Chicago Multifamily at a Crossroads: Why FAIR Deserves a Serious Look
Chicago Multifamily at Crossroads: Why FAIR Desereves a Serious Look
Chicago is trying to answer a hard question: How do you protect renters without making it harder to own, operate and invest in the buildings they live in?
Jack Zamost, Associate Advisor, Triton Realty Group
If you own, broker, or are thinking about buying an apartment building in Chicago, what’s happening at City Hall right now isn’t just another ordinance. It will help set the economics of owning rental property in this city for years.
The City Council is weighing two competing rewrites of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO): Mayor Brandon Johnson’s Protecting Renters Ordinance (PRO) and the aldermanic alternative, the Fair and Accountable Illinois Rental Ordinance (FAIR). Both say they strengthen renter protections. They take very different routes to get there and put very different costs on housing providers.
I’m a multifamily broker, and I’ll tell you where I land: FAIR deserves serious consideration. It recognizes something that gets lost in this debate. Landlords aren’t a side issue in the housing equation. They’re the ones supplying the housing.
You should see the whole picture before you decide for yourself, though, so let’s start with what’s actually on the table.
Where Things Stand
Both measures cleared committee in mid-September. PRO passed the Housing Committee 12–9, and FAIR passed the Zoning Committee 12–6. Since then, the full Council has put off a vote twice, on Sept. 23 and again on Sept. 29, while the Mayor’s office and FAIR’s sponsors negotiate a compromise.
The math explains why. FAIR needs 26 votes to pass. The Mayor has signaled he would veto it, and overriding a veto takes 34. Neither side has an easy path, so the final ordinance will probably borrow from both.
PRO vs. FAIR: What Each Would Actually Do
Both proposals have already changed during negotiations. Several of PRO’s most aggressive provisions are gone, and FAIR has dropped its broadest exemption. Here is where each stood heading into the Sept. 29 meeting.
What’s no longer in PRO: To get it through committee, the Mayor removed just-cause eviction requirements, landlord-paid relocation assistance, and penalties for “unconscionable” rent increases (originally up to $10,000 or 10 months’ rent). Those were the provisions that alarmed owners most, and they’re off the table, at least for now.
So the real fight has narrowed to four questions: a new bureau vs. the Buildings Department, a per-unit fee vs. no fee, a move-in fee ban vs. disclosure, and how small owners are treated.
This Isn’t Landlords vs. Tenants
Housing debates tend to put landlords on one side of the ring and tenants on the other. That isn’t what I see.
Most of the Chicago owners I work with aren’t Wall Street funds. They’re local investors, families, longtime owners and people with a handful of buildings. They pay the property taxes, insurance, utilities, mortgages and contractors. They replace the roofs, boilers, windows and plumbing. They take the 2 a.m. maintenance call.
When the economics of owning a building change, those owners change where and how they put their money. That’s why the details of PRO vs. FAIR matter.
Why FAIR Takes a Different Approach
FAIR doesn’t throw out tenant protections. It still creates a registry, caps security deposits and sets rules on fees. It balances those protections differently against the realities of running rental housing, most notably by skipping the new bureau and the per-unit fee.
It also includes provisions meant to encourage owners of vacant or out-of-code buildings to invest in them and bring them back into compliance. That deserves more attention than it’s getting.
Good housing policy shouldn’t only regulate the housing we have. It should also encourage investment in housing. Chicago needs owners willing to put capital into older buildings, get vacant units renovated and leased, and take on the risk of improving properties in neighborhoods that need it. FAIR is written with that goal in mind.
The Small Landlord Matters
This is the issue that deserves the most attention.
Someone who owns four, six or ten apartments isn’t running a national REIT. They may manage the building themselves, know their tenants by name, and have their whole net worth tied up in a couple of Chicago two-flats and six-flats.
Compliance that’s a rounding error for a 5,000-unit operator can be a real burden for that owner. FAIR tries to account for the difference with obligations tiered by landlord size. PRO’s revisions narrowed the gap by carving out small owner-occupied buildings. A small owner who doesn’t live on site, though, is still fully covered.
Those costs don’t disappear. Somebody absorbs them.
Every New Requirement Has a Price Tag
Picture a typical Chicago courtyard building. The owner is already juggling taxes, insurance, debt service, maintenance, capital projects and the current RLTO. Now add registration, new notices, fees, penalties and new legal exposure.
Each item may sound reasonable on its own. Together they add up.
The Chicago Association of REALTORS® argues that what remains of PRO would still raise costs, complexity and litigation risk for housing providers, especially smaller owners who don’t live in their buildings. That doesn’t mean every rule turns straight into a rent increase. It does mean policymakers should ask what happens when providing housing keeps getting more expensive and more complicated.
An owner deciding whether to renovate, buy another building or sell is looking at the whole picture: revenue, expenses, taxes, insurance, capex, financing and regulatory risk. Change those inputs and you change the decision.
The Case for PRO
To be fair to the other side, PRO’s supporters make several arguments:
Enforcement. Chicago has had tenant protections on the books for decades with little dedicated enforcement. They say a dedicated bureau funded by a modest fee is how rules actually get enforced, and that the Buildings Department has told aldermen it doesn’t have the capacity or expertise to take this on.
Transparency. A detailed registry makes it harder for problem owners to hide behind shell LLCs.
Legal help. Free eviction counsel, they argue, gets disputes resolved before they reach a judgment, which can help landlords as well as tenants.
Fees. Tenants shouldn’t face surprise move-in charges on top of rent.
Funding. Advocates doubt FAIR’s foreclosure-fee funding will actually produce the money.
Owners should understand those arguments, because some version of them will end up in whatever passes.
FAIR Doesn’t Mean “Anything Goes”
Let me be clear. Supporting FAIR isn’t supporting bad landlords.
Bad actors should be held accountable.
Buildings should be safe.
Repairs should get made.
Tenants should have real, enforceable rights.
There’s a difference, though, between going after bad actors and building a system that treats every landlord like one. That’s the distinction Chicago needs to get right.
The goal is simple: protect renters, hold bad landlords accountable, and keep it economically viable for good owners to stay in the business.
Why This Matters for Chicago’s Future
I work in this market every day, and I believe the outcome will reach well beyond City Hall.
Chicago needs investment. It needs buyers for apartment buildings, owners who renovate and maintain what’s already standing, vacant units back on the market, and new supply.
If owning and operating multifamily keeps getting harder and more expensive, we shouldn’t be surprised when investors take their capital to Indianapolis, Milwaukee or the suburbs.
So the question isn’t whether Chicago should protect renters. Of course it should. The question is whether we can protect renters and keep the incentives that keep rental housing on the market. I believe we can, and the people who own and operate Chicago’s apartment buildings deserve a seat at the table while that gets worked out.
I Want to Hear From You
If you’re a Chicago multifamily owner, investor or developer following this debate, I’d like to hear your perspective.
How would these proposals affect your building, your next acquisition, or whether you keep investing in Chicago at all?
Reach out anytime. I’m always happy to compare notes on what’s happening in the Chicago multifamily market.
Jack Zamost
Associate Advisor
(847) 420-4616
Make Your Voice Heard
If you strongly oppose the Protecting Renters Ordinance (PRO) and want the City Council to hear from you, contact your alderperson before the next Council vote. Not sure who represents you? Look up your ward on the City of Chicago’s website.
For talking points, a side-by-side comparison of PRO and FAIR, and tools to contact City Hall directly, see the Neighborhood Building Owners Alliance (NBOA) advocacy resources: nboachicago.com/rlto-changes
The views expressed in this column are the author’s own. Ordinance details reflect the versions reported as of Sept. 29, 2026, and may change as negotiations continue.
Comments