Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
Chicago Real Estate Forum
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated over 3 years ago,

User Stats

204
Posts
148
Votes
Sean McKee
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Chicago, IL
148
Votes |
204
Posts

Cook County RTLO passed

Sean McKee
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Chicago, IL
Posted

Hello BP and Chicagoland Investors.

The cook county board of commissioners passed the Residential Tenant and Landlord Ordinance. I found the proposed document on ChicagoEviction.com-https://www.chicagoeviction.co...                                                    

I remember seeing the original back in July and I am thankful landlord advocates were able to get some concessions. However it is still overall skewed heavily in the tenants favor.

The biggest issues for me are

1. Late fees capped at 10 dollars for the first 1,000( was originally 1,500 I think) I’m all for preventing predatory fees, but 10 dollars is not fair.Definitely lowers incentive to pay on time.

2.Vague language as to what constitutes an “reasonable fee”. You can’t charge in excess of that.

3. One-time Right To Pay and Stay- Tenant can stop an eviction order by paying all back rent, filing fees, and all other cost EXCEPT attorney fees.  Again not fair. Most landlords going to court spent weeks if not longer before making that decision. Hopefully judges are still allowed to make that call.

4. Limits on security deposits. Security deposits are limited to 1.5 times rent( the excess above 1 times can be paid over 6 months). This basically eliminates for me the ability to let people who are borderline on to my property. 

What is better than original version

1. It seems as if landlords can still charge move in fees. However you have to provide a itemized statement of estimated reasonable costs. However you definitely might run into trouble if you miscalculate something.

2. A right to remedy to breach of the security deposit law. Landlords will get two days to remedy any violation after written notice from tenant. So unlike Chicago you won’t automatically get fined double the security deposit plus attorney fees (I think).

Tenants definitely  deserve protection, and there are some justified provisions in the new ordinance. However there are ways to do it without being unfair to the landlord.

I disagree with a lot of the provisions in this ordinance. I am thankful that landlord advocates were able to get us some concessions and make this an easier deal with.   Unfortunately this will have the unintended effects of making it harder for tenants who have blemishes on their record to find quality housing.

For me personally, the biggest change will be to not rent to anyone who is borderline to my criteria. I still use security deposits thanks to the right to cure provisions. But given the current climate and this new provision it really doesn’t pay to take unnecessary risk.


What impact, if any, will this have your business?

Loading replies...