Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson's revised tenant protection ordinance advances, but opponents still pushing competing plan

A City Council committee on Wednesday backed Mayor Brandon Johnson's proposal to increase protections for Chicago renters, after he dropped a key provision opposed by landlords, but the mayor's critics plan to press on with a competing proposal.

Johnson's original Protecting Renters Ordinance banned landlords from charging tenants move-in fees or other so-called "junk fees," created a citywide rental registry funded by new fees on landlords, introduced a new "tenant bill of rights," and created a new city Bureau of Rental Housing Services within the Department of Housing.

It also required landlords to provide just cause for evictions and pay thousands of dollars in relocation assistance to tenants whose leases weren't renewed for any reason other than failure to pay rent, a serious breach of their lease, or a tenant's refusal to renew their lease.

Earlier this month, Johnson scaled back the relocation assistance requirements, including exemptions for owner-occupied buildings with six or fewer units, but the mayor's office has since dropped the just cause and relocation assistance requirements entirely.

Supporters of the mayor's proposal said rent should be transparent and predictable for tenants.  They presented research showing over 600,000 families in Chicago are renting right now, and said most of them can barely afford their monthly cost.

"We are bringing innovation, technology, transparency to the search for housing and affordable housing right here in the city of Chicago. PRO is the only ordinance that is up for consideration that is going to fund that," said Ald. Maria Hadden (49th).

Supporters said Chicago is behind other major cities in passing such protections for renters. The city hasn't updated its Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance in 40 years.

"These programs have worked all over the country, not just New York and Los Angeles, but Kansas City, New Orleans, the whole state of Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Maryland. This being done in Toledo, Ohio, for God's sake! This is not a controversial idea," said Sam Barth, an attorney with the Law Center for Better Housing.

Johnson administration officials said enforcement of the ordinance would be rolled out in a three-year implementation plan, bringing on over two dozen employees across multiple city departments. They said it would be fully funded by the proposed rental registry fee, which they estimated will bring in $22 million a year.

The City Council Housing Committee voted 12-9 on Wednesday to send the mayor's revised proposal to the full City Council for a vote next week, but Johnson's opponents on the City Council are trying to pass a competing ordinance up for a vote in the Zoning Committee on Thursday.

The Neighborhood Building Owners Alliance said, even with the concessions from Johnson, the mayor's Protecting Renters Ordinance would increase costs for building owners and landlords, meaning higher rents in Chicago.

"I voted no on PRO, because of the fact that there's a lot of questions that are still there that we need to continue to work together on, so yes, that's why. Because I have an ordinance with FAIR, which is going to be our version of protecting renters, putting forward a roadmap for landlords to having the ability to be good landlords," said Ald. Gilbert Villegas (36th), the main sponsor of the competing ordinance.

Villegas' so-called Fair and Accountable Illinois Rental Ordinance also would create a citywide rental registry, but would not charge landlords registration fees; increase protections for renters from illegal lockouts by landlords; improve protections against security deposit abuse; and other new protections for renters.

The mayor's critics said their proposal would be less costly for landlords and would better protect affordable housing from increases in rent.

The proposal from the mayor's opponents is expected to come up for a vote in the City Council Zoning Committee on Thursday.

While either proposal would need 26 votes from the full City Council to pass, the version backed by the mayor's opponents would need 34 votes to survive a possible veto from the mayor.