RTLO Approved by Cook County Board
- Details
- Category: Latest News
Cook County Commissioner, Scott Britton
After months of intense negotiations with tenant advocacy groups and the housing industry, the Cook County Board last month enacted the Residential Tenant and Landlord Ordinance (RTLO), which imposes scores of new regulations affecting the relationship between housing providers and tenants in suburban Cook County. The new ordinance takes effect June 1st and draws its inspiration from Chicago’s Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, which has been in effect since 1986. As the reversal of the terms “Landlord” and “Tenant” suggests, the two ordinances are similar, but not identical.
To anyone who has been following RPBG President Mike Glasser’s emails about the progression of this ordinance – from its surprise introduction and the initial rush to get it passed – this was never going to be legislation that housing providers were going to support. To be honest, we didn’t even know it was coming until it was fully drafted and hurtling toward approval.
But it could and would have been worse, had it not been for the leadership of the Neighborhood Building Owner’s Alliance (NBOA), the Illinois Realtors, the Chicagoland Apartment Association and a core group of housing providers and managers who organized to slow the process down and educate county commissioners about its many negative impacts on housing providers, the housing industry and suburban Cook County in general.
Like many of the recently-elected, left-leaning politicians in the Chicago area, Messrs. Britton and Morrison saw housing and tenants’ issues as being an easy path to scoring some quick political wins.
You might have thought that the commissioners who sponsored the ordinance would have been interested in the perspective of housing providers before the ordinance was written and introduced. Of course, they were not. As has been the case more often than not in recent years, housing providers were the last to know and had to fight to bring our concerns to the politicians who seemed only too happy to legislate against the interests of our industry without our input.
Playing a leading role in the effort to bring the perspective of housing providers to the Cook County Board was our own Mike Glasser, RPBG and NBOA President. Mike got significant assistance from NBOA advocate, former Alderman Joe Moore, and other key members and affiliates of NBOA who worked with individual commissioners to get our concerns on the table.
Cook County Commissioner, Kevin Morrison
In the end, this mobilization succeeded in slowing the approval process and removing, or at least toning down, some of the ordinance’s worst features. As former Alderman Moore said, the combined housing industry effort succeeded in turning a very bad ordinance into a merely bad ordinance. A small victory, perhaps, but better than no victory at all.
The driving force behind the RTLO were two recently-elected commissioners representing districts in far north and northwest Cook County: Scott Britton (14th District which includes Glenview, Northbrook, Wheeling and Palatine) and Kevin Morrison (15th District which includes Schaumburg, Hoffman Estates and the Barringtons). Britton and Morrison were among seven new commissioners elected in 2018 to the 17-member County Board, representing a 41% turnover.
As in other recent elections in and around Chicago, this new group of Commissioners has a generally more left-of-center tilt than their predecessors. This is certainly true for Commissioners Britton and Morrison. And, like any newly elected politician, these gentlemen were eager to make a name for themselves and get some legislative accomplishments under their belts.
Given our industry’s complete lack of knowledge that an RTLO was even under consideration, it is probably fair to conclude that property owners and the groups that represent them were deliberately kept in the dark about this legislation.
Also like many of the recently-elected, left-leaning politicians in the Chicago area, Messrs. Britton and Morrison saw housing and tenants’ issues as being an easy path to scoring some quick political wins. If a few housing providers were inconvenienced in the process, well, so be it. After all, tenants comprise a much larger share of the electorate than apartment building owners. This calculation has been made by countless politicians in and around Chicago in recent years, a formula they take to ever greater extremes as they compete for the title of “the tenant champion.”
The sponsors of the RTLO proposal, like the sponsors of many other recent legislation initiatives championing tenants’ rights, did not solicit the input of housing providers. In fact, given our industry’s complete lack of knowledge that an RTLO was even under consideration, it is probably fair to conclude that property owners and the groups that represent them were deliberately kept in the dark about this legislation for as long as possible.
We are grateful to the NBOA, Mike Glasser and the coalition of housing industry organizations who mobilized to reduce the harmful impacts of this ordinance on our industry.
Indeed, it was not until a draft version of the ordinance was first circulated that our industry got wind of it, and began a furious effort to understand what was in it and how to respond. This is where Mike, Joe and others jumped into action.
The original ordinance was heavily influenced by the City of Chicago RLTO and included many of its worst provisions. But it went even further, setting up new, more onerous requirements and adding even more penalties and restrictions.
- The RTLO originally would have applied to all rental units in the county not already covered under existing home-rule ordinance. This would have included two and three-unit buildings, and even rental condo units and single family homes. Working with its industry partners, the NBOA was able to exempt owner-occupied buildings with six units or less, and condo or single family units where the housing provider resided in the property at least one month of the previous 12, from this requirement.
- Late fees originally would have been limited to $10 for the first $1,500 of rent, plus 5% of any amount above that amount. The NBOA was able to reduce the $1,500 threshold to $1,000.
- As originally proposed, the RTLO would have banned move-in fees. The NBOA was able to get them back in, but only for “reasonably related” costs with the stipulation that property owners must provide tenants with an “itemized list” of these costs.
- Like the Chicago RLTO, the County RTLO includes a requirement that the housing provider give each new and renewing tenant a current summary of the ordinance and imposes exacting requirements regarding the treatment of security deposits. The RTLO imposes harsh penalties for infractions of these rules, no matter how slight or unintended the offense. Through NBOA’s efforts, the legislative sponsors of the RTLO agreed to give housing providers a “right-to-cure.” Now, before suing the housing provider, a tenant must first notify the housing provider of their failure to comply with these provisions of the ordinance and give the housing provider two business days to remedy the breach.
- The RTLO only allows a maximum security deposit of one-and-one-half months’ rent. If more than one month is required, the tenant has six months to pay the additional half month.
- The RTLO originally required a housing provider to provide the tenant with a 90-day notice of a rent increase or intention not to renew the lease. The NBOA convinced the sponsors to reduce the notice to 60 days.
- Housing providers originally were required to return a tenant’s security deposit within 21 days of the tenant’s departure from the unit. The NBOA increased the time required to 30 days.
- As originally proposed, the RTLO required the housing provider to store for one year personal property left by a tenant who abandoned the unit. NBOA convinced the sponsors to amend the ordinance to allow the housing provider to store the personal property in the unit and only until a new tenant moves into the space.
- Under the original RTLO proposal, tenants had no obligation to notify the housing provider of bed bugs in their unit. NBOA convinced the sponsors to include a requirement that tenants must notify their housing provider of bed bugs in their unit within 48 hours of first detecting them.
We are grateful to the NBOA, Mike Glasser and the coalition of housing industry organizations who mobilized to reduce the harmful impacts of this ordinance on our industry. But we continue to be dismayed and distressed by the ongoing assault on our industry by elected officials at every level of local and state government against our interests and, ultimately, against the interests of all Illinois residents.
Though we appreciate that our industry eventually was invited to the table to offer our input, this only occurred after the legislation was completely drafted. It is not hard to imagine a process whereby elected officials work cooperatively with all stakeholders to solicit input on important legislation at the beginning of the drafting process, not the end. Indeed, this is exactly how the legislative process is supposed to work.
Housing providers are, by no means, opposed to protecting tenants against unscrupulous property owners. But we are angry and disheartened by the seeming eagerness of many of our elected officials to treat our entire industry as the enemy in any legislation that impacts housing providers and the willful shutting out of our legitimate interests and insights.
Rather than bringing our industry representatives into the process at its inception, a new crop of left-leaning legislators—on the Chicago City Council, the Cook County Board, and in the Illinois General Assembly—are all trying to outdo each other to pass pro-tenant legislation at the exclusion and expense of housing providers. To be clear, the very people whom these legislators expect to pay for their mandates are not allowed a seat at the table when these proposals are being crafted. This is outrageous and it must stop.
It is not hard to imagine a process whereby elected officials work cooperatively with all stakeholders to solicit input on important legislation at the beginning of its drafting process not the end. Indeed, this is exactly how the legislative process is supposed to work.
It is true that there are more tenants than housing providers, and that politicians who cater to them will tap into a large voter-block for future election cycles. But it is also true that what hurts housing providers ultimately will hurt tenants. If housing providers are unable to support their buildings due to costly regulatory overreach, they will leave the market entirely and the quality of the remaining housing will decline precipitously, leading to a decline in the amount of affordable housing.
This recent onslaught of unbalanced, ostensibly pro-tenant legislation has weakened considerably the housing providers’ ability to run profitable businesses. This is especially true of small “ma and pa” housing providers, and even more true of small housing providers in low-income areas.
To be clear, the very people whom these legislators expect to pay for their mandates are not allowed a seat at the table when these proposals are being crafted. This is outrageous and it must stop.
If these housing providers in our most vulnerable communities are driven out of business by this accumulation of legislation, then everyone will suffer, starting with the most vulnerable tenants who live in marginal areas with majority minority populations. These areas have always been the most difficult in which to profitably invest in real estate. With all the legislative assaults in recent years, it is inevitable that many of the small investors in these communities will be driven out of business with predictable increases in foreclosure and community distress.
At a minimum, housing providers should be included in any discussion of legislation that will impact their business – before the legislation is conceived and written. Legislators may be surprised to find out that we are not the enemy and do not reflexively oppose any regulation that impacts our business. But not all regulation is created equal, and not all regulation leads to better outcomes.
The RTLO is just the latest product of overzealous elected officials working opaquely with tenant advocates to come up with legislation that punishes property owners in the name of tenant rights. Much of this legislation is backed by the powerful and predatory tenant-rep attorney lobby that is far more interested in their own profit than in tenant protections. If the us-against-them mentality of these legislators continues, it will not end well for anyone involved – tenants or housing providers, Chicago or the region.
