Mayor Johnson's Proposed Housing Plan: Will It Make Housing More Affordable?

Housing affordability remains one of Chicago's greatest challenges. Rising rents, increasing operating costs, higher interest rates, and limited housing supply have made it more difficult for many residents to find quality housing that fits within their budget.

Mayor Brandon Johnson's proposed housing package seeks to address many of these concerns by expanding tenant protections and increasing housing stability. Those goals are admirable, and I believe everyone can agree that safe, stable housing benefits tenants, neighborhoods, and property owners alike.

As someone who works with both property owners and tenants every day, I appreciate the City's willingness to tackle these issues. However, like most public policy, it's important to evaluate not only the intended benefits, but also the unintended consequences. While many aspects of the proposal have merit, I believe several provisions deserve further discussion.

What the Proposal Gets Right

There are several aspects of the proposal that I believe move Chicago in a positive direction. Providing tenants with greater housing stability, encouraging clearer communication between landlords and residents, and promoting transparency throughout the leasing process are all worthwhile objectives. Responsible landlords already strive to provide safe, well-maintained housing and build positive relationships with their tenants. The proposal also continues an important conversation about how to improve Chicago's rental housing market, and I believe that's a conversation worth having.

Will It Actually Improve Affordability?

One question I continue to ask is whether these changes will actually make housing more affordable. Every new regulation adds additional costs to operating rental housing. Whether it's increased administrative work, legal compliance, documentation requirements, or additional liability, those costs ultimately become part of the cost of providing housing. While property owners initially absorb those expenses, they rarely disappear. Over time, landlords often have little choice but to incorporate those increased costs into future rental rates. Ironically, policies designed to improve affordability can sometimes contribute to higher housing costs.

Mandatory Lease Renewals Could Change Tenant Screening

One of my biggest concerns is the proposal limiting when a landlord may decline to renew a lease. Most people think of tenants as either "good" or "bad," but the reality is much more nuanced. A tenant may always pay rent on time and still not be the right long-term fit for a particular property. There may be ongoing conflicts with neighbors, repeated issues that don't necessarily rise to the level of a lease violation, poor communication, misuse of the property, or simply a landlord deciding that they'd prefer to move in a different direction once the lease naturally expires.

Historically, the end of a lease has allowed both the landlord and the tenant to evaluate whether continuing the relationship is in everyone's best interest.

If landlords are generally required to renew leases unless a legally recognized reason exists not to, many owners will likely become far more selective during the initial screening process. Instead of evaluating whether someone is a good fit for the next year, landlords may feel they're making a much longer-term commitment.

That could result in:

• Higher credit score requirements

• Higher income requirements

• Longer employment histories

• More extensive rental references

• Additional financial documentation

Ironically, these stricter standards could make it even more difficult for applicants with limited credit or rental history to secure housing—even when they would have become excellent long-term tenants.

The Debate Over Non-Refundable Move-In Fees

One of the more controversial provisions is the proposal to restrict or eliminate non-refundable move-in fees—often referred to as "junk fees"—in favor of traditional security deposits. While security deposits certainly have an important place in residential leasing, I believe this issue deserves a more balanced discussion.

Many tenants actually prefer a reasonable non-refundable move-in fee because it substantially reduces the amount of money required at move-in. For example, on a $3,000 apartment, a tenant may be required to provide a $3,000 security deposit before receiving the keys. By comparison, a typical move-in fee of 20% to 25% of one month's rent would generally range between $600 and $750.

For many renters—particularly first-time renters, young professionals, and families relocating—that lower upfront cost can make moving significantly more affordable.

From the landlord's perspective, move-in fees also simplify administration. Security deposits are heavily regulated and require strict compliance regarding how they are held, documented, and returned. Move-in fees reduce much of that administrative burden while still allowing landlords to pursue reimbursement if a tenant causes damage beyond normal wear and tear or otherwise breaches the lease.

That said, I also believe transparency is essential. Illinois House Bill 3564 is a great example of thoughtful legislation. The law requires landlords to clearly disclose all non-optional fees—including move-in fees—on the first page of the lease agreement and in rental listings. This allows prospective tenants to understand the true cost of renting before they apply or sign a lease.

In my opinion, that's exactly the type of consumer protection that benefits everyone. It improves transparency, allows tenants to compare rental options more easily, and eliminates surprises without unnecessarily limiting the flexibility landlords and tenants have in structuring a lease. Rather than eliminating move-in fees altogether, I believe a better solution would be ensuring they remain reasonable, fully disclosed, and transparent.

Don't Forget Chicago's Small Housing Providers

It's important to remember that Chicago's rental housing market isn't made up solely of large apartment buildings owned by institutional investors. Thousands of rental homes throughout the city are owned by individuals and families who own one, two, or just a handful of rental properties.

When regulations significantly increase the financial or legal risks associated with renting property, some owners may simply decide it's no longer worth remaining landlords and choose to sell instead. When rental housing supply decreases while demand remains strong, rents generally continue to rise. If affordability is truly the goal, encouraging responsible property owners to remain in the rental market should be part of the conversation.

Finding the Right Balance

None of this is to suggest that tenants shouldn't have meaningful protections. They absolutely should. Likewise, landlords should be expected to provide safe housing, maintain their properties, communicate professionally, and comply with the law.

The strongest housing policies recognize that successful rental housing depends on both responsible landlords and responsible tenants. Protecting one group while unintentionally discouraging investment from the other rarely produces the best long-term outcome. Thoughtful policy should strive to protect tenants while also encouraging responsible property owners to continue investing in Chicago's housing market.

Final Thoughts

Chicago's housing challenges are complex, and there are no simple solutions.

I appreciate the City's willingness to continue the conversation around housing stability and tenant protections. At the same time, I hope policymakers carefully consider how these proposals may affect affordability, housing supply, tenant screening practices, and the willingness of responsible property owners to continue investing in Chicago's rental market.

It's also important to remember that these proposals are just that—proposals. There will undoubtedly be significant discussion and debate within the City Council before any final ordinance is approved. As with most major legislation, amendments, revisions, and compromises are likely, and the final version may look quite different from what has been introduced today.

At City Roots Properties, we'll continue following these discussions closely and keep our clients informed as the legislative process unfolds. Whether you're a property owner or a resident, understanding these changes before they take effect is essential to making informed decisions.

The best housing policies are those that protect tenants, support responsible landlords, encourage continued investment in rental housing, and ultimately make Chicago a more affordable place for everyone.

About City Roots Properties

At City Roots Properties, we believe successful property management is built on balance. Our mission is to protect our clients' investments while providing residents with a professional, responsive, and positive rental experience.

We closely monitor changes to Chicago's housing laws and regulations so our clients can confidently navigate an ever-changing rental landscape. Whether you're a first-time landlord, an experienced investor, or simply looking for guidance on leasing, compliance, or property management, we're here to help.

As these proposals continue to evolve, we'll continue sharing updates, practical insights, and our perspective on what they mean for Chicago property owners and renters alike.

If you'd like to discuss how these proposed changes could affect your property or investment strategy, we'd be happy to have a conversation.

www.cityrootsproperties.com📧 info@cityrootsproperties.com