Category: Laws

How Chicago should regulate rental junk fees

This post was co-written with Steffany Bahamon.

Chicago is going to regulate rental fees no matter which renter protection ordinance City Council passes. Both the mayor’s Protecting Renters Ordinance (PRO) and the alternative introduced by Ald. Gilbert Villegas (FAIR) write new fee rules, and both sit on top of the same new state law. The question isn’t whether Chicago should regulate junk fees; it’s how the list of allowed fees works, whether landlords have to show their costs, and what happens to move-in fees.

Abundant Housing Illinois (AHIL) supports PRO’s fee structure with two changes: let tenants choose between a security deposit and move-in/move-out fees (never both), and replace fixed dollar caps with a “reasonable documented cost” standard. This is the companion to last week’s post on what Chicago’s rental registry should collect and how to pay for it. (These memos are posted here because the AHIL website is presently being transferred to a new system.)

What state law already does

HB 3564, passed in May 2026, added fee rules to the Illinois Landlord and Tenant Act, effective January 1, 2027. Every non-optional fee has to be disclosed on the first page of the lease, application fees are capped at $50 (a landlord can bill a higher third-party screening cost only with a receipt, within 14 days), and landlords can’t rename a fee to get around the rules. Springfield deliberately left move-in fees and security deposits to local governments, which is where PRO and FAIR come in.

PRO and FAIR take opposite approaches

PRO says a tenant can be charged a security deposit, up to one month of prepaid rent, and a specific list of allowed fees. Everything else is out. FAIR does the reverse: it bans specific practices and permits the rest.

FAIRPRO
StructureBans listed practices, permits the restOnly listed fees are allowed (an “allow list”)
Application fee$50, with documented overage billable (state law)The lesser of the actual cost or $20
Move-in/move-out feesMove-in fee allowed if reasonably related to estimated costNot on the list, which means they’re banned
Security deposit cap1.5 months’ rent1 month’s rent
Proof of costFirst-page disclosure onlyItemized cost and documentation before charging
Routine maintenance (like repainting units, replacing worn fixtures, vacuuming)Barred only in pet chargesBarred from every fee
Utilities and RUBSNo markupNo markup building-wide, no billing-vendor fees, a written formula showing how utility bills are divided among apartments, 90 days’ notice of changes, bills on request

FAIR has a no-rename clause, but it only catches relabeling an existing fee, not inventing a new one. Under a “ban list” approach, a landlord who comes up with a fee nobody thought to ban gets to keep charging it.

An allow list is a typical policy

PRO’s approach isn’t radical. It’s similar to what many other places already do:

  • Seattle updated its rental fee rules in August 2026. A fee is legal only if city code or state law authorizes it, regardless of what it’s called. Seattle is stricter than PRO: no pet fees beyond a damage deposit, a flat $10 late fee, and no fees for paying by check or ACH.
  • Montgomery County, Maryland permits only an enumerated set of regulated fees.
  • Colorado bars fees above the landlord’s actual cost and requires a disclosed utility formula.

Utility billing rules

A ratio utility billing system (RUBS) splits a master-metered building’s utility bill across units by formula, usually based on apartment size and number of occupants (the assumption being that households of similar size use similar amounts of energy). Both ordinances keep RUBS legal. FAIR has one rule: no markups. PRO puts guardrails around it:

  • No markup across the building. The total charged to all tenants can’t exceed what the utilities billed.
  • No billing-vendor fees. Tenants can’t be charged costs from third-party vendors, aggregators, or resellers.
  • No switching mid-lease. A landlord can’t move a tenant from landlord-paid to tenant-paid utilities, or from fixed-rate to variable-rate, during the lease.
  • 90 days’ notice before any such change.
  • A written formula detailed enough for tenants to calculate their own share, keyed to the Tenant Utility Payment Disclosure Act.
  • Bills on request for any period a tenant is charged for.

That’s Seattle’s current position, and close to Oregon’s statewide rules. We support PRO’s approach to utilities as written.

Change 1: a deposit or move-in/move-out fees, never both

A common problem with junk fees is stacking: a move-in fee, an application charge, and a monthly “bundle” fee piled on top of base rent before anyone has moved in. PRO fixes this by banning move-in and move-out fees outright and capping deposits at one month’s rent.

We’d rather let tenants choose one track or the other. The landlord prices both up front, and the renter picks at signing:

  • Deposit track: a refundable security deposit of up to one and a half months’ rent (FAIR’s level), held and returned under the city’s Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.
  • Fee track: move-in and/or move-out fees at reasonable documented cost, with a combined total of no more than one and a half months’ rent, and no deposit.

A move-in fee at cost is usually a few hundred dollars, not a month’s rent, so the fee track is a cheaper way into an apartment. The either/or rule ends stacking and should mean fewer fights over deposits.

Seattle caps the security deposit and nonrefundable move-in fees together at one month’s rent but leaves the mix up to the landlord. We’d hand that choice to the tenant. Cook County’s Residential Tenant Landlord Ordinance bars disguising a deposit as a nonrefundable fee, and we’d keep that rule: a fee that works like a deposit gets treated like one. A renter who wants money back picks the deposit; one who’s short on cash picks the fee. Capping the fee at documented cost keeps the cheaper option honest.

Change 2: reasonable documented cost, not fixed dollar caps

A cost standard is preferable because it’s based on real costs, while fixed dollar caps written into the ordinance will go stale. PRO already requires an itemized description, the cost, and supporting documentation before any fee is charged. A fee backed by receipts is easier to audit than a flat number nobody has to justify.

What we mean by “reasonable cost”:

  • What the landlord actually paid; for turnover fees, a documented estimate from recent turnovers of comparable units
  • No routine maintenance, overhead, or profit
  • Itemized and documented before it’s charged

For application fees, we’d use the state framework from HB 3564 instead of PRO’s $20 cap. That gives Illinois one application fee standard instead of two. Evanston and Cook County already use cost-based standards for move-in fees.

The fee schedule AHIL supports

Before move-in, a landlord may collect only:

  • First month’s rent
  • An application fee at actual documented cost, under the state framework (up to the $50 cap in state law, plus documented third-party overage, and free when the tenant provides a reusable screening report)
  • The tenant’s choice of one of the following (the landlord offers both, with prices in writing before signing):
    • a refundable security deposit of up to one and a half months’ rent, or
    • move-in and/or move-out fees at reasonable documented cost, with a combined total of no more than one and a half months’ rent

During the tenancy, only:

  • A pet fee, one-time or recurring but not both, at reasonable cost
  • Non-recurring costs the tenant triggers (key copies, bounced payments), at actual cost
  • Optional services the tenant opts into in writing, at cost
  • Utility charges under PRO’s rules: no markup building-wide, no billing-vendor fees, a written allocation formula, 90 days’ notice of changes, and bills on request

Rules for every fee:

  • Allow list: anything not on this list is prohibited
  • Itemized description, cost, and documentation before charging
  • No routine maintenance in any fee
  • Every non-optional fee on page one of the lease (state law)
  • A fee that works like a deposit is treated as a deposit (meaning it’s returned after the tenant moves out and leaves the unit in the condition previously agreed upon)
  • Charging a prohibited fee draws a penalty from the new rental housing bureau of 1.5 times the amount charged

Who else supports junk fee reform

Junk fee reform has been backed by other YIMBY groups, research organizations, and economists:

  • Open New York backed the FARE Act, New York City’s ban on making tenants pay broker fees for brokers the landlord hired. Executive Director Annemarie Gray said the law will protect renters from thousands of dollars in broker fees they never asked for.
  • Urban Institute recommends upfront disclosure of all fees, banning catch-all cost transfer clauses, banning mandatory services, and allowing evictions only for unpaid rent. Seattle’s council sponsor cited this research when the city unanimously passed its rental junk fee ban in August 2026.
  • Center for American Progress proposes capping rental application fees, noting that landlords typically pay screening companies less than they charge renters, and that portable screening report laws often produce limited savings in practice.
  • Neale Mahoney, a Stanford economist, worked on national junk fee policy in the Biden administration and flew to Seattle to testify for the city’s rental fee ban.

City Council should pass fee rules that list what a landlord can charge, require receipts for every charge, and let renters choose between a deposit and move-in fees instead of paying both. PRO gets most of the way there; with these two changes, Chicago would have one of the clearest fee standards in the country.

What Chicago’s rental registry should collect, and how to pay for it

This post was co-written with Steffany Bahamon.

Chicago is going to get a rental registry no matter which renter protection ordinance City Council passes. Both the mayor’s ordinance (PRO) and the alternative introduced by Ald. Gilbert Villegas (FAIR) create one. The question now isn’t whether Chicago should have a registry; it’s what data the registry collects and how we pay for it. (Abundant Housing Illinois has endorsed PRO with some changes; this post goes deeper on the registry, and a companion post covers how Chicago should regulate rental junk fees.)

I’ve been making the case for a rental registry since 2023, when I proposed a kludge using Cook County databases because Chicago Cityscape only has unit-count data for about 37 percent of apartment buildings. 17 of the 75 largest U.S. cities already run one, and the National League of Cities – where Alderman Villegas sits on the board – recommends them as a local policy.

Rental data is notoriously hard to get right, and as YIMBYs we want the best data possible.

FAIR’s registry collects only four things

Under FAIR, a registration “shall include only”:

  1. the street address of the building
  2. owner or agent contact
  3. property manager contact
  4. who receives repair requests

That’s not enough to do much with.

PRO collects much more: the address and PIN (the property index number Cook County uses to identify each parcel), unit count, floor count, unit numbers, bedrooms, whether each unit is occupied or vacant, and the monthly rent charged for each unit. It also collects the full ownership structure: every member or officer holding 20 percent or more (or the top five if nobody hits 20 percent), parent companies, subsidiaries, the trust name and whoever can direct the trustee, and a local contact in Chicago if the owner isn’t here. No P.O. boxes allowed.

PRO leaves it to the Commissioner of Housing to decide, by rule, which registry information is publicly accessible and which is restricted (§5-12-175(b)(1)). In our view it’s not essential to publish owners’ addresses to the public but City Hall should have it.

A major reason to have a registry is that LLCs shield problem landlords and the city and tenants can’t figure out who owns what. FAIR’s registry cannot pierce a single LLC. You’d get a street address and a registered agent, which is what you can already get from the Illinois Secretary of State.

Here’s what that looks like in practice. In September a Cook County judge halted the receivership sale of the Crestwood Apartments, a 57-unit building for low-income seniors at 525 N Austin Boulevard, after tenants linked the buyer to the building’s former operator, The Real Deal reported. That operator, Boruch “Barry” Drillman, pleaded guilty last year to a $165 million federal mortgage fraud conspiracy, and his company is the target of Fannie Mae’s foreclosure lawsuit over the building after it allegedly defaulted on a $5.1 million mortgage. The Chicago Housing Authority had suspended rent subsidies on 31 units over failed inspections and declared the property “uninhabitable.”

Crestwood isn’t a one-off. Brian Mykulyn and Elora Raymond wrote in Shelterforce that the share of rental units owned by non-individual investors rose from 17.3 percent in 2001 to 24.5 percent in 2015. In Memphis, the majority of the most blighted properties belong to LLCs, and in Milwaukee, LLC ownership correlates with housing disrepair. Their recommendation is the one I’m making here: local rental ordinances that require LLCs to disclose who’s behind them, like Minneapolis, which requires rental licensees to name “an associated natural person.”

PRO pays for itself; FAIR’s funding doesn’t exist on paper

PRO charges an annual registration fee of $20 per unit for buildings with 1–4 units, $40 per unit for 5–49 units, and $60 per unit for 50+ units. Chicago Housing Authority units, affordable units under a regulatory agreement, and owner-occupied one- to six-flats are exempt from the fees (but not from registering). That adds up to about $22 million a year, which funds the bureau that administers the registry (§2-44-200(b)(3)). About half of rental registries are funded this way, so it’s not ideal, but it’s normal.

FAIR has no fee provision at all. Its Office of Rental Housing would sit inside the Department of Buildings and is “subject to appropriation” in a department that housing advocates and the Johnson administration both say is already stretched thin.

Alderman Villegas has verbally described funding it through a foreclosure registry. That is not in the FAIR ordinance text. Steffany looked for a city that funds a rental registry with foreclosure registry fees and couldn’t find one anywhere in the United States. Foreclosure and rental registries coexist in plenty of Florida cities, but they’re funded separately, and foreclosure fees are usually dedicated narrowly by statute.

The closest thing is Columbus, Ohio, and even it doesn’t do exactly that. Columbus has a $250 biannual foreclosed property registration and still funded its April 2026 rental registry with a $15 per-unit fee. Columbus also tried to spend registry fees on affordable housing and was told by its own deputy city attorney that state law only lets registry fees pay for the registry.

Foreclosure revenue moves the wrong way

There’s a very good fiscal reason most rental registries aren’t funded this way. Foreclosure revenue is countercyclical and inconsistent: it’s a trickle in good years and spikes during recessions.

A registry for 500,000+ units, on the other hand, is a fixed, permanent cost: vendors, staff, and a public website. In a city where the budget fight is an annual bloodbath, funding data infrastructure with a revenue line that moves the wrong way is how you end up with an unmaintained or half-built database.

Chicago may not be able to fund the FAIR registry that way regardless. In FHFA v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2013), Judge Durkin held that the city’s vacant buildings ordinance was preempted as to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and called the $500 registration fee an impermissible tax on the federal government. Fannie and Freddie held about 258,000 Chicago loans at the time. The city settled in 2014 and agreed not to collect. We already litigated the foreclosure fee base and lost most of it.

Data the registry should capture

  • Owner identity, including the real people (natural persons) behind LLCs. The current records don’t show who actually owns the building. It allows early intervention (knowing who is behind a portfolio lets the city act before problems spread across many buildings).
  • Property manager and a local 24/7 emergency contact (this is the “responsible party” who will address tenant issues; ownership information is needed to know who’s responsible for the manager and emergency contact)
  • Building and dwelling characteristics
    • Unit count per building
    • Bedroom and bathroom count per unit
  • Existing data about the building from extant sources
    • Eviction records as they happen (this information would be supplied by a data sharing agreement between the city and the Cook County Circuit Court)
    • Inspection and violation history
  • Rental information
    • Rent for each occupied unit (the price on the lease)
    • Terms for each occupied unit
      • move-in month
      • whether the lease is month-to-month, annual, or some other period
      • which utilities are included
      • price of fixed-rate utilities
      • whether RUBS (ratio utility billing, which splits a master-metered building’s utility bill across units by formula) is used
      • whether a security deposit or move-in fee was used, and the price of such
  • Status of each unoccupied unit, as a count with a per-unit breakdown:
    • Leasable, meaning the owner is looking for a tenant
    • Held for a future tenant who won’t be charged rent
    • Held vacant for a planned renovation
    • Whether it’s listed online, and at what price
    • Whether a broker represents it
    • If it isn’t listed, the price the owner is trying to get

Who else supports rental registries

I’m not alone here. Rental registries have been endorsed by other YIMBY groups and research organizations:

City Council should pass a registry that can actually tell us who owns Chicago’s rental housing, what it rents for, and which units are sitting empty – and fund it with a revenue source that will still be there in year three. PRO’s registry comes much closer to that than FAIR’s.

A day in Springfield with Abundant Housing Illinois

Earlier this month I made the trip down to Springfield to volunteer with Abundant Housing Illinois, an advocacy organization pushing for more housing options across the state. It was our biggest group ever, with 39 people going from five Illinois municipalities, and most of us took Amtrak there and back.

The day was a mix of orientation, refining our housing stories and why we volunteer, and then walking the halls of the Capitol to speak with legislators and their staff. Our housing advocates talked to twenty Illinois General Assembly members about reforming local codes that prevent people from being able to afford housing all over the state. We spoke in support of the BUILD plan I wrote about earlier.

It’s important – although inefficient – to show up in person and make the case directly. The legislators we met with were highly or quite receptive, though you never quite know what interactions or talking points will actually move the needle. All of the six bills in the BUILD plan have not yet passed committee; but that doesn’t stop them from moving forward through other means.

If you care about housing in Illinois — whether that’s affordability, supply, or just the ability to build an ADU in your backyard — Abundant Housing Illinois is worth knowing about. Join us!

Okay, 2026 should be the year Illinois lawmakers do something about the housing shortage

Governor JB Pritzker announced his plan to address the state’s housing shortage in 2026. This is the third year in a row I’ve written about proposed legislation to unlock new housing in Illinois, and this should be the year – the governor and General Assembly leadership are fully aligned since they, together, introduced bills cover six major land use, zoning, and housing development reforms.

Pritzker’s budget address on Wednesday covered a wide range of housing issues in four minutes:

  • the size of the shortage (227,000 new homes are needed by 2030 to keep up with demand)
  • everything is too damned expensive! rent is too high!
  • not enough homes are being built
  • redlining played a role in housing being built less often in certain areas
  • regulations inhibit new homes and small homes from getting built
  • bureaucratic red tape
  • parking mandates require too much parking that are unused and expensive

Watch the full 4-minute housing speech, part of his hourlong budget address.

I propose some non-exhaustive reasons why the average Illinoisan might want to support these reforms:

  • There are 6% year-over-year rent increases which is making it hard for Illinois to be a competitive place to maintain its population and its services. Population loss results in higher costs for everyone because services and pensions are paid for by fewer people.
  • I want Illinois to lose as few Congressional seats as possible in 2030.
  • It encourages new development which spreads the tax burden onto more taxpayers and lowers it for any given taxpayer.

Ask your legislator to support the BUILD plan by sending them a letter. All you have to do is enter your address and the modify the subject line.

It’s a whole set of reforms to lower housing costs

To resolve these issues, Gov. Pritzker is working with legislative leaders in the Illinois House and Illinois Senate to adopt a package of bills:

Third Party Review (SB 4063, Ellman)

In cases where a municipality cannot review a building permit quickly enough an applicant could hire a third-party reviewer. The municipality would have to complete its initial plan review within 15 business days for a one or two-family house, and within 30 business days for “any multifamily, mixed-use, or commercial project”. Each subsequent review cycle would need to be completed within 10 business days.

Additionally, the bill would set inspection standards, specifically requiring a municipality to perform inspections within two business days of the request. Applicants could also use third-party inspector if the municipality does not meet the standard. Municipalities cannot charge additional fees if an applicant exercises this right, and qualified third-party reviewers and inspectors would not be permitted to charge more than the municipality’s fee.

Finally, the bill sets qualification, conflict of interest, and auditing standards, and the bill would also apply to home rule municipalities.


Legalizing Middle Housing (SB 4060, Hunter)

This is a big deal and is the key to unlock the solution to the housing shortage in Illinois. It would allow multifamily housing as of right on all lots that have a minimum area of 2,500 s.f. (To give some context the most common residential lot size in Chicago is 3,125 s.f. and in Oak Park the average residential lot ranges between 4,000 s.f. and 13,000 s.f. depending on the zoning district.)

The bill would permit between two and eight units of housing per lot in a residential zoning district, depending on the size of the lot. It would also permit new housing types that most municipalities ban:

  • Duplexes (a.k.a. two-flats)
  • Triplexes
  • Fourplexes
  • Cottage clusters
  • Townhouses
  • Stacked-flat plexes
  • Attached courtyard housing
  • Detached courtyard housing. This would allow a front house and an equal size rear house, which Chicago has vintage examples of and some architecture firms have proposed as part of the Missing Middle Infill Housing initiative, but the Chicago zoning code does not permit)
Future Firm, a design studio based in Chicago, created this concept that places two detached houses on a single property in Chicago. The current zoning code there does not permit more than one principal building per zoning lot, so if this were to get built the two houses would have to share some part of their structures.

What are some potential impacts?

In Chicago, there are 14,148 vacant lots that are zoned in a way that bans multi-family housing. If 5 percent of those were developed each year with a two-flat that would reduce the city’s housing shortage by 1,415 homes annually. (Chicago has seen an average of 4,357 new homes permitted from 2023-2025.) These zoning districts are pretty broadly distributed in Chicago, and overlap with all kinds of school attendance boundaries and near all kinds of amenities.

In Naperville, there are 35,449 (57 percent of the parcels in the city and 86 percent of parcels that allow residential uses) lots that ban multi-family housing. A minority of those would be improved to have two-family houses which would go a long way to increasing opportunity for Illinoisans (while also increase Naperville’s property tax revenues).

That’s almost too simplistic (and perhaps a bit optimistic) because the bill would permit more housing types than Chicago currently allows, like the detached courtyard housing – these new options would respond to the desire for lower-cost detached housing, increasing or maintaining the density on blocks where deconversions and teardowns are common.

The need for housing extends beyond Chicago and Oak Park. I ran this exercise here because it’s where I have the easiest access to high quality property and zoning data. Every town needs additional housing and additional housing types – for its existing residents and for future residents. Every town with transit service especially needs more housing, because more people should be allowed to take advantage of that service and that public investment.


Parking Reform (SB 4064, Cervantes)

A municipality would not be allowed to require more than 0.5 automobile parking spaces per multifamily dwelling unit or more than one automobile parking space per single-family home.

And parking mandates would be eliminated for several uses:

  • individual dwelling units that have an area smaller than 1,500 s.f.
  • affordable housing developments
  • assisted living developments
  • ground floor non-residential uses in mixed-use buildings
  • when converting a building from non-residential to residential use

The standards would also apply in home rule communities.


Single Stair Reform (SB 4061, Feigenholtz)

Residential buildings up to six stories, with a maximum of four dwelling units per floor, an automatic sprinkler system, and automatic door closers, would be permitted to have a single interior exit stairway (“single stair”). Small multifamily buildings with a single means of egress are as safe or safer than those with more than one.

A typical new apartment building in Illinois has a “double loaded corridor” layout, which has a high apartment per stair ratio. The smart stair option in the center, not currently permitted, has a much lower apartment per stair ratio. The graphic on the right shows that a single stair building can have more variation in unit layouts and sizes (number of bedrooms).

The benefits improve quality of life by making it easier to design multi-bedroom and family-size homes with additional windows for more natural light, and inset porches (allowing for cross-breezes!) because space isn’t needed for a corridor to connect every unit to a second stair way. Homes are closer to the exit in these buildings. Plus, it makes it easier for small, multifamily buildings to “pencil” (make financial sense to undertake) on infill lots which tend to have higher land values.

Note about exiting: at the time of writing I live in a 450-unit apartment building that has five stairs that lead to two exterior stairs (and then there are more stairs after that). I counted that it takes about 220 steps (I have a long stride) to reach the ground; it took me 1 minute and 21 seconds to go from my apartment door, down the stairs, and over to the exterior exit. It takes a little bit more time to descend the last stair to the ground. In a single stair building, that would be limited to 20 feet – far less than the 600-or-so feet in my current abode.

Further reading:


ADUs (SB 4071, Martwick)

Do I even have to say what this is about? The bill would permit accessory dwelling units in all zoning districts that permit residential uses. The state ADU bill, as written in HB5626, could possibly invalidate the labor requirements for coach houses in Chicago (emphasis added):

(1) Each municipality shall permit accessory dwelling units in all zoning districts that permit single-family dwellings without additional requirements for lot size, setbacks, aesthetic requirements, design review requirements, frontage, space limitations, or other controls beyond those required for single-family dwelling units without an accessory dwelling unit.


Impact Fee Modernization (SB 4062, Castro)

The state would create formulas that set maximum impact fees, relative to the impact (i.e. number of students, domestic water and sewer, etc.) and incorporate certain unique contexts, to establish certainty for home builders. Municipalities, include those with home rule authority, would have to adopt the formulas within 30 months after the bill’s effective date.


The House has this package in a single omnibus bill: HB 5626.

Abundant Housing Illinois volunteers were in Springfield yesterday to listen to Governor Pritzker’s budget speech and to push for bold housing solutions to reduce the housing shortage – evident by continually rising prices – that persists across the state.

The new bills that Governor Pritzker’s office announced today – collectively called BUILD – will have a big impact on permitting new starter homes and allowing multi-family housing all over the state, among other changes to speed up housing construction. These bills will have the biggest effect on reducing housing costs when passed collectively.

Join Abundant Housing Illinois for the next lobby day.

Read another observation in A City That Works.

Allowing ADUs across Chicago: it’s never been more real

tl;dr: sign the petition so I can send the zoning committee the biggest marker of citywide support for citywide ADUs, and then call your alderperson on Monday to ask them how they plan to vote

Mayor Johnson indicated earlier this week that he is interested in legalizing ADUs citywide next week. Fran Spielman reported in the Chicago Sun-Times that he remains steadfast in ensuring that the option is available in all residential parts of the city. To that effect, he plans to submit a substitute ordinance at the next zoning committee meeting on Tuesday, July 15. 

ADUs were re-legalized in Chicago starting on May 1, 2021, in a pilot program available to property owners in five areas of the city. The pilot program turned four years old two months ago.

An ordinance introduced by Alderperson Lawson (44th Ward) over two years ago would dissolve the pilot areas and allow ADUs across the city and make other program fixes. However, the proposed ordinance requires that property owners in certain zoning districts obtain permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals before being able to apply for an ADU building permit.

While Lawson has argued that the votes have existed to pass his version, the mayor’s position is that that difference in treatment based on a property’s zoning district, which alderpersons can change, could continue the problem that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found in October 2023.

I think that the mayor’s forthcoming ordinance is likely, like Lawson’s ordinance, to allow ADUs in all zoning districts (including existing residential buildings improperly zoned into M districts), allow both a coach house and an interior ADU on the same property, and allow existing parking to be removed so ground-level accessible coach houses can be built. In addition, I think it’s possible that the mayor’s version could keep some of the pilot program’s owner occupancy and maximum ADUs per block standards to ensure political feasibility in City Council.

After nearly eight years of ADU advocacy – participating in a task force during a previous mayor’s administration, presenting on panels, sharing ADU data with journalists and the public, and garnering support for a geographic expansion of ADUs in the city and Illinois – my primary interest is honing in to ensure that an ordinance legalizing ADUs across the whole of Chicago passes.

Take action: I’d like for every reader to sign this petition, created by Abundant Housing Illinois, to show the zoning committee and City Council that there is widespread support for ADUs.

Contacting your alderperson directly on Monday would be a bonus.