Support the FAIR Ordinance - Chicago

Chicago/Skokie, Illinois
General Real Estate Investing
1moFollow

Support the FAIR Ordinance - Chicago

Brie SchmidtBusiness Member
Moderator
Real Estate Broker · Chicago, IL · Member since 2013 · 6k+ posts · 5k+ votes

PRO was approved today and the vote for FAIR is tomorrow.  If FAIR does not pass PRO will be our only option.  Show up and voice your opinion or at least email the committee with your thoughts.  Share with everyone you know.

If you can't attend send an email to the committee members:

[email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected],  [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

Templates: 

Alderman,

FAIR creates different landlord tiers, including a broader definition of a “small landlord” that can include owners with up to 12 rental units citywide. Chicago's rental housing is provided by everyone from individual two-flat owners to large institutional operators. Treating those owners differently is an important issue for Council to consider.

Please make sure the final ordinance recognizes the realities facing small and midsize housing providers.  Vote YES to FAIR

Thank you.

Alderman,

One important difference between FAIR and PRO is that FAIR includes incentives related to vacant and out-of-code properties, including encouraging owners to rehabilitate properties and bring them into compliance.

I think the Council should consider whether encouraging owners to improve vacant and problem properties can complement enforcement efforts.  Chicago needs policies that protect renters while also encouraging owners to maintain and improve the city's rental housing stock.  Vote YES to FAIR

Thank you.

Alderman,

FAIR and PRO share several provisions, but they differ significantly on landlord classifications, enforcement mechanisms and other requirements.

I hope you will look beyond the competing headlines and consider how each proposal would affect renters, small landlords, larger housing providers and the availability of rental housing.  Please carefully consider the practical consequences of each proposal before the Council votes.  Vote YES to FAIR

Thank you.

Podcast Guest on Show #132
Second City Real Estate4.821 Reviews
WebsiteView Page
3Reply
495 views

Most Popular Reply

Michael Eskenasy
Investor · Pacific Northwest · Member since 2026 · 538 posts · 309 votes
4w

The useful part of this conversation is getting past the FAIR-vs.-PRO headline and looking at the actual operating mechanics.

One thing I’d watch very closely is the classification system itself. FAIR would treat a “small landlord” differently and allows that category to include owners with as many as 12 rental units citywide. Both proposals also contemplate a rental registry, although the information collected and enforcement structure differ. 

That sounds administrative, but implementation is where the real consequences show up: How is beneficial ownership tracked across LLCs? What happens when an owner crosses a tier? Do penalties scale appropriately? Do rehabilitation incentives actually return vacant units to productive use? And does the compliance burden unintentionally advantage operators large enough to absorb it?

There’s also an important moving target here: the version of PRO that advanced from committee yesterday was materially revised, including removal of the just-cause and relocation-payment provisions that had driven much of the earlier debate. 

Whatever ultimately passes, I’d be watching the second-order effects on housing supply, small-operator participation, tenant protection, compliance cost and consolidation just as closely as the language of the ordinance itself.

This is exactly the kind of thing our system looks at—policy as an operating system rather than a headline. Feel free to reach out if you ever want to compare notes once the final language is settled.

2Reply
See this reply in the discussion

6 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Aaron ZimmermanBusiness Member
    Accountant · Chicago, IL · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    1mo

    Commenting for reach!

    [email protected]
    Brick House CPAs53 Reviews
    WebsiteView Page
    1Reply
  • Jonathan KlemmBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Contractor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2016 · 4k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    1mo

    Chicago, Illinois, housing providers need to speak up because many of their practices actually harm tenants and increase rent over the short and long term.

    It's sad that government officials make promises that actually end up hurting the voters they are trying to win over. @Brie Schmidt

    [email protected]
    Quality Builders4.966 Reviews
    WebsiteView Page
    1Reply
  • Michael Eskenasy
    Investor · Pacific Northwest · Member since 2026 · 538 posts · 309 votes
    4w

    The useful part of this conversation is getting past the FAIR-vs.-PRO headline and looking at the actual operating mechanics.

    One thing I’d watch very closely is the classification system itself. FAIR would treat a “small landlord” differently and allows that category to include owners with as many as 12 rental units citywide. Both proposals also contemplate a rental registry, although the information collected and enforcement structure differ. 

    That sounds administrative, but implementation is where the real consequences show up: How is beneficial ownership tracked across LLCs? What happens when an owner crosses a tier? Do penalties scale appropriately? Do rehabilitation incentives actually return vacant units to productive use? And does the compliance burden unintentionally advantage operators large enough to absorb it?

    There’s also an important moving target here: the version of PRO that advanced from committee yesterday was materially revised, including removal of the just-cause and relocation-payment provisions that had driven much of the earlier debate. 

    Whatever ultimately passes, I’d be watching the second-order effects on housing supply, small-operator participation, tenant protection, compliance cost and consolidation just as closely as the language of the ordinance itself.

    This is exactly the kind of thing our system looks at—policy as an operating system rather than a headline. Feel free to reach out if you ever want to compare notes once the final language is settled.

    2Reply
  • Igor Ganapolsky
    Coral Springs, FL · Member since 2018 · 495 posts · 111 votes
    4w

    I invest in Florida tax deed auctions, so reading through these ordinance discussions is eye-opening from a different regulatory environment.

    When you buy at auction here, you pay in full within 24 hours, spend 6 to 12 months in quiet title, and then you have a property with clean title. The regulatory burden is relatively light compared to what Chicago landlords are dealing with. That matters more than most people realize when deciding where to put capital.

    Michael's point about implementation being where the real consequences show up is exactly right. The classification system, the tier crossings, the compliance burden on small operators versus large ones who can absorb it. Those details determine whether an ordinance helps or hurts the housing stock it's trying to protect.

    From an investment perspective, regulatory environment is one of the first things I look at before putting money into a market. You can have great property numbers on paper, but if the compliance costs and enforcement structure make it impossible to operate profitably as a small landlord, the numbers don't matter. Chicago's situation is a good example of how policy decisions directly affect whether small operators can participate at all.

    Curious to see how the final version lands.

    1Reply
  • Sean McKee
    Rental Property Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2017 · 268 posts · 189 votes
    4w

    @Brie Schmidt - Thanks for the update & staying on this. It definitely helps that you and others are acting as a voice.

    It’s disappointing that we can’t seem to have a sensible discussion as a group about tenant protections and landlord rights.

    I don’t think any of the versions that were proposed were ever going to have the full intended effect that renter advocates wanted. Sure, some of these policies may have slowed displacement, but they were never going to eliminate it. I also don’t think tenant advocacy groups would have been satisfied 5 or 10 years down the road.

    Move-in fees are a good example of unintended consequences. A lot of landlords started using them because of the ridiculously harsh penalties that could come from simple clerical or administrative mistakes with security deposits.

    I use move-in fees, but honestly I don’t really like them. Tenants have less incentive to leave the apartment in good condition when there isn’t a security deposit on the line, and I’m basically just trying to break even on the fee anyway. I would much rather use a security deposit, but I have no interest in exposing myself to that kind of liability because of a paperwork mistake.

    Fortunately, the relocation assistance provisions were removed, and it looks like both proposals may create more reasonable rules around security deposits and some ability for landlords to correct mistakes. Between the two, I think the FAIR Ordinance is much more reasonable overall.

    Regardless of what happens, I unfortunately think this is probably just the beginning. These issues never really seem to go away, and I doubt tenant advocates are going to be satisfied for very long with whatever ultimately passes.

    There has to be some kind of middle ground where tenants have real protections without making it unnecessarily risky or difficult for landlords to operate.

    1Reply
    • Brie SchmidtBusiness Member
      Moderator
      OP
      Real Estate Broker · Chicago, IL · Member since 2013 · 6k+ posts · 5k+ votes
      4w

      Well the thing is, PRO was 2 years in the making. They assembled a coalition to revamp the RLTO of (I think) 15 different members which met regularly to discuss the possible changes and impact. On the coalition there was ONE housing provider. ONE. They never sat down with CAR, or the NBOA, or any other group who represented housing providers. It was such a one sided endeavor leaving us no other option to fight it.

      Podcast Guest on Show #132
      Second City Real Estate4.821 Reviews
      WebsiteView Page
      0Reply
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.
Log InJoin for Free