Evanston council narrows landlord‑penalty ordinance, introduces measure targeting retaliatory conduct

Evanston — The City Council on March 23 debated and amended a proposed ordinance that would add a monetary penalty option to the city’s Residential Landlord‑Tenant Ordinance (RLTO), then voted to introduce the ordinance as amended.

Council Member Marina Isles, who sponsored the measure, said the change was intended to give the city a practical enforcement tool after tenants and tenant organizers described repeated, allegedly illegal behavior by certain housing providers. “The ordinance is not worth the paper it’s printed on if we can’t or won’t enforce it,” Isles said, arguing the city needed a pathway beyond a private civil suit that most tenants cannot afford.

The council rejected a motion to suspend rules that would have allowed immediate adoption. Members then debated whether fines should apply across the entire landlord‑tenant chapter or be limited to retaliatory conduct. After discussion and public testimony both for and against, the council approved a motion (5–4) to narrow the new penalty authority to cases of retaliatory conduct, and then voted 9–0 to introduce the amended ordinance for further consideration.

Proponents included tenant organizers and advocates who described noncompliance with lease‑law requirements, illegal fees, shortened or back‑dated lease renewal offers and other practices they said had harmed tenants. Jonah KH of the Metropolitan Tenants Organization summarized specific allegations about lease provisions, fee practices and disclosure failures and urged the council to adopt stronger enforcement tools.

Opponents — including representatives of small housing‑provider groups — urged caution. Aaron Borenstein, who identified himself as president of a local small housing providers association, said the city should not rush emergency changes and that added enforcement should be developed with committee review and landlord input. Several council members echoed that process concern, asking staff to do further stakeholder outreach between meetings.

Corporation Counsel Alex Ruggie explained how new administrative fines would work under the city code: staff would issue a notice of violation, proceed to citation if a violation remained unresolved, and an administrative law judge would set fines (including potential daily penalties for continuing violations). Ruggie also confirmed the council could retain existing civil remedies while adding administrative fines as an additional enforcement pathway.

What happens next: The ordinance (introduced 9–0 after the amendment) has been limited to retaliatory conduct pending formal second‑reading and adoption. Council discussion signaled an intent to refine implementing procedures, including clear guidance about when fines would be recommended and how the city would avoid unduly burdening small landlords.

Key quote: “Enforcement is the point of this exercise — we are not looking for additional revenue, we are looking for accountability,” Council Member Isles said during debate.

The council’s actions on the ordinance began at an extended public‑comment period where tenants and tenant advocates described alleged ongoing violations by named property managers. The transcript shows both strong support from renters and tenant advocates and repeated calls from landlords for more deliberation and committee-level vetting.

The council asked staff to provide additional details about prior enforcement steps and recent communications with the landlords at issue; staff said it had issued letters notifying the landlord of violations and had engaged in meetings with tenants and the landlord in recent months.