Evanston landlords launched a broad attack Tuesday night on proposed landlord tenant ordinance revisions they say would make it nearly impossible to evict disruptive tenants.
The new rules would sharply restrict the right of landlords to not renew a lease at the end of its one-year term.
That, landlord Alan Goldberg told the Housing and Community Development Committee, would give tenants a “lifetime lease” — the right to occupy an apartment in perpetuity.
But tenants, Goldberg said, would have no corresponding obligation to renew their leases.
Goldberg added that the ordinance would make it impossible to evict a problem tenant without paying them onerous moving and relocation fees.
“So if you get a bad apple, someone who’s causing problems for the other tenants, you’re stuck.” Goldberg said.
Another landlord, Eric Paset, said landlords “don’t just not renew people for no reason” and that the ordinance would end up forcing good tenants to have to share their buildings with disruptive ones.
All the provisions, landlords said, would sharply raise costs for building owners, forcing them to increase rents and make rental housing less affordable in Evanston.
Mary Rosinski, a landlord and real estate agent, said the new restrictions would discourage small landlords who offer the most affordable rents in town.
“Housing is a right,” Rosinski said, “but it’s not only the responsibility of housing providers, she added — suggesting the city could “help people more.”
Several speakers suggested that at least small landlords with up to six units and owner-occupied buildings should be exempt from the ordinance
Aaron Weinstein, from a group called North Shore Housing Providers, said another provision of the ordinance limiting rent increases likely violates the state’s ban on rent control.
Dan Schermerhorn said he’s operated a property management company in Evanston for 40 years and that while the City Council talks about housing affordability, provisions in the ordinance requiring relocation fees would end up raising rents.
“If a landlord has to pay 25% of a year’s rent in relocation fees, what will the landlord do? Raise rents,” Schermerhorn said.
Hugo Rodriguez, a landlord and member of the committee, said the ordinance was developed by tenant advocacy groups and that has resulted in an “unbalanced” proposal.
A Just Cause Task Force, chaired by Ald. Devon Reid (8th), created to study that section of the ordinance, “was not balanced,” and Reid just “pushed through” his agenda, Rodriguez added.
“Small landlords are going to be the most impacted by this,” Rodriguez said. “It’s really bad.”
Reid claimed that the ordinance would simply correct a power imbalance that now favors landlords.
“Every day this law is not in place, there are tenants out there in our community that are at risk of being evicted for no cause,” said Reid, who himself was evicted earlier this year for nonpayment of rent.
The committee discussed the measure for more than two hours but reached no conclusions and will pick up the discussion at a future meeting on a date to be determined.
More details about the proposal can be found on the Housing and Community Development committee webpage.
Landlords are not in the business of being a non-profit. They do this as a source of income, and it is not their responsibility to keep tenants that cannot pay their rent. They can work with them, but they have bills to pay too. Maybe they don’t want to renew because they paid late all the time, or they are too noisy. This is a ridiculous rule, and should not be implemented. I would never buy rental property in Evanston, they have too many restrictions, on people’s private property.
Most landlords that I know will bend over backwards to maintain good tenants: those who are respectful of their neighbors, keep a clean house and pay their rent as agreed. But they must also do what is necessary to maintain safe, civil and healthy properties and viable businesses. Too often, ordinances like this foster the false stereotype of an unscrupulous Scrooge against poor Bob Cratchit. That is a fantasy. Our current Tenant-Landlord ordinance provides ample protection to valued Evanston renters.
More from Devon Reid. How much must we take? Time for a recall election to throw this bum out.
Hi Peter,
To repeat a point made before — there is no mechanism to recall council members … or school board members, for that matter.
Next chance to make a change is the election in 2025.
— Bill
Surely there must be someone in the Great 8th to run against him and win. Hello….
Yes, but our opportunity to oust Reid lies frighteningly too far away. 2025. Evanston could be a ghost town by then, ruined by stupid policies. Please, May saner council members prevail.
A regulation such as this clearly raises the bar as to how much rent a landlord requires to make it worthwhile bothering to rent apartments vs. deciding to quit and convert the units to condos. And the market will accept this higher rent charge because the vast majority of landlords with vacancies will all feel the same need to raise rent – so the higher rent will be close to everywhere and the tenants will be forced to pay if they want to be in Evanston. So let’s be clear that ultimately this regulation will fall on the tenant population in resulting higher rents in Evanston.
I once suffered under living in a building with a bad tenant – one who fought with his spouse outside their doorway (to not wake their their own kids) and who harassed the gay couple in the other unit. I decided to resolve this by moving, as this tenant seemingly could not be kicked out, as it was the building owner’s no-account brother. I cannot imagine a landlord staying in the rental business if they were forced to keep such a tenant in their building.
Per Econ 101, when something is overtaxed or over-regulated, over time you get less of it offered to the marketplace. People react and are not chess pieces.
Well said. This city council has become very effective at one thing- destroying Evanston.
Devon: you really need to get a job in the real world to understand why landlords need the ability to kick out bad actors.
You defaulted on rent for many months, so your opinion is biased and should be ignored.
Why does he keep doing stuff like this? Who is supporting this nonsense?
These types of anti-business regulations will continue until Devon Reid is removed from the council, until we elected several new non-socialist aldermen, and until we get a new pro-business mayor. Right now, Evanston is anti-business.
Do you really think that Biss wants Evanston to be his final political stop? Frankly, the socialist talents that Biss and Reid have for destroying things would fit right in on the bigger Illinois stage. Imagine the damage these two could do in Springfield! Be still my heart.
If Evanston can last another 18 months we have a shot to clean house in 2025. I’m not a rich man but I will find maximum dollars to back any person that runs against –
1 – Daniel Biss (mayor) – He’s up for re-election in 2025. His finger prints are all over Evanston’s decline. Hopefully, he moves on to destroy some other city (state?) (country?). I will donate to any campaign of his for a position outside of Evanston.
2 – Devon Reid (8th ward) He is Biss’s useful idiot. He has championed the Margarita Inn, several anti-business proposals, weed and hookah lounges, legalizing magic mushrooms, slot machines, nude beaches, and legalizing rock throwing. He is up for re-election in 2025. The man is a menace.
3 – Krissie Harris (2nd ward) – Was appointed by Biss and won re-election in 2023 after Biss endorsed her. She is up for re-election in 2025.
4 – Juan Geracaris (9th ward) Also appointed by Biss and won re-election in 2023 after Biss endorsed him. He is up for re-election in 2025.
5 – Jonathan Nieuwsma (4th ward) – He championed homeless shelter at Margarita Inn and is a defund the police advocate. He is up for re-election in 2025.
6 – Eleanor Revelle (7th ward) Another Margarita Inn and defund the police champion. She is up for re-election in 2025.
I’m Ok with Clare Kelly (1st ward), Melissa Wynn (3rd ward), and Bobby Burns (5th ward). I don’t always agree with them but they’re Ok.
It seems a lot of Reid’s proposals are criminal-friendly. Is this his constituency? Legalizing magic mushrooms and Marijuana lounges and sales…junkie-friendly. Legalizing carrying burglar tools, burglar-friendly. Legalizing parks open 24/7, homeless encampment-friendly. Promoting low barrier homeless shelters that welcome people with criminal records and mental health and addiction problems. Demanding the city, already in debt, offer more tax breaks and zoning variances for “affordable housing” for the permanently unemployed, pushing for topless beaches (hooker-friendly), proposing legalizing rock throwing (assault-friendly), demanding all business take cash to accommodate “the unbanked”, which result in more armed robberies of small businesses, and now, proposing that landlords have to renew all tenants’ leases, even tenants who don’t pay rent, tear their places up, harass other tenants, conduct illegal activities…making a lease a license to deal drugs out of their apartments in perpetuity? Is there no end to these bad ideas?
Having read the proposed law, these seem like fine regulations to put into place. They don’t propose anything that people seem to think is in them. Can still evict rule breakers and people who don’t pay rent. Biggest change is if you want to raise someone’s rent by over 15% or just kick them out for no fault of the tenant you need to pay for their relocation. The relocation fee seems a bit high (reasonable for small landlords) but it also seems fair if the landlord is terminating for no reason
All property owners should check out page 40 (“Tenant Right of First Refusal”) — a policy not in any of the sources the City references in its memo. Not the Cook County ordinance or the White House paper or even the report from the leftwing housing advocacy organization.
It essentially forces owners who want to sell any kind of rental property to give tenants (on their own or working with the City) an exclusive window to purchase the building or assign that right to a housing nonprofit to turn into “affordable housing.”
The more regulations, the higher the rents. Furthermore, landlords would not take risks on tenants that aren’t perfect. Landlords would never give an inch to any tenant that has some sign of struggle, for fear of dealing with a lifelong headache. Just Cause means only rent to professionals, those with high incomes, references from highly established individuals. No to renting to anyone with even a single blemish.