Negotiations over two competing ordinances aimed at reforming renters’ rights in Chicago have once again stalled as City Council members seek common ground. The effort, which has divided Mayor Brandon Johnson and various aldermen, saw scheduled votes delayed as discussions continue.
A joint statement Monday evening from Aldermen Gilbert Villegas (36th Ward) and Maria Hadden (49th Ward) announced the cancellation of votes set for Tuesday morning and expressed optimism that an agreement might be within reach. “We want to give that process the time and space it needs to continue,” the statement said.
The proposals have been the focal point of a heated debate since May, when Johnson aligned himself with tenant activists and progressive aldermen to advance a comprehensive landlord-tenant reform package. In response, Villegas and other aldermen representing more moderate or opposing views developed a counterproposal seen as more favorable to property owners but criticized by tenant groups.
Since their introduction, both measures have undergone revisions as stakeholders race to secure a City Council majority. A parliamentary maneuver postponed votes scheduled for September 23, and Villegas initially indicated he would not call his ordinance for an immediate vote. However, over the weekend, he filed notice to do so, signaling a potential shift.
Attempts to broker a compromise gained some momentum last weekend when Villegas met with members of the Progressive Caucus. Still, certain progressive aldermen, including Housing Committee Chair Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez (25th Ward), expressed skepticism about the negotiation outcomes. Sigcho-Lopez stated that Villegas appeared unwilling to alter his approach and urged Mayor Johnson to veto the measure if substantive changes were not made.
The mayor has maintained that his proposal, which he introduced to protect renters’ rights and curb abuses, represents a baseline for negotiations. While he has softened some provisions—most notably scaling back an initially strict eviction and lease non-renewal policy that included high moving fee mandates—he insists on preserving key tenant protections established over the past four decades.
Both proposals share certain features, such as establishing a comprehensive rental registry, increasing enforcement capabilities through new city employees, and banning many extraneous fees often charged to tenants. However, differences remain significant. Johnson’s ordinance would introduce over 100 new regulations and tighten restrictions on landlord fees, a move criticized by landlord groups such as the Neighborhood Building Owners Alliance (NBOA). Michael Glasser, the NBOA’s president, warned that such regulations could inadvertently increase housing costs and reduce affordability, emphasizing the need to balance accountability with the viability of rental housing providers.
Industry lobbyist Adriann Murawski echoed concerns, advocating for preventing both measures from passing, though acknowledging that some form of legislation seems likely.
Tenant advocates, meanwhile, argue that Villegas’ proposal falls short of meaningful reform. They contend it fails to provide adequate transparency regarding property ownership, misallocates enforcement responsibilities to the Department of Buildings instead of the Department of Housing, does not sufficiently ban tenant fees, and lacks funding mechanisms to support the proposed policies. Alderman Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez (33rd Ward) criticized Villegas’ ordinance for potentially rolling back existing tenant rights and urged inclusion of tenant groups in ongoing negotiations.
As the City Council moves forward, the stalemate highlights the complexities of balancing renter protections with the concerns of landlords and developers. With a mayoral veto threat looming—and a requirement of 34 votes to override it—both sides face pressure to find a workable compromise before advancing either ordinance.