, absorbing costs that they cannot control, risk a
mandated relocation payment, or leave the rental market altogether.
Research on San Francisco's rent control expansion... Thank you.
Next, we have Mr. George Blakemore, followed by Adamance
Vasquez.
Thank you, sir, for acknowledging me, because this meeting did not
start at 10:00. You're not entitled to nothing.
The landlord owns the land. The
sharecropping of when the Blacks got off the plantation, the
sharecropper, the one who owns the land,
they are in control.
I do not advocate for
Black people to be rentals. I advocate for
you to buy your home. The owner.
God bless the child that got his own.
You're always at the mercy of somebody else when you don't
have your own. And this is a democracy here
of the subject matter only. You're not entitled to no
home.
You're entitled to a home by getting your own.
The federal government have
gotten out of the business of housing poor people,
poor Black people. They call it mixed rental now.
So remember, God blesses the child that
has his own
When you're at the mercy of somebody else, they can do what
they want. Ownership. Papa might help,
Mama might help, but God bless the child that got his
own. They don't even have eviction
courts now, people in the court.
But you,
the reality is the owner. Get away.
Thank you.
Adamas Vasquez followed by Miguel Chacon.
Hi, my name is Adamas, and I'm a part of Palenke LSNA's Youth Housing
Cohort for summer 2026.
I have been living in Chicago for 21 years, and within that time, my family has
rented in the neighborhoods of Belmont Cragin, Humboldt Park, and Jefferson Park.
Renters are the backbone of many communities in Chicago, and they deserve to have
more protections placed on them. Right now, the power dynamic is unbalanced and
is way in favor of landlords. Tenants don't get a fair chance, and they deserve to
have a safe space where they don't have to worry about their landlords raising
their rent or evicting them without any prior notice.
Most tenants are predominantly low income.
I personally, as a renter, live paycheck to paycheck.
It would be really challenging for me if my landlord suddenly changed my rent and
told me my lease is not renewed.
Some tenants don't have the necessary resources to present legal aid for themselves
in housing court, which is what this ordinance would give you.
I certainly would not be able to if, God forbid, my landlord evicts us.
Giving them free legal counseling provides a better shot at getting the right
outcome for themselves and their families, and it also prevents them from getting
displaced out of their neighborhood.
I am in favor of this ordinance, and I urge the committee to make the same choice.
Protect our families and our communities. Thank you.
Next, we have Miguel Chacon, followed by Neo Balcarcel.
Miguel Chacon,
followed by Neo Balcarcel.
I think Neo, there is a
Mr.
Chacon, I think, is before you.
Oh, my bad.
Yeah.
Wait, wait.
Thank you. Good morning. My name is Miguel Chacon.
I'm the vice chair of the Chicago Association of Realtors Public Policy Committee
and a resident of Pilsen. This ordinance we're discussing today is the lengthiest
piece of legislation our industry has ever seen.
I'm not here to attack the goals of the ordinance.
Tenant stability is a worthy cause.
The housing policy and details matter deeply.
Today, I'll speak just about the provision of lease renewals, which would require
housing providers to pay relocation fees when leases are not renewed, even for
legitimate expenses like moving a family member into your own home or your own
apartment building. For an owner rehabbing an average three-flat, those costs can
be staggering. A property owner in Humboldt Park would pay about $20,000 to
$23,000, in Englewood, $20,000, and in parts of the North Side, over
$40,000. Plus, under this ordinance, if the
lease renewed is not offered, the tenants must feel that, as Alderman Sigcho
would often say, unconscionable, the term which is very vague, they are
open to lump sum payments of 10 months of rent.
Whether it's 10 months or five months, the financial impact of these owners,
like my parents, who provided apartments in their neighborhood where we lived,
that were our neighbors, that is truly unconscionable.
Renters should be alarmed too. Costs this large do not simply disappear.
They are absorbed into the rental market through higher rents, deferred
maintenance, and fewer available units.
Chicago's housing crisis will not be solved by making rental housing harder to
provide, which is what this ordinance does.
At a time when Chicago urgently needs more housing, this ordinance needs to move in
the opposite direction, making it harder for responsible property owners to provide
housing in our neighborhood.
Thank you. Now, Neo, it's your turn now. I see...
Neo? There you go.
And next, Laura
Vasileva.
Oh, okay.
Hi, my name is Neo. I'm a leader with Palenke LSNA.
I've lived in the community of Logan Square for 12 years as a renter with my
family. But right now, the system is not that fair.
The owners have too much power over the renters.
So the question we have today is why should we protect
renters? First off, having a stable housing helps the community.
When people can stay in their homes, kids can remain in the same
schools, neighbors get to know each other, and local businesses have
steady
customers. But meanwhile, when we don't protect the renters
and they get displaced, it hurts our local schools.
And that is exactly what happened to me when
my high school, Aspira, it's between Milwaukee and Belmont,
closed. The vicious cycle starts because all the
local businesses that the students went to after school don't
have customers anymore. Secondly, renters deserve a fair treatment.
Just like landlords have rights, renters should have
protections against unsafe living conditions, discrimination,
and unfair evictions. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Laura, followed by Abby Chappell.
Go ahead, Laura.
Hi, everybody. Sixteen years ago, I came to the United States on a work
visa from a poor Eastern European country, chasing the American dream.
And after working incredibly hard, 70, 80 hours a week,
sacrificing weekends and holidays, I finally purchased a
small condo in 2023 in Lincoln Square.
After I moved out of it, I decided to rent it out.
Last year, my property taxes increased by approximately 50%.
My homeowner insurance went up significantly.
Even so, when it came time to renew my current tenant's lease, I increased
it only by $25. That didn't cover the cost, but I believe
in treating people fairly. That is what small landlords do.
We know our tenants personally. We care about maintaining good relationships.
They're not just spreadsheets and numbers.
My concern is that this ordinance will unintentionally push many small
housing providers like me out of the rental market.
And that's it. Yeah.
Thank you. Abby Chapelle, followed by Mike
McElroy. Thank you, Abby.
Good morning. My name is Abby Chapelle, and I am a housing attorney that works with
survivors of gender-based violence at the Network Advocating Against
Domestic Violence. We support the Protecting Renters Ordinance because
we see firsthand through our work how difficult it can be for survivors
to access and maintain safe housing in Chicago due to the violence
that they've experienced. Thank you for your time and consideration in support of
the PRO.
Thank you. Mike McElroy, followed by...
Good morning. My name's Mike McElroy.
I'm the chair of the Chicago Association of Realtors Public Policy
Coordinating Committee, a member of CAR's board of directors, and a resident of
Bucktown. According to the Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul
University, two- to four-unit buildings represent 26% of
Chicago's housing stock and over 70% in neighborhoods like South
Lawndale and Brighton Park. These properties are essential to low-income
residents but are the most endangered by the costly provisions
of this ordinance. Already facing rising property taxes, insurance
rates, and other operating costs, this ordinance would force
neighborhood buildings to be sold to institutional investors.
Even single units are affected. Many Chicagoans, like we just heard about,
rent out a condo that they own to a tenant.
We probably all know someone in this sort of situation, but this bill's most
expensive and legally hazardous provisions, the
relocation fees, the bill of rights, the registry, would apply to these
single-unit owners.
And despite RLTO historically exempting owner-occupied two- to six-flat
buildings, these provisions would also apply to these housing types, which are
typically locally owned and largely affordable already.
But those classifications would be threatened by these new
mandates. Realtors support safe, stable
housing. We support responsible property stewardship.
And bad actors should be held accountable.
The existing standards should be enforced.
But this ordinance would impose broad new financial burdens on
responsible housing providers who are essential to Chicago's neighborhoods,
and they won't do anything to address the actual problem with housing
affordability, which is a lack of supply.
If increasing-
Thank you.
Next, we have Seamus O'Sullivan, followed by John Holden.
Seamus O'Sullivan?
Oh,
there you go. Seamus O'Sullivan, followed by John Holden.
And then we have just one last speaker after that.
Good morning. My name is Seamus O'Sullivan, and I'm here today representing Palenke
LSNA. Chicago and Illinois pride themselves on being
progressive by putting the needs of people first.
But when it comes to housing, we're anything but progressive.
It's a little strange that we can agree housing is one of the biggest challenges
facing working families, yet we keep treating renters like they're
asking for something radical when they're really just asking for a fair
shot. Chicago's lagging behind. Other cities have
continued to experiment with rent stabilization and other tenant protections in an
effort to keep housing within reach for ordinary people.
Now we have an opportunity to pass a policy to level set some very basic and key
ways, banning junk fees, preventing landlords from kicking out perfectly
good tenants without cause, and a registry to keep track of the landlords
so renters can know who they are dealing with, especially the big corporate
landlords that shirk accountability.
Whether every policy is perfect isn't the point.
The point is that we're willing to try.
Illinois didn't even give itself that option. Why?
Because developers have the resources to access and reach state
lawmakers long before grassroots organizations like Palenke did.
That's not the fault of anyone sitting on this body today, but it does leave us
with a choice. Right now, many people, including myself, believe our political
system too often answers to lobbyists and big money, and a few industries have
deeper pockets than real estate development.
Today, you have the opportunity to prove that that isn't always true.
Today, I'm asking you to support the Protecting Renters Ordinance.
Thank you. Next, we
have John Holden, and next would be Julie Working.
Hi, my name's John Holden. I'm a lifelong Chicagoan.
I've been a small landlord in the city of Chicago for over 30
years. I have had dozens of tenants over the years.
I've always treated them very well.
I would like to say that these restrictions on rent
increases are utterly unnecessary.
I know dozens of small
landlords who own two or three-flat buildings or
sometimes as many as 10 or 15 units.
We are all under stress. The costs of maintaining small
buildings has gone up astronomically in the last 10 years.
The costs of taxes have more than doubled on my three-flat in Edgewater.
I have only increased my rents in the last 13 years about 20,
25%. Meanwhile, my insurance costs have doubled,
and right now the utility costs are going through the roof because
Peoples Gas is now assessing landlords surcharges for
low-income heating funds. We are just getting piled on year after
year. I am also a block club president.
We have dozens of small apartment buildings in my
neighborhood. I talk to these owners all the time, and they're all
feeling stressed, and they're saying, "I don't know how much longer I want to put
up with this." This might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
As one speaker noted earlier, if we start driving out all the small
mom-and-pop landlords and everything falls into the hands of
corporate landlords, we're really going to have a housing problem in this
city. Please don't make life much worse for small landlords.
Thank you. Our last public comment is
Julie Dworkin.
Good morning. I'm Julie Dworkin with Institute for the Public Good and a resident
of the 35th Ward. Prior to my current job, I spent 27 years
working at Chicago Coalition to End Homelessness.
During that time, I saw directly how skyrocketing rents, poor building conditions,
a lack of representation in eviction court, and a lack of enforcement around tenant
protections led to increasing homelessness in Chicago.
While certainly not all landlords are bad actors, there's a growing share of
properties in Chicago that are owned by large corporations that have instituted
practices that make renting extremely challenging, such as charging
hefty application and move-in fees, in addition to being notoriously
unresponsive to tenant complaints about conditions.
A WBEZ study found that the share of larger buildings owned by LLCs in
Chicago quadrupled from 2006 to 2022.
The PRO ordinance is a powerful group of policies that will begin to address the
lack of regulations in the rental market that has allowed for profits to grow while
tenant experiences steadily decline.
The Chicago RLTO is long overdue for an update.
In addition, the city has never had a city agency dedicated to supporting tenants
and enforcing their rights. The new Bureau of Housing Services, created under the
ordinance, would provide tenants a place to go to seek support when they're having
problems with their units, and will help to avoid evictions and educate
landlords about their responsibilities.
Opponents of this ordinance will tell you that rents will go up if we enact these
needed protections. Well, guess what?
I can guarantee you the rents are going to keep going up in Chicago whether or not
we pass the ordinance. But with PRO in place, we can see evictions, poor
living conditions, and excessive fees go down.
Thank you. This concludes our public comment.
The committee received 18 written public comments
before or post the deadline last week.
Thirteen were in support of the policy package.
These comments came in support from Legal Action Chicago, the
Chicago Coalition to End Homelessness, the Center for Disability and Elder
Law, the Institute for Public Good, the Metropolitan Planning
Council, Access Living of Metro Chicago, the
Belden-Sawyer Tenant Association, the Network Advocating
Against Domestic Violence, and a joint letter from the Chicago Healthy Homes
Coalition, which include the Metropolitan Tenants Organization, the
Better Government Association, the Chicago Area Fair Housing
Alliance, the Chicago Housing Justice Coalition, Elevate,
Healthy Children Project, Program of the Learning Disabilities Association of
America, Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, Impact
for Equity, and the Law Center for Better Housing.
The five comments were in opposition, and they came from the Illinois
Realtors, three testimonials from their member landlord, and the
Chicagoland Apartment Association.
Written comments were emailed and including in your packets today.
I want to also recognize,
I think Alderperson
Rodriguez was here.
Oh, there you go. Alderperson Rodriguez, as well as Alderperson Nugent,
who just joined us remotely.
Alderperson Harris also.
Oh, and Alderperson Harris. I think we did that Rule 59
earlier.
Mr. Chair?
I think we had it. Oh, just in case, Alderwoman
Dowell just motioned so Alderwoman Nugent can join us remotely.
All those in favor say aye. All opposed say nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Now we have Alderperson Nugent as part of the quorum as well.
Thank you. And Mr. Chair,
if I may, Mr. Chair, just pursuant to my role as President Pro Tem under Rule
36, I intend to participate and vote on any matters today
as an ex officio member. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. Thank you, Alderwoman Nugent.
This concludes our public comment.
And I also want to make sure, does everybody has a packet?
All the alderpersons have a packet in front of you?
Alderwoman
Dowell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the speakers today
from the Chicago Association of Realtors said that
there was submitted a two-page resource in our materials.
It's purple and blue for reference.
I did not see that.
It should be included in our packet, in the public comment
packet, perhaps. If not-
No.
... the Manila folders.
I looked through both of my folders. That's why I'm asking the question.
Yeah.
Well...
Oh, I didn't see it at all. Do you have it?
I think it's there. But if not, we'll make sure if anybody who's
missing that, we'll make sure that you have a copy in your packet.
Thank you for flagging, Alderwoman Dowell.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah. Okay. We'll make sure that
everybody has a copy.
Today's hearing will be on the Protecting Renters Ordinance,
the PRO, a comprehensive modernization of the Chicago's
40-year-old Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance,
RLTO It establishes a unified policy framework that
strengthens tenant protections, builds enforcement infrastructure,
and closes critical gaps in data enforcement and legal access.
Committee members had the opportunity to attend briefings on this proposal earlier
this month. Language was shared last week and printed
copies are in your packets today.
In these packets are supplemental documents that break down the five elements of
this package in detail. A copy of today's presentation was
emailed to all members this morning.
This hearing will be conducted in three parts.
The first part will be testimony from subject matter experts on various
elements of PRO, including lived experience from renters in Chicago.
The second part will be a presentation of PRO by the Department of
Housing and Mayor's Office. We ask that members keep their questions for
the last part of our hearing, where additional experts and city
staff will be made available for the Q&A.
Joining us for testimony in the box are, and then if you want to you can
raise your hand, Tia Randolph is a tenant.
Tulsi McDaniels, community organizer from the Metropolitan Tenants Organization.
Melanie McBride, the Chief of Grants and Operations Officer,
Chicago Bar Association Foundation.
Philip Garberden, PhD, Associate Professor, University of
Chicago. Jonathan Smith, tenant.
And we will now begin with our testimonials, starting with Tia
Randolph. There will be about
10 minutes on this section, and then we're going to get Commissioner Castaneda.
Go ahead.
Good morning, committee members. My name is Tia Randolph.
I am a person with disabilities and currently a
resident in the 18th Ward. I've lived in the city of
Chicago my entire life, except for 10 months.
I grew up in the South Shore community, where my parents
lived in their home from 1966 to
2017. I always thought I would own a home like
this. I began a professional
career by the age of 21 in the healthcare industry,
but after 60,000 hours in the industry, I
faced difficulties in my discipline, fell on
hard times, and then was homeless for three and a half years.
When I was finally housed, I lived in Cabrini Green Housing
Community for 12 years.
When my building was set to be demolished, I moved out in
2006 and was given a Section 8 voucher through the
1999 relocation program.
I eventually moved to the West Chesterfield community in
the Chatham neighborhood, and I thought my life was finally set to
restabilize itself. For the most part, it did.
I leased an owner-occupied townhouse unit,
ascertained a bachelor's degree, two master's degrees,
but my housing situation was not without struggles.
When I first moved into the owner-occupied townhouse, I
noticed that maggots were entering the premises through the concrete
walls and windowsills. I immediately called the Chicago
Housing Authority, CHA, to come out and
inspect the unit again. They made my landlord fix the
problem, which resulted in him installing windows
for the entire second floor of the unit.
He didn't like that, and from that point forward, he would try to charge me for
repairs, plumbing, landscaping, furnace repairs,
duct work, et cetera. I repeatedly told him I was
not responsible for such charges and stood my ground.
This led to further retaliation, and he began
immensely harassing me about
when I was going to move out. Thankfully, I could reach out to the
Chicago Housing Authority and get swift
mediation with results. But other tenants in the city
of Chicago who are not subsidized are not so
lucky. With the Protecting Renters
Ordinance, the Bureau of Rental Housing
Services would fill that gap and enforce the laws that
are currently legislation,
so that all
residents in the city of Chicago are protected from the malicious
practices that some landlords institute at their
properties. However, enforcing
existing laws is not enough,
and some unfair practices are still legal
in the city of Chicago. For example, on
June 16th, 2025, I walked
out on the back porch and fell through it and was injured.
I sustained a broken fibula, knee, and ankle.
On August 5th, 2025, I was still unable to
walk, and after collecting his rent portion from
me for the month, my landlord handed me a
handwritten notice stating that he was not renewing my
lease and I had 60 days to quit and vacate the
unit.
He stated that the reason that he needed a
tenant who could pay more rent, but I
suspect that he had other motives after I was injured on his property
for the second time.
Mind you, I could not walk, let alone work
to support myself or the move process.
I had lived in that unit for 15 years, and all of a
sudden I needed to pack up my life. I was in total,
deep despair.
After my research about the legality of my then
disposition, I was informed that the landlord's
decision not to renew my lease without
compensation was completely legal
By the grace of God, and only that, I was able to land on my
feet and find accommodation suitable for my
disabilities, but not until February of
2026.
And only with the help of the Chicago Housing Authority
financial assistance program, only available to
subsidized residents, and other state-funded
rental assistance programs, was I able to achieve this
endeavor.
I wasn't taking off the CAM boot until June
15th, 2026.
I'm still trying to get my security deposit back from the
landlord. No response. Calls,
voicemails, emails, nor texts.
Let me be clear.
Without this assistance, I would have been unable to
walk and homeless.
In closing, what my landlord did was wrong.
No one deserves to be uprooted from their home through no
fault of their own without compensation.
This is why I strongly believe that the City of Chicago
needs just cause protections so that
residents who are in jeopardy of being displaced
can be made whole.
Therefore, I strongly urge the City Council to
support the Protecting Renters Ordinance. Thank you.
Good morning, members of the committee.
As soon as they're done with this section.
Oh.
Yeah.
Yes, okay. One second. Yes, Alderman.
Do we need to accept the direct introduction? That's my question.
I don't think
that's the case. I think right now we're just doing the subject matter hearing.
Legal, do we need to accept a direct introduction or is it...
No? Okay.
Thank you. Go ahead.
Good morning, members of the committee.
My name is Tulsi McDaniels, and I'm a community organizer with the Metropolitan
Tenants Organization.
MTO operates Chicago's only citywide tenants' rights
hotline, which responds to thousands of calls per year.
Every day we educate, we organize, and we empower tenants
across all corners of the city. Black, Brown, working
class tenants, CHA and HUD tenants, elderly tenants,
people renting their very first apartments in small mom-and-pop owned
buildings to large property management companies.
These stories, the everyday lives of residents from all
across Chicago, reveal a disproportionate power
held between landlords and tenants in Chicago today.
It leaves tenants vulnerable to housing exploitation and
contributes more broadly to displacement, eviction, and
homelessness.
Even in situations where a tenant has done everything right
and used the current RLTO law to the fullest extent, it is not enough.
As I speak to the committee, I want to clearly communicate that
tenants are not protected from predatory landlords in
Chicago.
Landlords whose paychecks are met by the hard-earned dollar of
working people.
This is why we need the Protecting Renters Ordinance.
I would like to highlight two aspects of the PRO that are of particular
importance. First, the Bureau of Rental Housing Services.
When the city's Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance was first passed
in 1986, its authors imagined that it would be
primarily enforced by tenants themselves rather than the city
getting involved in individual landlord-tenant violations.
Tenants would be able to make decisions on behalf of their living
situation, given self-help remedies such as rent
withholding and the opportunity to sue their landlords.
Our current system does not do enough to protect the rights of
tenants with urgent needs. It doesn't work for the Section 8 voucher
holder in South Shore, whose landlord regularly entered her unit
without notice. Or the grandma in Market Park who felt she had no
choice but to sign a lease full of illegal provisions.
These are real tenants that need an
agency that focuses on enforcement to hold these landlords fully
accountable. We know suing a landlord is not a
realistic option for most, and if you're lucky enough to find an attorney who
will take the case, litigation will take months.
The Bureau of Rental Housing Services would make sure that the laws
expanded by the PRO are proactively enforced.
The second part of PRO that I would like to highlight is just cause.
Right now in Chicago, a landlord can generally refuse to
renew a tenant's lease for any reason or no reason at all.
MTO sees this in action all the time.
These no-fault evictions are a tool of gentrification.
We've dealt with speculative investors kicking out entire buildings in
order to renovate and double the rent.
As a result of these landlords being able to use non-renewal, they can
easily disguise methods of retaliation.
A tenant calls 311 to report a code violation, the landlord can
choose not to renew. A tenant uses legal rent withholding to address
outstanding repairs, the landlord can choose not to renew.
MTO's team gets calls every day, and this gap
exists to the benefit of the landlord.
Without just cause, tenants are unexpectedly displaced through no
fault of their own. The consequences of this can be devastating because the
cost of living is so high, let alone with an unexpected move.
MTO has worked with individuals who were forced to leave Chicago
altogether, individuals who were forced to live in their cars or in
shelters, and individuals who suffered medical emergencies
related to the stress of their unexpected displacement.
This is why just cause legislation is so vital.
The principles behind it are simple.
Landlords must disclose their reasons for not renewing a tenant's
lease, and if the reason is not the tenant's fault, the tenant should
be entitled to relocation assistance to support their unexpected
move. It's time for Chicago to join cities like New
York, LA, Oakland, San Francisco, and St.
Paul in enacting just cause legislation.
Thank you for your time and consideration of the Protecting Renters ordinance.
Hello, my name is Melanie McBride, and I'm the Chief Grants and Operations
Officer at the Chicago Bar Foundation.
The Department of Housing has requested that the Chicago Bar Foundation provide
information today about the Eviction Council program.
The CBF currently oversees the program, which has multiple funding sources,
including the city's right to council funding, partners, and stakeholders.
As the contractor managing the program, we can't take a position on the proposed
ordinance. I'm only here to provide information about the program and some of
the findings from an independent evaluation of the program.
The program is designated to provide every unrepresented tenant in Chicago with
access to an attorney to provide advice and brief services, which may include
document drafting and settlement negotiations.
Tenants access the program via Zoom on their first court date.
They're connected to a case manager, who connects them with a legal aid partner and
other resources. After the tenant has an opportunity to meet with an
attorney, some cases are resolved either through settlement or dismissal.
Tenants whose cases are not settled can receive extended representation through
this program if the legal aid organization helping them determines that they have a
meritorious defense or concludes that they're particularly vulnerable.
The program has been independently evaluated by Stout, a consulting
firm that has evaluated legal aid eviction programs nationwide.
Stout found the program to be unique nationally because it
matches the level of service from brief advice and information to extensive
legal representation to the client's needs.
Stout further found that the program is a cost-effective approach to housing
stability.
Other important findings from Stout include more than 70% of tenants
receiving brief services said they were confident that they would be able to or
were able to achieve their housing goals based on the services they
received. For extended representation clients with the goal of avoiding
eviction, more than 92% of those tenants were able to achieve that
goal.
The number of default court-ordered judgments against tenants where a tenant did
not appear for court dropped to about 20%, compared to an
estimated pre-pandemic default rate of 40% to 60%.
More than 76% of tenants who receive at least brief services report
that the court system was fair to both parties based on their experience, a rate
more than double the average for low and moderate income households.
For every dollar the city has spent on this program, Stout found that Chicago
likely realized between $2.75 and $3.35
in fiscal benefits.
In conclusion, Stout found the program is a sustainable,
equitable, and fiscally responsible way to provide legal aid to
vulnerable tenants.
Good morning, and thank you for having me. My name is Phil Garboden.
I'm an associate professor at the University of Chicago, where I specialize in
housing policy in the United States.
Specifically, I work to understand how landlords and real estate investors, and how
their decisions impact low-income tenants and how they respond to public policies.
I'm here today in support of the proposed rental registry as part of the
Protecting Renters ordinance. To me, this is a piece of common sense policy
that provides a basic tool for data-driven decision making, provides important
transparency for renters, and creates a critical method of communication
between city government and rental housing providers.
I should note that my research has involved speaking with hundreds of landlords
across the country. These conversations have made me particularly sensitive to the
challenges of rental property ownership and management, particularly for
individuals with small portfolios.
But I can see no negative consequences of the registry as proposed in the
ordinance. It is simply good governance that a city should maintain a database of
rental property owners within its borders, as it does for nearly all other small
businesses. Elected officials, such as city council, are often asked to
make critical and high-stakes decisions related to rental housing policy.
Such decisions require basic information on the rental housing stock and its
ownership. Without a rental registry, we are basically flying blind.
Perhaps most importantly is the issue of transparency.
The research has consistently shown an increase in corporate ownership of rental
housing in ways that can make it difficult for tenants to know who their landlord
truly is. Some of this trend is a result of large companies buying
single-family homes, but the vast majority of the corporatization is
actually much simpler. Small-time landlords increasingly make the sensible business
decision to purchase homes through an LLC.
Compartmentalizing liability between one business and one's personal assets is
standard practice. Unfortunately, the increase in corporate ownership has
also had the effect of masking the owners of an increasing number of rental
properties. This lack of transparency does little to benefit the majority of
landlords who are running ethical businesses while protecting bad faith
actors from public and legal scrutiny.
This registry removes the lack of transparency without threatening the
liability protections afforded by incorporation.
Finally, my conversations with small-time landlords have constantly shown that it
is difficult for them to keep up with an ever-changing regulatory environment,
including being aware of grants, subsidies, and incentives for which they might be
eligible.
There are frequent changes at the state level within the Department of Housing,
from HUD, from the Chicago Housing Authority, and dozens of other public agencies.
None of these organizations currently have any reliable way to share information
with rental property owners across the city.
A registry can facilitate this critical information sharing, allowing landlords to
be confident that they are in compliance with current law and take advantage of
the programs designed to support rental property ownership.
The creation of a rental registry for the City of Chicago presents an opportunity
for us not only to provide tenants with important transparency, but to take a
large step towards more efficient and data-driven governance. Thank you.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Good morning to everyone, the mayor, members of the City Council.
My name is Jonathan Smith. I'm a lifelong Chicago resident.
I've been renting since 2009, and I lived in my current apartment for the
past 13 years.
I'm here because I want everyone to
understand what it feels like when a tenant follows every rule,
but the system meant to protect us doesn't work.
For the last three years, the new property management company of my building,
L'Vav Properties, has allowed the conditions in my apartment to
steadily decline. I submitted maintenance request
orders through their online portal exactly as they instructed me to.
Many of them were marked completed even though no repairs were ever made.
Today, my kitchen floor is still breaking apart even after
six months of maintenance requests.
I have ongoing water intrusion from leaking pipes that now extend
throughout my entire apartment.
I requested a professional black mold inspection because I
believe this repeated water damage has led to
mold. The request was ignored, yet it was marked
completed.
During the record-breaking cold in February of 2025
and January of 2026, my building went without heat for three
days each time because L'Vav deliberately shut off our heat and hot
water.
I reached out to all levels of city government, and I do mean
all. Despite all those calls, people, including children,
elderly tenants, and myself, were left without heat during
extremely dangerous below zero temperatures.
That experience has taught me something.
The problem isn't only bad landlords.
The problem is that tenants are passed from agency to agency,
and no one is truly responsible for seeing the problems through to a
resolution.
This is exactly why I support Protecting Renters
Ordinance.
The Bureau of Rental Housing Services will give tenants a single place to go
instead of being bounced from agency to agency.
The rental registry will make ownership and repeat violations easier to
track, allowing renters to make informed decisions on where
they decide to call home.
The Tenant Bill of Rights would make tenants' rights easier to
understand instead of being buried in legal jargon.
A right that people don't understand is a right they can't effectively use.
It would make those rights clear and accessible to every renter.
Stronger administrative enforcement will help resolve problems before they
ever reach a courtroom.
Tenants should not have to become experts in housing laws just to obtain
safe and fair living conditions.
My story is only one of thousands. There are thousands of Chicago tenants
living in this reality today.
Let me be clear. This ordinance isn't about punishing landlords.
One day, I myself aspire to become a landlord.
This ordinance reflects what Chicago stands for, equality
for all.
I respectfully
ask each of you to support the Protecting Renters Ordinance.
That not only helps create a housing system that protects both renters and
landlords before disputes end up in courts, but also so the next
tenant who does everything right doesn't have to spend years fighting
just to have a safe place to stay. Thank you.
Yes.
Thank you. Now
we're going to have joining us at the dais for part two,
Commissioner Liser Castaneda from the Commissioner of Department of
Housing, Jung Yoon, the Chief of Policy for the Mayor's
Office, Edwin Ortiz-Reyes, Director of Policy and
Legislative Affairs of the Department of Housing, and Donovan Harvey,
Director of Housing for the Mayor's Office.
Let's please hold our questions for after the
presentation. Commissioner.
Oh, Jung. Sorry.
Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Jung Yoon, and I'm the Chief of Policy.
In the 40 years since the Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance was passed by
Mayor Harold Washington, Chicago's rental market has changed
significantly.
Growing numbers of out-of-state landlords target vulnerable communities,
eviction rates have surpassed pre-pandemic highs, and non-refundable
fees that would've been unthinkable just a few years ago are now common practice.
The RLTO has not kept pace, and so to ensure that
all Chicagoans have access to safe and stable housing, we have introduced the
Protecting Renters Ordinance, or PRO for short.
This is pro-transparency, pro-affordability, and
pro-Chicago as part of our vision to make Chicago the safest, most
affordable big city in the US.
The Mayor's Office and the Department of Housing have engaged the
Advisory Committee on renting rights since 2024, including tenant
advocates, organizers, legal service providers, landlords,
and community organizations throughout the drafting process.
Their feedback and contributions have directly shaped the proposed ordinance that
we are excited to share with you today.
In Chicago, there are over 622,000 households
that rent.
With a 35% rent increase since pre-pandemic, nearly half
of all renter households are cost-burdened.
Meaning approximately 300,000 households across the
city spend more than 30% of their income on rent.
In certain neighborhoods, that cost burden rate exceeds 40%, meaning
that these families have almost no financial cushion for unexpected
emergencies such as medical bills or rising food costs.
On the screen, you'll see a heat map of the renter
dominant areas across the city with 54% of all
Chicagoans being renters.
We're also seeing surging levels of LLC or corporate
ownership. Currently, a landlord can own dozens of buildings
through numerous LLCs and have no consistent point of contact,
rack up code violations, and avoid meaningful accountability.
We're seeing an increased trend of even our smallest buildings being bought up by
corporations. The registry creates a direct line from any
property to its responsible owner and property manager, enabling the
city to identify patterns of neglect, flag repeat violators,
and connect buildings under common ownership that are being systematically
mismanaged.
Hidden fees are also pushing housing costs beyond what the rent suggests.
Tenants increasingly face non-transparent junk fees, application
fees, administrative charges, amenity fees, utility markups.
The list goes on and on.
And these fees were unthinkable just a few years ago.
These charges are often undisclosed until the lease signing and are not
captured in any affordability metric, meaning the true cost of renting
is even higher than the headline numbers show.
Chicago is an outlier. We don't have the critical tools to
support renters that many of our peer cities, like New York City,
LA, Philly, DC, Newark have. They all have rental
registries, a Bureau of Rental Housing Service type
office, and just cause protections.
So to address the lack of data, we are introducing a rental registry, which we'll
get into more detail on each of these components here shortly.
To address limited capacity for coordinated enforcement, we're establishing a
Bureau of Rental Housing Services.
To address costly displacement due to no fault of their own, we are establishing
just cause for eviction.
To address the legal representation gap, we are codifying the Eviction Council
program or the Right to Council program, which has closed the legal
representation gap, which was formerly 90% of
tenants previously did not have access to legal services.
And to address the changing rental market and conditions that tenants are facing,
we are updating the Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance, or RLTO,
again, first passed by Mayor Harold Washington 40 years ago, to bring
critical reforms to things like security deposits, banning junk fees, and
establishing a tenant bill of rights.
And with that, I will pass it to Commissioner Castañeda.
Good morning. Again, for the record, Lizette Castañeda, Commissioner for the
Department of Housing.
John has laid out a big picture, and I'm going to go into a little bit of detail.
A lot of this is also in your packets.
Number one, the first part of the pillar of PRO is a citywide
rental registry. This rental registry will enable DOH and
the city to track key data on private market rentals to better
inform city policy, as well as monitor compliance with existing
laws governing rental housing. In addition,
this registry will facilitate more efficient communication with
property owners. As you can see on the screen, depending on the
property size, there is a different fee per unit that
is annual.
The funds from the
rental registry will fund
all of the work of PRO, including the Bureau of Rental Housing
Services.
The Bureau of Rental Housing Services will be established to benefit renters,
landlords, and aldermanic offices.
Everyone will have a single point of intake, one place
where aldermanic offices can refer issues to, where renters can
call, and where landlords can also call to get guidance on how to be in
compliance. This bureau will also be able to navigate and
coordinate among the various city departments that are often involved in
housing enforcement. There will be free legal information
available, and ultimately, it will lead to faster dispute
resolution, less time in eviction court, and stronger
landlord-tenant relationships.
We understand that going to eviction court is a costly process for
landlords and for tenants. Predictable enforcement will also
mean that rules will be applied consistently.
No more of small landlords having to compete with landlords that are cutting
corners.
The third pillar is just cause for eviction.
It does establish that landlords must provide a valid reason to evict or not
renew a lease. Under the current law, as has been stated, there is no
reason that is required as long as the proper notice is
given. We believe this will eliminate about 10,000 annual no-fault
displacements. For fault reasons, any reason
that is the violation of a lease remain untouched.
So things like non-payment of rent, criminal activity, or other violations of
lease terms continue to be avenues available to
landlords without any change. No-fault reasons that are
valid will include owner or family move-in, substantial rehab, condo
conversions, demolitions, or removal from the rental market.
Those will require relocation assistance.
You can see the table here for the relocation assistance.
Again, anything that is a fault-based cause, such as non-payment
of rent,
material non-compliance with the lease, or a refusal from the tenant to not
renew will not require rental assistance.
Any of the other pieces you can see on the screen, the various levels
of relocation assistance that will be required.
You can also see that there will be a difference between owner-occupied
units and non-owner occupied. We want to help small
landlords as much as possible. So owner-occupied six
units or less will have a lower relocation fee.
On the right, you can also see an average moving cost.
This comes from widely available data on what it takes to
move every time someone is required to do so.
The fourth pillar is the establishment of, through the ordinance,
of the Eviction Council program. Currently, there has been the right to council
pilot that has been run through the Department of Housing since 2022.
The program provides full legal representation for all
income-eligible tenants with an eviction defense and legal advice for
all other eligible tenants. The program has been incredibly successful.
As you can see on the map, someone in every single part of the
city has used this program. And
per the report from Stout that was referenced earlier, it
returns between $2.75 and
$3.35 in fiscal benefits to the city for
every $1 invested. Since 2022, this program
has saved the city of Chicago 13.6 million in cumulative
benefits. This means less pressure on things like emergency rooms and
on the homelessness system.
And the fifth pillar is the broad reform to the Residential Landlord Tenant
Ordinance and the establishment of a Tenant Bill of Rights.
Starting with some of the bigger things, we're looking at the banning of
move-in fees, move-out fees, and other non-refundable junk fees.
It is the first ordinance to do so at the scope in the state.
It also provides landlords with a cure window.
This is something we heard a lot from our industry partners,
so that there is
time to correct a violation before fines are issued.
In addition, the other thing we heard from industry folks was the
difficulty of the current status of security deposit
regulations, and so this will remove the requirement that landlords keep
security deposits in interest-bearing accounts, thereby reducing the
penalties. Ultimately, it will make the RLTO more clear and accessible
so both landlords and tenants can understand the law
and their rights without a lawyer, which we know can be cost-prohibitive,
particularly for small landlords.
For the Tenant Bill of Rights, you can see them all listed out here.
They range from things like a habitable home to terminating a lease under fair
conditions, freedom from retaliation, and includes provisions
for the protection of survivors of gender-based violence.
And then the other section, going deeper on the fees.
Things like application fees will be capped at $20,
and will be prohibited if a tenant can provide a portable tenant screening
report. Things like pet fees will be limited to either a one-time
fee or an ongoing monthly fee, but not both.
Tenant-incurred costs continue to be protected for landlords, allowing them to
pass on any fee that can be documented, such as
for key replacement and insufficient funds charges.
It does cover optional services and amenities requested
in writing by a tenant, and third-party services cannot be marked up.
Things like utility passthroughs will be limited to actual
utility costs. There can be no markups or administrative fees or
surcharges allowed, and it does regulate ratio utility
billing systems. Ultimately, a landlord must be able to provide
written, itemized documentation before charging any fee.
No fee may exceed the landlord's actual cost, and routine maintenance and
upkeep cost cannot be passed through as fees.
Broadly, PRO has a lot of shared benefits for renters,
landlords, and the entirety of Chicago.
It is one place where you can find information, to file complaints, to get
help, and to understand your rights.
This will be true for both renters and landlords.
We expect that there will be faster resolution of habitability issues, lockouts,
and lease disputes. There will be access to legal representation when a tenant
is facing eviction, and no more junk fees before or during a
tenancy. Landlords will also benefit from
a one intake channel instead of navigating six separate
departments. There will be faster dispute resolution.
We have heard a lot from folks about how long it takes to go to court, and
we know that this work will cut down on that time.
And small landlords will have access to city resources, the same
ones that large property managers are able to get for themselves.
Ultimately, this levels the playing field.
No more competing with non-compliant operators who are cutting corners.
Overall, this will be the first time that there will be centralized data on rental
ownership and conditions citywide, enabling proactive enforcement
from the Rental Housing Services Bureau and for alders.
Fewer evictions will mean lower crime, stronger neighborhoods, and stable
communities, and it is a self-sustaining system funded by registration
fees, not regressive taxes.
It will make DOB enforcement of building conditions less challenging and
will bring Chicago in line with every comparable major US
city.
For a second here, I'm going to go a little deeper on the small landlords.
And as a reminder, owner-occupied two to six flats are
exempt from the registry fee. Free compliance
guidance before any fine is issued will be available for
landlords, and landlords will be able to get support from
RHS. Smaller landlords will have access to what bigger
landlords are able to pay for through lawyers and other services.
One door for complaints will make it easier for everyone to be able to
access help for their rights and responsibilities,
and it will level the playing field for all.
I'll turn it over to Jung for implementation
Thank you, Commissioner. So to briefly overview operations and our
implementation plan,
we will have a three-year phased-in approach that will
initially start with existing staff across the
departments you see on this chart.
Department of Housing, Department of Buildings, Department of Law, 311, and DTI
will all be supporting the implementation of this ordinance.
DOL will be able to hire four new additional
attorneys to support with the RLTO enforcement.
In year two, we start to be able to
see expanded staff and services funded again
by the rental registry, and at the end
of year three, we'll be fully staffed across the
city. The three-year
implementation phase will be phased in to
align with revenue expectations, staffing, and operational
capacity. In your packets, you have a more detailed chart
of the different components of each of those three years for your
reference.
And with that, I will turn it back to the chairman. Thank you.
Thank you. Before we move into questions,
we like to introduce the remaining subject matter experts and city staff
in the box ready and able to respond to any questions committee members
may have. Joining
today as guests from earlier are Michelle Gilbert,
legal and policy director from the Law Center for the Low Income
Committee for Better Housing, Low Income Center for Better Housing.
You can raise your hand if you want, just so that they can see you.
John Ravensberg, supervising attorney, Law Center for Better
Housing. Marty Kozola, staff counsel,
Impact for Equity.
Commissioner Marlene Hopkins of the Department of Buildings.
Natalia Soria, director of policy in the mayor's office.
Matt Stern, deputy commissioner, Department of Housing.
And Alexis
Smith-Sir De Leon, senior policy
analyst at the Department of Housing.
We have Alderwoman
Rosario Rodriguez Sanchez, followed by Alderman Quesada, and then we also have
a Rule 15 request by Alderman Robinson.
Can I get a motion to allow him to participate remotely?
So moved by Alderperson Rosario Rodriguez Sanchez. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
We have Alderman Robinson now on Zoom, and we start with
Alderperson Rosario Rodriguez Sanchez, followed by Alderman Quesada and
Alderwoman Tavares. Anybody else, please let us know.
We add you to the roll.
And we're going to have about seven minutes for each question, and we have till
we go round two. Alderwoman.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, everybody, for being here today.
This is
legislation that have been a long time coming.
I have a couple of questions to create a little bit of clarity.
We have heard from landlords and real estate
lobby that a citywide rental
registry will become an expensive bureaucratic hurdle.
Can somebody explain the operational
value of a registry? Specifically, how will
tracking building violations in real time can allow the
city to target predatory bad actors while leaving compliant
community-based landlords alone?
Thank you for that question, Alderwoman.
Right now, currently, a landlord could own dozens of buildings through
numerous LLCs without a consistent point of contact.
And so when we are receiving calls,
it requires a lot of work to figure out who the right owner is to remedy an issue.
And so in order to ensure consistent accountability and
enforcement to level the playing field, the rental registry will help
create that direct line of contact
from any property to its responsible owner and property manager.
That will help us better identify patterns of neglect, flag repeat
violations, and connect buildings under common ownership so that we can
see if things are being systematically under-managed to see what kinds
of supports those landlords would need to come into compliance to better serve
their tenants.
And I want to share a little bit of an experience
in my community. I have a landlord
who is very famous in the city of Chicago.
He owns 70 plus buildings
between my ward and the 35th Ward.
The only time when people could call this landlord
with issues in the building was from 8:00 a.m.
to 8:30 a.m.
After that, there was no way to reach anybody.
So of course, a lot of the issues with the building went
unanswered.
This was affordable housing or has been affordable, but
he was also a slumlord, and it was
incredibly difficult to get them to fix things in the apartment.
Most of the people who lived in the units are very vulnerable
people,
many undocumented people, people who are under the poverty
line.
And it was enraging to see people bringing all of these
concerns to our office over and over and over and not having a
way to hold this landlord accountable.
So I do believe that a rental registry is a really important
part of bringing justice to
renters.
I also wanted to address the comments that were made during
public comment by some of the
advocates for landlords and the real estate
lobby
around how this translates into rent control.
I think it's important that we address that point.
Because I think that it creates a lot of
confusion.
Can somebody address the point around rent control
tied into the way that this ordinance works?
Absolutely. Thank you for that question, Alderwoman.
The Protecting Renters Ordinance is not a backdoor to rent control.
As you are all well aware, we are prohibited from instituting rent
control by the state.
PRO does not cap rents or limit what a landlord may charge.
We did hear feedback that the standard of unconscionability
was confusing, and so we have removed that from the introduced
ordinance. What this ordinance does do is it
regulates fees, lease terms, and notice requirements, and these are the
same categories of conduct already addressed under the existing
RLTO.
And the state legislation on junk fees reform that was recently
passed confirms that those local tenant protections of this kind are not
preempted by the state.
Thank you for that.
Another thing that I heard on the
public comment was the idea that
this is going to have a really negative impact on good small
landlords. And I know that you talked about
the different tiers.
Can you stress that a little bit more so that there
is no confusion here about what this ordinance
does with small landlords, the good actors?
Yes. Thank you for the question. So we've made a number of
key provisions throughout the ordinance to protect
the small mom-and-pop landlords.
Owner-occupied six units or less will be exempt from paying
the fee. They will still need to register their unit so we can have the accurate
data, but they will not have to pay that small annual cost.
Additionally,
currently owner-occupied buildings of six units or less,
especially those small ones, don't always have access to attorneys or legal
counsel, and so the Bureau of Rental Housing Services will
be able to offer free compliance guidance and support for those landlords.
Currently, that's really inaccessible for small landlords if they can't afford to
pay a lawyer. So that's a disadvantage they have to the larger
corporate owners. We've additionally made some
differentiations in the relocation assistance required by
owner-occupied
unit, six or fewer units
for just cause provisions to end or not renew a
lease, very much in an understanding of the different types
of burdens. And at the end of the day, this is about
protecting renters to make sure that
tenants can continue to stay in our city and grow and
thrive.
Thank you.
Can you also speak a little bit, now that you were talking about legal
representation for
small landlords, how does the Council for
Tenants helps keep people safe?
Thank you for that question. So through our work with
the Right to Counsel program, we have been able to provide legal
representation to tenants facing eviction.
Currently, about 90% of landlords have legal representation in eviction
court, compared to about 10% of tenants.
Right.
So in the 42-month pilot that we've been running, the program has
served over 4,000 households, with 92 to
95% of them having a success in avoiding formal
eviction. And again, this garners benefits for the City of
Chicago, as for every dollar invested, between
$2.35 and $3.25 is a net
benefit to the city.
I want to say that that is such an important part of this.
My office receives calls every day
trying to help people that are struggling with bad
actor landlords, and if it was not because of MTO
and Beyond Legal Aid, I have no idea how we would be helping
people be able to stay safe in their units.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Alderman Quesada, followed by Alderperson
Tavares.
Thank you, Chair. I rise today in support of this ordinance.
I have been a renter my entire life.
Just a couple of years ago, I wasn't allowed to renew the lease on my last
apartment after I spoke up and held my landlord accountable for
not addressing a host of issues with my unit and the apartment building.
As a kid, my family experienced housing instability, and just last
year, my mom was able to secure an apartment after experiencing
homelessness for nearly two years.
So this is something that I understand very deeply, very personally, but also
because of the experiences in my ward.
As an alderman, as a county commissioner, I've helped dozens of
renters who have been displaced, who have been evicted.
And this is what has contributed to the story that a lot of people know
of Logan Square, of having this horrible legacy of displacement.
And that is why we need the Protecting Renters Ordinance.
I also just want to say that I reject the idea that we have to choose between
building housing and protecting renters.
We need more affordable housing, but building housing and strengthening renters
protections are not competing goals. They go hand in hand.
If we want people to stay in our neighborhoods, raise their families
here, and put down roots, then we have to make sure that they have both housing
options and basic protections. So,
I want to ask, I know that my colleague just asked some of the questions that I
wanted to ask, and because we're always on the same page, can you explain what
this ordinance does not do? Specifically, can you clarify
that landlords still retain the ability to evict tenants for
non-payment of rent or lease violations?
Thank you, Alderman. That is correct.
Under just cause for eviction, the current
for-cause eviction reasons remain.
So non-payment of rent, material non-compliance with the lease,
all of those things remain valid grounds for eviction.
What the just cause for eviction provisions do is to really
protect the renters who, through no fault of their own, are being
displaced from their units. These are model tenants who have paid their
rent on time, done everything right, and are still being
displaced. We know, like you referenced, this is a tool for
displacement and gentrification in
neighborhoods that are quickly growing in value.
Landlords will sometimes kick out their tenants so that they can do a gut
rehab and triple the rent. And these are the
right of the landlord, but what we are asking is to balance and support the
tenants who are being displaced to mitigate from those
unexpected sudden costs through relocation assistance.
Thank you. So Chicago hasn't substantially updated its landlord-tenant
ordinance in four decades. From your perspective, why is it important
that our laws reflect today's rental market?
And how does this ordinance help create more stability and predictability for
both tenants and landlords?
Thank you so much, Alderman, for that question.
I think ultimately it has changed a lot to rent an apartment in the
last 40 years. And having
updated laws that reflect the current reality
is incredibly important. Equally to that, though, is
things like the Bureau for Rental Housing Services, which will allow both renters
and landlords to act as guidance for compliance, to give
landlords the ability to have cure periods, and again, to just overall
even out the playing field for everyone.
We know that this is necessary because so much
has changed in the last 40 years, and that's also why it's important
that these pillars all go together.
Excellent. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Alderman Kassan. Alderman Tavares, followed by Alderman
Villegas.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon.
Can you help me understand what the Housing Advisory Committee
on Renting Right is and
who is part of that?
Absolutely. I'm actually going to turn it over to Edwin Ortiz-Reyes to talk
about that work in the Department of Housing.
There we go.
Thank you, Commissioner Castaneda.
For the record, Edwin Ortiz-Reyes, Director of Policy with the Department of
Housing. Thank you for the question, Alderperson.
The Department of Housing has been convening the Advisory Committee on Renting
Right since 2021. It is
an aggregate group of tenant advocates,
service providers, legal aid providers,
landlords, and industry groups. The group has met since
2024, 10 times to date, with an upcoming meeting in August of
this year.
And the current members for the 2025/2026
cohort, as we call them, include the Chicago Association of
Realtors, the Chicago Apartment Association, TLG Development
LLC, the Chicago Urban League, Metropolitan Tenants Organization,
Spanish Coalition for Housing, Hannah Center, the Center on Halsted,
the Network Advocating Against Domestic Violence, the Chicago Commission on Human
Relations, the Community Investment Corporation, Palenke LSNA,
Legal Aid Chicago, and the Law Center for Better Housing.
We are running right now in a two-year cycle with expected
applications opening up again early next year.
What's the makeup of, or ratio of the housing
providers and the tenant advocacy groups?
What's the
ratio or makeup of it?
We have three housing provider/industry groups, including, like
I mentioned, TLG, the Realtors, and the Apartment Association.
We also have groups representing small landlords specifically, like the Community
Investment Corporation and Spanish Coalition for Housing.
All of those are industry and landlord groups.
In terms of actual tenant advocates, we have the Metropolitan Tenants
Organization and Palenke LSNA as the two
formal tenant advocacy groups. The other ones are legal aid providers.
So can you confirm the number? Is it five to 10, or what's the
ratio from housing providers to-
Roughly five out of 15, so 33%.
So five
housing providers and then 10 advocacy groups?
No, the other groups include service providers and legal aid providers.
They're not all advocacy groups.
They're not all advocacy. But is the advisory group balanced,
the ratio from housing providers to advocacy group?
Is there a balance in this?
I would say so. 33% of a 15-person group.
Okay. Now, can you help me understand, does this
ordinance follow the model of what other
US cities are doing in the United States?
And which cities are those?
That's the question.
Yes. Thanks again, Alderperson.
So Chicago is, like Jung mentioned earlier, lagging behind
every other major municipality in the United States in creating the systems
necessary to regulate our rental market.
Other major municipalities, not just the ones that we showed earlier, have
things like a rental registry, have a
bureau or a dedicated office for rental housing services, and have just cause for
evictions protections. The examples that we used earlier are just a
snippet, but these
regulations are broad and exist in many municipalities and
many states across the
United States. Where Chicago is unique is that we lag behind
every other major city in updating our-
Sorry to interrupt, but what about other cities like
Austin, Nashville, Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Las Vegas.
They don't have these policies. Have we looked into those cities?
They're achieving declining rents and greater affordability by
attracting more housing development. So have we looked into those cities?
Thank you for that question, Alderwoman.
So,
over 250 jurisdictions nationwide operate rental
registries. 36 jurisdictions have enacted just cause
for eviction protections. At least 22 jurisdictions have enacted
right to counsel programs. And a number of
other peer cities also have some type of Bureau of
Rental Housing Services or something akin to that.
As for the specifics of the cities you're mentioning,
we've been looking at a broad scope,
taking into account different best practices across the
country.
So are we looking at those cities, though, that I mentioned, like Austin,
Nashville, Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Las Vegas?
Have we considered looking into those cities?
Yes.
Because they don't have these policies that we're talking about, and they're
achieving declining rents.
So we have studied their zoning reform.
What
you're referencing, I think, is development,
and we've instituted our Cut the Tape for development to streamline
housing development. Housing is a very complex issue and not a
one size fits all. And so this particular ordinance is
really structured to support tenants and their rights to make sure that they
have a more equal playing field under a judicial
system that favors and privileges landlords and property
owners. And so then when it comes to housing production,
we have the Cut the Tape program to offer
streamlining on our zoning approval and housing approval processes.
We have our $1.25 billion housing and economic development bond to
invest in things like Missing Middle, our homegrown assistance
program, and the like. So we're presenting this is just one
component in our entire housing infrastructure.
So help me understand what Springfield passed, the General Assembly.
They passed this House Bill
3564 that bans the 11
different so-called junk fees, caps application fees
to $50.
Absolutely. Thank you.
Help me understand how is that any different what we're doing here?
Why do we need another solution here?
Thank you for that question. I think ultimately the state established a floor, not
a ceiling, and I'm going to let Donovan Harvey go into detail on that.
I just want to make sure we're giving landlords enough time,
given that Springfield passed a bill, now we're discussing this
ordinance. I just want to make sure we're giving landlords enough time to come
into compliance.
Thank you for the question, Alderman, and good morning.
For the record, my name is Donovan Harvey.
I'm the Director of Housing on the Mayor's Office Business and Neighborhood
Development team. So we appreciate the question in terms of the similarities
between House Bill 3564, which currently awaits the governor's
signature, and what we are proposing under the application fee and
more general fee reform.
Is the mic on?
Alderman Moore? Yeah.
You say it's waiting for the governor's signature, or has it been
signed?
Signed.
It said it's waiting for the
governor's signature. That's why I was asking. Clarifying.
Apologies. Thank you for the clarification.
In any event,
what is proposed under the House bill, as the commissioner mentioned, is a floor,
not a ceiling, and it explicitly contains language authorizing
municipalities to impose stronger, more protective
regulations, such as what are being proposed here today.
In terms of some specific differences between what
was proposed under House Bill 3564 and this proposal,
what ultimately was passed are amount to transparency
requirements and the prohibition on a select number of
fees. Our proposal is stronger, capping application
fees at $20, which is the initial language of House Bill
3564, prohibiting move-in fees while also making
complementary reductions to the rules
surrounding security deposits to ensure ease of implementation.
And more broadly, proposing a framework that prevents the
whack-a-mole game of landlords renaming fees by introducing a class of
allowable fees to ensure landlords can recoup reasonable
costs of providing a service while ensuring that tenants are not saddled with
unfair, unnecessary, or unclear fees.
I would just
note that the state bill did preserve home rule authority,
leaving Chicago with the ability to add tenant protections.
Alderwoman, do you want to round two?
Okay.
So we're going to follow by Alderman
Villegas, followed by Alderman Espada.
Oh, point of clarification, Alderwoman Dowell.
Point of information. You said the allowable
fees. Are they called down in the legislation here that we have in front of us?
And if so, could you point to the section?
Yes. So the allowable fees are going to be in Section
5-12-081. It should be the second
subsection in that section.
Thank you for the question, Alderwoman.
Thank you.
That's 081.
Thank you. Alderman Villegas, followed by Alderman Espada.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would it be possible to go to the slide where I think it
said 622,000 renters?
Yeah, that's the slide. So, quick question.
So I see that on another slide that
CHA and not-for-profit
providers are exempt from the legislation.
Is that accurate?
They will be exempt from the fees. We are asking that they still register so that
we can have an accurate count.
Do they have to pay for the fee and the registration?
Are they exempt from that fee as well?
They are exempt from the rental registry fee.
So, that's the only thing they're exempt from.
They still have to be part of the whole rental
ordinance outside of the registry.
Correct.
Okay. And why isn't CHA here? Because,
even though they're exempt, they're part of the ordinance, and they're the
largest landlord in the city of Chicago.
And the first speaker that was brought up was this young lady in the pink
dress-- I'm sorry, pink jacket, that talked about CHA and the
Section 8 housing voucher.
Mm-hmm.
So I was curious as to why aren't they here to
talk about and hear from their
renters as well as hear from us-
Mm-hmm
... as to some of the issues that CHA continues to get away with
as the largest landlord in the city of Chicago.
Mm-hmm.
I can turn it over to the team to talk about our engagement with CHA.
I will just say broadly that part of what Tia mentioned
in her remarks was actually the assistance that she received positively from
CHA. And part of what we would like to see is to see that kind of expansion and
that kind of authority that CHA has to intervene in difficult cases
expanded to all tenants.
Edwin, can you or Donna?
Question, alderman, and okay, good. The mic is on.
So CHA has been consulted throughout the process.
They've reviewed the ordinance as well and provided feedback, and some of their
feedback is reflected in the ordinance language.
In addition, just from a clarification standpoint, there are sections, while the
RLTO broadly applies to CHA-owned and operated
units, there are carve-outs for some sections related to CHA.
And any impositions on CHA under city law are
superseded by federal regulations that the CHA would be subject to.
So would that account for the property that are
not the actual facilities, but the ones that they've purchased and are managing?
So if there is-- And it depends.
It actually might be useful to follow up offline in terms of the specifics of that
request, because it's going to depend a little bit on which section of the
ordinance we're describing in terms of the carve-outs around CHA.
And then,
there's a lot of good things in this ordinance that I want to support.
But again, here we are once again where an
ordinance is being drafted and I'm hearing from the
housing providers that there wasn't enough
engagement from their side, and I'm hearing that was 33% or something like that,
whatever the number is. But
I think that
if there's a willingness to figure out how to continue dialogue on this, we can get
to, it doesn't have to be perfect, but a better ordinance
where we're taking into account the housing providers
and what it is that they want to do to help.
This whole adversarial approach just really frustrates me.
It's always you guys putting us in a position where
it's, "Oh, you're with these guys or with that guy." No, no, no.
I want to make sure people are continuing to invest in the city.
I want to make sure that we're providing good housing.
I want to make sure that we're growing the city's population.
I want to make sure that we're getting these investments that ultimately
generate property tax revenue, so that way we're not having to continue
to tax the people that are just here. We get new people coming in here.
And so, we do have a housing crisis, and we do have a housing issue
because of the lack of urgency from government, and it's not just this
administration, from government about how to get projects completed.
The fact that it takes months and years in some cases to go through a permitting
process is crazy. So I'm going to be working on that.
But I'm just saying, can we get to a point where we're having a
discussion and having everybody have a voice at the table, and then once
that product is completed, if they don't agree with it, fine, at least they had an
opportunity to voice? Because some cases it's about ideas
and not about the actual implementation
and real-life experiences. That's all I'm asking for is that if we can have
these discussions. We've seen what happened when you guys put forward
the ordinance where HUD-- Not HUD. Strike that, not HUD.
Fannie and Freddie Mac were opposed to it,
the right of first refusal. The banks were concerned about this.
And had you just engaged them early on, you could've put forward an ordinance that
would be better. So
it's not even a question so much as a comment.
If we can stop with the politics and figure out how we can get actual
people to
have a better housing for themselves and have a balance on this, I would appreciate
that. Instead of having this all the time, creating adversarial
relationships where you're making members who support some of the things that are
in here but are trying to figure out how to draw a balance.
You make it a political stunt, and I'm just so
frustrated about that. And so if we can--
I know you want to get this going, but if we can have further discussions around
how to make it a little bit better, so that way some of us can support it, I would
appreciate that. So that's what I'm asking.
If there's an opportunity to continue figuring out how to make it a little bit
better, so that way we continue to get the investments. We need the investment.
We need people to invest here. You removed the unconscionable
portion of this, which in essence tells me that ultimately,
that's going to be passed to the renter.
Because that struck.
Because under the state's Rental Control Preemption Act, I
suppose that the legal department said, "Hey, this is akin to that." So instead of
putting renters in a position where we're saying the landlord has to do all
these things, and listen, they're in the business to make money
And what they're going to do is pass it on to the renter.
And so my question is, did we solve for the rental crisis?
Did we solve for the rental increase?
No, because property taxes are there, garbage tax, water
tax. So we continue to put all these burden on the
housing provider and then expect them to absorb it.
But at some point, the smaller ones, the smaller landlords, are
the ones that are having to make these tough decisions.
The BlackRocks, listen,
they're not good for the housing industry, okay?
And I'm glad that Washington, DC took a bipartisan approach to
limit the amount of those firms that can purchase property because that's a bad
thing, right? They artificially inflated prices across
America. But I'm more concerned with the local
developers and landlords and housing providers here that
are trying to be a good partner, and you continue to paint them all with the same
brush. Let's stop that. Let's figure out how to provide
affordable housing, affordable, reliable housing, but bring everybody
to the table so we can have a discussion, please. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman.
We have now
Alderman Espada, followed by Alderman Dow.
Thank you so much, Chair. I appreciate the presentation
very much on this. I wish I could say that this is in particular order, but let's
just say no particular order.
Looking at page 13 from the start, looking at
number four,
banning a fee for optional services, recurring or non-recurring, provided
at the tenant's written request.
It's something that struck me because I want to make sure that
landlords don't turn
items that are available to all into optional items.
For example, like if there's a fitness center in your building, I don't
want that becoming optional. If there's a rooftop deck-
Mm-hmm
... that should not become optional.
Particularly, like I think about our ARO residents in particular.
How does the ordinance guard against or how can we guard
against amenities in the building becoming optional
services?
Right. Thank you so much for that question, Alderman.
I'm going to turn it over to Donovan to talk about the intent of that
section.
Thank you, Alderman, for the question.
So the intent is not to force landlords into
segmenting these services off to
specific tenants. The intention of the section as written is to
prevent situations where tenants are charged fees for
amenities that they're not using and didn't ask for.
So if there is a mandatory $120 pool fee for a tenant that can't
swim, it's the position of this proposal that the tenant shouldn't have to be
paying for that because that's an amenity that they're not asking for.
When we have tenants requesting the amenities, which we might imagine in the case
of a fitness center, of course, the expectation is that the tenant would pay for
that amenity.
Yeah, but should you have to request things that are in the
building that you signed a lease in?
It's kind of what I'm getting at. I want to make sure that we don't
create a path for them saying, "Well, you didn't,
in writing, request something that existed in the building that you signed a
lease in."
It wouldn't require something in writing for them to access the
service. What it would require in writing is that request in order to charge for
the service. So if the landlord is charging a fee independent
of the base rent, which is what paid for the pool or the otherwise amenity,
if the landlord is charging an additional fee for the amenity, that's
where those requirements come into play.
If the landlord has priced into the rent, okay, I've installed a fitness center, or
I've installed a pool and the tenant wants to access that and there's no additional
fee, this section wouldn't come into play at all.
Okay. I'll follow up on that.
I wanted to ask more about the utility piece of this.
In particular,
numbers one and two on page 14, and I find
this
deeply valuable because it has been a current and growing issue,
in Logan Square and I suspect across the whole of the city for a while now, the
breaking down of utility masters fees for things like water,
finding ways to chunk that out into
unconfirmed or verified utility fees on tenants.
Can somebody speak more about how that will
prevent unverified utility fees
against tenants?
I'd be happy to. Thank you for the question, Alder.
So one, in terms of the echoing the experience that you
shared, it's something we've heard from constituents across the city as well, being
put in situations where they have absolutely no way of verifying if a
utility charge that is attributed to them actually makes sense or is
consistent with their share of the utility usage or the size of their
apartment. So the way this section functions is that while
landlords would remain able to use a formula to divide
utility payments in a master metered building, it is now
required that, one, the formula be made available to tenants
in such a way that they are able to calculate the charge themselves,
and that a copy of the bill for any given billing period for which a charge is
requested also be made available to tenants.
So in short, the idea is that a tenant would be able to take a look at the formula,
take a look at the bill, and say, "Okay, this is what I'm supposed to pay," and
match that to what the landlord is charging them.
How does the landlord have to justify the accuracy of that formula?
Can you-
That is to say,
what prevents me from
making up a formula that inaccurately
represents, let's say, the water utilization or the
electricity utilization of that particular tenant?
That's a good question. So our understanding, and we'd be happy to follow up
through the chair as well, is that typically these formulas are based on
the unit size or the number of occupants in the unit, or potentially the square
footage. In the case of water, it would most likely be on the number of occupants.
But in any case, from the formula, the tenant should be able to
calculate what their charges are.
If they're not able to do the calculation or verify the charge
that is being presented by the landlord, then they'd be in a position to challenge
that charge.
I know we have time between now and passage, so the clock's ticking.
I think this is going to be an interesting thing to dig into between now and
passage, because you could have a 2,000 square foot
unit
with one low flow toilet attached to it.
I want to make sure that we're making sure that
the formulas are accurate,
to the extent that we can, representative of the actual
utility usage of the tenant. I want to
cut to the back on
eviction counsel because since we implemented this, I think it was
in either 2021 or 2022, it has
been profoundly successful for the city of
Chicago. Part of that profound success has been
grounded in
rental assistance on the back end. I think it was our formula...
Not to bring up your predecessor, who was also great at her job, but Commissioner
DeVaul would frequently talk about what makes us
effective is, hey, if you're three months back on your rent,
having a pathway to making you whole on that three months back
rent. Do we have a pathway for
continuing the rental assistance program that accompanied Right
to Counsel?
Thank you so much for that question.
I think you also know that at some point,
that is something that shifted actually to the state.
Part of what actually makes Right to Counsel so successful is that it is a
partnership at the state, county, and city level.
The city does Right to Counsel. The county does
the
ERP.
It is the rapid consultations for the legal assistance, and then the
state was providing some of that rental assistance.
And so I know that the state is discussing that again, and happy to follow up to
hear more on that.
It was counting up rather than down. Got it. Know that for next time.
I'll submit my last question through the chair. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Alderman.
We have Alderman Dowell, followed by Alderman Moore.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The first thing I want to say is that this is what I would call sweeping
legislation that I think requires more socialization.
And
I hope that you will consider that as we move
forward.
I guess this is a question for the lawyer.
Rule 41,
can you explain to me how this direct introduction
applies to Rule 41?
This does not seem to be an emergency.
Yes. Lindsay Sunenthal, Department of Law.
Essentially, Rule 41, as you know, explains that
ordinances have to go through a certain process in order to
come to committee. An exception is when an
operating department, office, or agency, in order to facilitate an
expeditious hearing on said matter where emergency
exists.
My understanding is that due to the
housing crisis going on now, and the affordability crisis, and the
speed at which it has been affecting Chicagoans,
the mayor's office, who introduced this ordinance,
believes this to be an emergent situation, and I
believe Jung Yoon can explain further their reasoning there.
Thank you, Lindsay. Thank you-
I see you anticipated this question, so let's go.
Yes, Alderwoman. As Lindsay was alluding to,
Chicagoans are facing a long building housing
crisis that we did not make, but we are responsible to address.
And when we're seeing increasingly rapid housing
costs, expensive junk fees, sometimes adding over $1,000 to
monthly rents, and increased displacement pressures across the city,
we need to respond with the comprehensive solutions today that
renters need. They've been waiting 40 years
for an update and-
And one more month would not have made a difference?
I think we've heard plenty of stories from tenants who can't afford to
wait. And so in order to facilitate that expeditious-
All right. Let's move on
... discussion.
That's a bunch of junk.
Speaking of junk.
When we look at junk fees on page, I think that's five.
Are you saying that all of these fees listed here
are
determined to be junk fees?
Yeah.
Alderwoman, are you referencing this
slide?
Yeah. This
is yours, right? And it looks like it's page
five.
Are these all considered junk fees?
The question, Alderwoman, and junk fees is not a term of art.
There are some fees here that we would not call junk fees, but
the purpose of this slide is to demonstrate the extraordinarily
high cost of fees that tenants face when they move into apartment here in the
city. Some of these fees would be permitted
under the ordinance as an allowable fee.
Can you identify what would be permitted under the ordinance
on this list?
Well,
if we can get the slideshow back up.
Yes, but to the sheet that you have in front of you, Alderman, for
example, failure to return keys would be an example of an allowable
fee.
I had checked that one. I agree with you on that.
Can you go down this list and tell me what's, in your vision,
is junk and what's not?
I can. So...
The ones I checked. A background check would not be considered
junk, right?
Correct. That'd be allowed.
Credit check?
Allowed.
And I had after-hours maintenance requests.
No, that would be prohibited.
Yeah, that would be prohibited.
Prohibited. Okay. The
other ones make sense to me to be prohibited.
And to flag, several of these fees are also prohibited under House
Bill 3564 as well.
All right.
Let's go to page 11.
Can you give me an understanding of how you
determine five months or 5,000, three
months or 3,000? I want to know the thinking that went
into creating these standards.
And then my second question is, when you speak of something like
significant repair needed or other
unlawful reasons, how is that defined?
Thank you. There we go. Thank you, Alderwoman.
For the first question on how the rental or the
relocation assistance is determined, it's based on a calculation of average moving
cost, using the average rent in Chicago.
On the slide
there on the right side, you can see that looking at average rent and just
the usual cost of moving for a household, we're nearing $7,000
every time a household has to relocate.
So with the intention there is to make sure that the relocation assistance is
enough where the tenant or the household that has to find new housing
through no fault of their own doesn't also have to absorb an exorbitant moving
cost that could have other downhill negative impacts on the family,
especially when they're low income.
Right. But on the one hand, you're talking about a $20, for
example, application fee,
and then on this side of the ledger, it's $240,
500 for the non-refundable move-in fee.
It looks like you padded-
Yeah.
-an amount.
To your question specifically about applications, when we did this calculus,
we used what is an average application fee right now, which would be around
$60. And also making the assumption that a household is not just going to
apply to a single unit, they're likely going to apply to several units through the
moving process until they find something that is acceptable and can accommodate
their family.
Right. But then you have...
I'll take a round two.
Round two. Thank you, Alderwoman.
Alderman Moore, followed by Alderwoman Mana Appenworth.
Okay. I don't think I have a lot of questions.
I think a lot of them were answered, but I just want to chime
in on the fact, and Alderman Villegas and then Alderman
Dowell touched on it, is sort of what we dealt with when we
were dealing
with the head tax in terms of the people that were brought in in a
timely fashion. I have to get on the mic and echo
that because that was one of my things.
For me, I heard somebody stand up here, and I know
for lack of knowledge, sometimes people say certain things.
People talked about
people getting donations, and we're accountable for this and that.
Those same people that I went to are people that I call
when somebody's looking for a house.
When some of the hardest housed people in
my community, I can pick up the phone and call certain landlords
and get that help for them. Not only for
to get that help for them, to also hire folks.
And so when we do not sit down with those people,
it puts me specifically, I would say, I can't speak for
everybody,
when we haven't sat down with those people in a position, not from a
standpoint of who donates, but the people who
I'm calling on to help the very people that we're trying to help all the
time. And so
with that said, and I'm glad Alderman Dowell brought it up.
I understand what's going on at the federal level, but
a month away or whatever to do all of this, it's not that much of an
emergency. You're looking at a
person who come out of Section 8, who has
rented, who deal with a lot of their residents right now,
and I'm just sometimes concerned because I know what I
get coming to my office. I get there's not enough
affordable housing. And so,
the rental part, I think it needs to be addressed.
I think there's an opportunity here, as Alderman Villegas
stated, because there's some good stuff in here.
But we don't want to be in a position where we just want to vote no on something
when we can probably get to a yes. And that
yes becomes
Everybody's going to hurt a little bit probably.
And I was glad to hear
the stories about the people that are
impacted. I took notes, but at the same time,
the housing providers should have been over there as well, because it helps
us to hear and more information so that we can
make
the best decision for the residents.
As we know, ordinances change, and this is a long ordinance.
I've gone through it. I haven't fully read it like I want, and things have
changed a little bit since, I think, the first one.
And so we got the slide deck now that bring up other questions.
And all of these conversations help.
But we need time to digest all of this.
But at the same time,
the providers are going to ask questions to you
all as you all are sitting down with them or saying, "We can do this," or, "We
can't do that," based on questions I can't think of right now.
And so I encourage that
before we
move forward with this. My other thing is that the House bill that was passed
by the state, and thank you for bringing that up, because that was going to be my
questions. And I think someone asked it, but I don't think it was
answered. If you know, have the housing
providers absorbed this yet? Have they
began to make these changes from their standpoint of at
the state level so we can see if anything is helping from that
standpoint? Sometimes we change laws and make laws, but at
these different level in governments, it overall impacts
all of us. And lastly, if somebody can ask that question,
I got to be careful
of sometimes doing the right thing is not doing the right thing.
I don't want to further hurt residents
who I believe some of these fees, many are going to be
passed, too. So I want someone to ask about the House
bill and have these providers had a chance to
absorb them. And then, Commissioner, if you can tell me,
over time for the past three years, and you probably
submitted in budget, has homelessness been rising and at
what rate and what
have we been looking at from
year to year since some of our changes were made, even in ordinances that
we passed, in terms of renters?
Thank you, Alderman. A lot of really great questions in there. I'll do my best.
But it's really just two, really. The others were comments.
It's just two, the House bill and the homelessness.
Sure. And I want to respond to the comments about engagement with
industry partners and the landlords.
The administration and the Department of Housing has been engaged in good faith
conversations and negotiations with landlord
groups on these policy proposals for the last two years.
Their feedback has been incorporated throughout the ordinance,
including many of the final provisions like the removal of security
deposit interest requirements, the current rental registration fee,
the removal of the unconscionable language from
the relocation assistance. And specifically, we heard a
lot from our smaller landlord partners
feeling a real pressure,
not understanding or how to have the resources to
navigate the city's regulatory infrastructure.
And so establishing the Bureau of Rental Housing Services will be able to
provide that free compliance guidance for small landlords, the ones that you have
good relationships with in your ward, right?
And I want to make a distinction that all of these
provisions, right, are not going to negatively impact the landlords who
are doing what they need to be doing, which is the vast
majority of our landlords in this city.
And we applaud that, and they'll continue to operate under
this. And
we appreciate all this feedback. That is why we are having a subject matter
hearing today and not calling for a vote is to continue to get
feedback, get suggestions on how we can improve this to
make sure it meets everyone's needs.
So for the question on the House
bill, was that your question? I'll pass it to Donovan Harvey.
There we go. Thank you for the question, Alderman.
So the House Bill 3564 takes effect on January 1st
of next year. And in our view, this creates an opportunity to build on that law,
which sets a floor, not a ceiling, prior to its effective date so that
landlords and other property owners don't have to adjust to new changing sets
of rules. There's one window where before the law goes into effect
where if you're in Chicago, here's the one change.
The other change is packaged into it.
So landlords don't have to have the rules change on them twice in one go.
Okay.
And then I think there was a second question regarding homelessness.
Can you repeat the question? I want to make sure I understand.
Yeah. I'm trying to see what the trend has been, because I'm
hearing
through some of these conversations that because of the things that's going
on,
people cannot rent. And to me, if people cannot rent,
that mean they're ending up homeless.
And I thought our homeless trend, based on what we're doing, was going
down. So is it going up or is it going down?
I think that I would defer that question to the Mayor's Office on
Homelessness, as I think they're the ones that are tracking trends and doing some
reporting on that. I do believe that there is a report that is going to come to
this body later this summer. And so
we can provide you an answer through the chair, and we'll coordinate with the
Mayor's Office on Homelessness on that.
And as we're going through this and having these conversations, the part where
we're talking about making
Making it public of who that landlord is
and things like that.
When we say public, we're talking about to the overall public, or
are we saying it's somewhere positioned, whether
it's in the Department of Housing or the Department of Buildings, that information?
Are we talking about public, like if I own
multiple properties, is it to the public that David Moore owns
it?
Yeah. There will be different levels to that, and I'll let Edwin get into some
details.
Thank you, Commissioner. Like the Commissioner mentioned, there would be a
public-facing data portal.
The intention is not to make private or personal data available through
the public data portal. What the public data portal would have is basic
information on who the leasing agent is.
So if you're trying to apply for that unit, who is the property manager, who is the
right person to contact to help prevent and cut down on some of the scams that
we're seeing, that you heard about earlier.
And they would also have a contact for maintenance for the property, repairs,
all those things. In terms of actual ownership data, that would be kept
private for the city, be used for code enforcement purposes, just for data
gathering purposes. But the intention here is not to make
anyone's private or personal information public
broadly. But it is in the best interest of the city that
we collect that data, and it helps cut down on work.
It makes code enforcement easier.
It makes our work more efficient when we don't have to track down who the owners
are through courts when we have that data already available internally.
Okay. Yeah. That was just kind of some concerns I wasn't sure about, was that
ownership data made public because we don't want people
showing up to somebody house and stuff like that.
I know we as elected officials don't like that.
And so if it's just property
management, but then from our standpoint, the ownership stays
private within the city,
then yeah, that's a different story.
With permission from the Chairman, I'm going to also ask Commissioner Hopkins to
weigh in on this and to talk a little bit about enforcement from the DOB side
and just the benefits of the Rental Registry for that.
Good afternoon. Commissioner Marlene Hopkins, Department of Buildings.
So the information
that would be contained in a rental registry system
definitely would be beneficial for the renters
to be able to provide us with the actual owner's contact
information, so when the inspectors are at the property, we're able
to make contact. Through the enforcement process, the law
department does the actual title search when we're filing a case in
court or administrative hearings, so that process would
continue as it currently exists pursuant to all of
the ordinance requirements. But the rental registry definitely would be
beneficial for our office as well as your
offices and, most importantly, for the renters, who unfortunately are not
always aware of who the actual owner of the property is.
Okay. And
we'll keep that information, the actual owner, private, but we'll know who that
leasing person is, correct? Or the leasing agent,
correct?
That is correct.
All right. Thank you. That's all I have right now.
Thank you. We have Alderwoman Hafenworth, and then we go to round
two.
Thank you, Chair.
I am glad to know that we are going to continue conversations.
I've learned a lot today, but I do have a lot of questions.
But I'll just center on two.
Can
someone address how
PRO
addresses the current pain points for our
smaller landlords about eviction?
I, as a freshman, found it a very
difficult process when we had to go through that.
And
a building with
a person
whose behavior needs to be addressed, it's
a big coordinated process, but that building
destabilized the whole neighborhood for months.
But for a smaller mom and pop, can you speak on that a little bit?
Yes, absolutely. I think that ultimately the goal with PRO
in regards to small landlords is to help level the playing field and
really be able to give access to the same resources through the Bureau of
Rental Housing services to small landlords that bigger landlords have access
to because they have access to lawyers and other sorts of resources.
To add a little bit more color on this, I'm going to turn it over to Michelle.
I'm sorry. If the Alderwoman could repeat the question.
Yeah. I
represent the 48th Ward, and we are mostly renters,
almost 65%. I'm also a renter.
And of course, I hear
the troubles that small landlords are going through right now.
It's very difficult just overall.
The economy is terrible, and also,
the eviction process is very traumatic for not only the
landlord, but for entire communities.
But can you
address how PRO, how this ordinance,
will help smaller landlords through an
eviction process?
Well,
what I would say is that the eviction process in Cook County has changed
substantially since the pandemic, including the creation
of the front door of the Eviction Defense Council, which
is the Early Resolution Program, or ERP.
That program is actually-
created to shorten the eviction
process. My attorneys meet in Zoom
every day with renters. There are
people who meet with landlords. My attorneys only
meet with tenants.
Upon meeting, our goal is to try to come up with a solution
to the case.
In most cases, we immediately email
or call the landlord or the landlord's attorney to try to work
out an amicable solution. It's only when
we aren't able to settle the case that we consider the
situation for extended representation.
I think we can all recognize that everyone who files a court
case would like it to be over immediately, with the other
side not being able to say anything.
And that goes from the largest corporation
to the smallest landlord. Everyone would like their case to be over
immediately.
But
we have due process in this country, and
people have a right to a trial to have their rights adjudicated.
But the problem that we've had for very long is that
landlords had attorneys and tenants didn't.
And judges are human. They're likely to listen to the person
who they know or who is speaking their language.
And so that's our goal, to help be the voice for those tenants who do
have rights, who
win their cases. We win cases that we take
every day,
cases that shouldn't have been properly filed.
That's why we have a process to consider whether we should
take the case.
Thank you.
I hope that helps. I could unfortunately talk about eviction
defense for a long time.
That's okay.
Just-
Go ahead
... Commissioner, before. Can you reinstate your name and title just for the
record, Michelle, please?
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Michelle Gilbert.
I'm the Legal and Policy Director at the Law Center for Better Housing.
I have been an attorney for 40 years, and I can guarantee you that
nothing
at the Daily Center or any court process moves faster than
an eviction.
Thank you.
Edwin, if I could just to sort of put a fine point on what Michelle said.
Part of what the Bureau of Rental Housing Services will do will be to
cut down on needless court cases, because folks will be able to come to the
Bureau to get help and the ability to have the
issues cured. There'll be cure periods, and that way, we don't have to
have needless court cases. Right now, the only way
to adjudicate your rights is through the court process, and so the
Bureau will add a way
for folks to be able to solve any issues before it has to get to court.
Yeah, and I appreciate that part
because coordination is the hardest thing.
And for us as older people, we'd like to be able to shepherd
people into the right direction and not make them go to many different
places. And
so having one place to go seems very beneficial to me.
And also, thank you for speaking
on the Eviction Counsel program, the right to
counsel.
That was a pilot program. Is that what I understand?
Yeah. Right to Counsel was established as a pilot program.
It does continue to operate still technically as a pilot program.
Okay. And what we want to do is expand it for the whole city.
We would like to make it permanent.
It is already serving the whole city, but right now, its funding is
only through the end of 2027, and we would like to be able to
establish it as a permanent program beyond that.
Yeah. I'm thinking of all the folks that are living along the lakefront right
now, and we're working really hard to house them.
And I know that to house one individual, it's
$30,000 or something like that. It's a lot of
money. And not only that, it's not just a building.
We need to make sure that they're stable. We want to stabilize communities.
I hope that this ordinance
goes in that direction. The last thing that we want is for people to be
evicted.
I do have another question about language access, because we
have, again, a lot of rentals in the neighborhood and
60 languages spoken in our schools.
Can you speak on language access?
Yeah, absolutely. I'll turn it over to Edwin to give more detail on how we already
practice language access and what would be extended to the Bureau.
But wholeheartedly agree.
Thank you, Commissioner. So Alderwoman, as you know, the city has a
language access ordinance, which technically does not apply to the Department of
Housing. But we have taken it upon ourselves voluntarily to develop a
compliant language access and accessibility policy that requires that we
translate all of our documents that are public-facing into
around 15 core languages that are the most spoken across the city.
That is a practice that the department has already taken on.
I want to give a quick shout-out to our community strategy team who leads that
work. And all those policies would be applicable to the Bureau
of Rental Housing Services. So any resources, any support, any work that
comes out of that bureau would be fully compliant with the department's language
access policy to ensure that all of our residents, regardless of what language
they speak, have equal access.
Thank you.
And then to the idea that this is not a
crisis. I feel it in Edgewater. I see it in our
numbers. Our census numbers are down.
Population in our schools are going down, too, and therefore, the funding to the
schools is going down.
And residents are coming up to me and saying that whole buildings are
being vacated because they're being renovated,
and the rents are going to be much higher.
And I want people to stay,
and I want more people to come. And I know that this does not address
the building that we need to do. I hope to see more
building, green social housing, everything.
But at the same time,
tenants...
I'm still a tenant.
So this is still very personal to me.
I'm thinking about
my friend Kate, who's a single mother, and she
is going through a time. And two evictions, it's a
lot
for a single mother to want to stay in the neighborhood to keep her kids in
the school that they love. So we want more
stability in our neighborhoods. I believe that housing is a human right, and we
should do everything that we can do to protect our renters
while we can.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Happenworth.
On round two, I know we had Alderman Tavares, but I think she just
step out. We have Alderman Dowell, followed by Alderman Villegas, if he is
back. Mm-hmm. Alderman Dowell.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
put a finer point on the
way this was introduced.
Considering that we have an effective date of January 1,
2027, except for Section (3) of Article
3, I think that gives us some time to work
on this
ordinance.
Wanted to also request a briefing
specifically with the CHA.
I have a lot of 100% CHA buildings in my
ward, and I also have a lot of
transformation sites like
Southbridge, Park Boulevard,
Legend South, and I really want to understand the impact
of this legislation on those
developments. So I'd like to request a briefing.
I also have some 100% Section 8 housing.
So I ask for that. I wanted to say, I like the registry.
I have seen an increase in the number of
LLCs
that are in the ward. I see that sometimes
these companies do not
have live people answering the phones.
Everything is done by voicemail or
email, and
it would be good to know who we can contact when we've got other issues.
I want to ask about on page 15, the portable tenant screening
report that people can take around with them.
Who issues that?
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
So the portable tenant screening report is something that is required
as part of state law, and it'd be issued after you were screened for the
first apartment that you applied for.
You can request, and the landlord would be obligated to provide a copy of that
screening report, where provided that it meets some conditions that are
outlined in state law, the tenant would then be able to take that
portable screening report with them to the next apartment that they apply for.
And who is over that?
When you say over that, could you-
Issues the--
My understanding is that the portable tenant screening report is something,
if I were a renter, I could take it to a renter, give it
to them, and I wouldn't have to pay that $20, right?
That's correct.
Where do I get that piece? Who
tells the landlord that I'm a good person to rent to, or here are
my qualifications, or whatever?
Okay. No, that's a helpful clarification, and it's a good question.
Once you've submitted your first
application and the landlord presumably contracts with some tenant screening
company, they do a credit check. That information, the tenant then has the right to
request the information that came out of that tenant screening process, which would
be the portable screening report.
Okay.
And they would take it to other apartments.
I got it.
Cost them to get it?
No, my understanding is that the state...
And we can follow up through the chair, but the state legislation prohibits that
being made available at a charge to the tenant.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you.
And my last question has to do on page...
I want to go back to page 11.
Significant repair needed or
other unlawful reasons as reasons that you can
get that relocation assistance. How is that
defined?
Alderman, can you just repeat the very end of your question?
How what?
You're telling somebody could get
10 months' rent or $10,000, whichever is greater,
for a non-owner-occupied building if they
can give an other lawful reason.
I want to know what that is.
Thank you. Other lawful reason would refer to any
reason that is not listed in the above, what is that, seven?
So
the landlord would also have the option if, for example, none of the
previous seven reasons did apply to the lease non-renewal or eviction here.
The landlord would have the opportunity to not renew the lease, and if they
chose that option, again, contingent on there not being another
one of the reasons listed here, they would be paying a higher relocation
amount, assuming that they were not an owner-occupied smaller than six-unit
building.
To the point on significant repair needed, the
definitions of significant repair are on page 28 and 29 of the
ordinance, and refer to situations including a court order
for a notice to vacate or order to abate, and a couple of other
situations that are outlined on pages 28 and the top of page 29.
Okay. And I want to ask one last question, which is just a
hypothetical. I own a three-flat.
I live in one unit.
I rent out the other two.
My mother
needs
a unit. I want her to live with me because she's not well,
and I want her right there with me.
I would have to pay three months rent
to the person that I rent it to?
An alternative to paying relocation assistance,
hearing this type of feedback, is a rent credit.
And so if
you don't-
A rent credit, I don't understand that
So say instead of offering relocation assistance, you say, "Okay,
for the last three months of your lease,
I will credit your rent instead."
I still have to take a financial hit
because I'm moving my mother in.
All right. Thank you.
Yeah, that would qualify as a qualified relative move-in, and we
understand-
Financial hit for a small,
or a person that may not
have a lot of money.
All right.
And-
Thank you very much.
Go ahead, Alderman Moore.
Thank you so much.
Because I forgot what we passed totally under the previous
administration. I thought this had something in there.
But what if you're giving them a six months notice,
which is normally
reasonable, you still have to pay that based on Alderman Dow's
question?
There we go. Thank you for the question, Alderman Moore and Alderman Dow.
So, yes, and as you've described, the notice period isn't going to be
what determines the amount of relocation assistance.
What determines the relocation assistance is the cause given.
And while we understand that the
relocation assistance amounts can sometimes be challenging, which is why, under the
ordinance, we propose a couple of alternative pathways in lieu of paying the
relocation assistance, as Jung mentioned, crediting rent or also offering
a comparable unit. What we do want to underscore is when
a landlord needs to take the unit back, even for situations that we
completely understand and are entirely defensible, a tenant is still
losing their home. And whether it's six months of notice or three months of notice,
the simple fact remains that they will have to pay all of the costs
associated with moving. The point of relocation assistance isn't to
unnecessarily burden landlords or punish them for doing things with their property
that makes sense. It's to make sure that a family doesn't risk financial
devastation because they have to move for no fault of their own.
Thanks.
Alderman Villegas has round two.
Alderman Moore, do you want a round two as well? Are you okay?
I think I'm okay.
You want point of information? Point of information before Alderman
Villegas. Alderwoman?
Is the relocation assistance in lieu
of cash for keys that landlords have to
do if they want to
terminate a...
Yeah. This is also something that I've heard.
For small landlords, if they want to release a tenant from
their contract early, one thing is
that they pay the tenant money for the keys.
So it's cash for keys. Is
relocation in lieu of that? Is it just codifying what small
landlords already do?
Thank you, Alderwoman. We're happy to provide a more thorough answer through the
chair for you on that one.
Thank you. Alderman Villegas.
Yeah. I think the cash for keys is typically when there's a bad
rental situation. But
I've had some questions that my staff, they're listening to the presentation.
I'll just read them off, and I'm happy to get a response here, but then I have some
more through the chair that I'll be submitting.
So,
can someone expand on the unequal enforcement on bad landlords
that one of you mentioned in the slides earlier?
You mentioned something about unequal enforcement.
So I think you're referencing part of what we talk about when we talk about small
landlords is we talk about giving everyone sort of equal footing.
And I think part of what we're referencing is that we know that many landlords try
to do right by their tenants, but there are also other landlords that are
not doing that, and they're cutting corners, and that impacts the small landlord,
right? If you're cutting corners on one side,
it impacts what tenants are willing to do and things
like that. And so going back to the overall enforcement question, being able
to do better enforcement through things like the rental registry and the addition
of inspectors for the Department of Buildings, we expect
there to be better and more equal enforcement.
And then what has the city specifically done in 2026 to
that point?
In terms of enforcement?
Yeah.
We would have to provide that through the chair, I think.
And then while you're adding, the question is: Is the
ordinance a reflection of lack of enforcement of current laws?
As it seems to create new laws
that also will be enforced. So we want to make sure that we're not creating new
laws that are not going to be enforced.
Yeah, I just have a lot of questions.
So I'm hoping that we can slow this down a little bit just to work together.
Again, I want to support some form of this.
As a former
person who lived at Lathrop Homes and a renter for half my
life before deciding to get into purchasing a property,
but I want to make sure that we're having a
balanced approach to this.
And
let's take the politics out of it. Let's figure out how to deal with this issue,
because this is a serious issue that's facing Chicagoans.
And so we want to deal with this
truly to solve an issue and not play politics. So thank you.
Thank you, Alderman. I really appreciate that willingness to work with us.
And we agree. We want to get this right, and these
hearings are critical for that type of feedback and engagement.
So I do appreciate your questions.
I think just regarding enforcement,
a few different things. We'll have
additional enforcement powers by being able to hire additional
attorneys at our Department of Law to enforce and uphold the RLTO.
Currently, the Department of Housing also does not have enforcement
authority to uphold the RLTO. And so this will
expand their powers, again, consolidating a lot of that work
under the Bureau of Rental Housing Services to make the tenant experience,
the landlord experience much more streamlined and supportive to
avoid and resolve disputes,
ensure better landlord-tenant relationships, and fix
things before they escalate.
One of the slides had
mentioned a consolidation. I'm sorry, strike that.
One-stop shop, I guess, is what I saw.
So what you're saying is, based off that comment, is that the expansion of the
authority within housing, they would, in essence, act as the
clearing house in order to do the advocacy, or not
advocacy, but navigate the bureaucracy between all the
departments and have one central point of person, right?
Is that what I'm hearing?
Yes.
And that's for both the renter and the landlord to figure out?
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you, Alderman. Are there any other additional-- Oh, Alderman Moore.
My last question, and let's just take this into consideration.
Again, it's from me being a landlord, and I had to get out because I
was getting totally screwed.
My thing was,
if we, on this situation that Alderman
Dowell asked about, can we look at,
and I thought we put that in the ordinance,
the number of years. And so
if
zero
to four years or zero to five years, someone asks someone to move,
and then whatever those reasonable costs are, there's got to be something out
there for high-end or reasonable moving costs, even to low-end.
But if it's beyond five years and somebody's mother want to
move in to an occupied unit,
in my opinion, I don't think the landlord should be responsible for
those costs. I think those short terms
probably do hurt. But if I've been living there for five
years, I'm a renter,
there's just some expectation. Sometimes you're not going to be in place for 15, 20
years renting. Some people do. But I
think from a reasonable standpoint, I think that
landlord
should not be liable for paying that tenant.
Now, I rent this year, and in two years, you telling me I got to move
by no fault of mine, and I done paid all those costs I kind
of knew. That's kind of fresh. I think there should be some type of
responsibility there. So I just want us to take that as a note
and think about this as we continuing this conversation.
Thank you, Alderman. We would be happy to discuss your suggestion and any
others you might have.
Thank you, Alderman.
There are no further questions. I want to thank everyone who
has come to the Committee on Housing and Real Estate.
It is clear that there's a lot of work to do.
Housing is certainly a big issue across people throughout the
city. I want to thank all the panelists, all the experts, and as well as all the
residents who came in and testified.
That's how we build affordable, safe cities with your participation.
Thank you, Commissioner, your team. We'll continue.
This is a subject matter hearing, and we gather a lot of feedback and a great,
productive meeting. I want to thank everybody for their hard work
to make Chicago the great place that it is.
I'd like also to remind the committee that the July meeting for the Committee on
Housing and Real Estate has been scheduled for Wednesday, July 8th
of this year at 12:30 PM right here in City Council Chambers.
There not being any more business before the committee, can I get
a motion to adjourn by Alderman Dowell and Alderman Casada?
All those in favor say aye. All opposed nay.
Any opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The Committee on Housing and Real Estate is officially adjourned.
Thank you so much, and you all have a great day.