YOU as a landlord may not be trying to take advantage of tenants. But MTO counsels 10,000 tenants a year, many of whom have LLs who use loopholes like the one that would result from the passage of Ald Stone’s amendment to do precisely that – take advantage of their already vulnerable tenants.

Tenant advocates do not want good landlords to be put out of business. That is why tenant advocates fully support Ald Shiller’s subcommittee working with tenants and landlords to make sure LLs arent hurt by the law.

The problem is that Chicagoland Apt Assn took advantage of Daley’s amendment – that in no way currently affects landlords – and tried to attach an amendment that would open wide loopholes for bad landlords to keep SDs and interest from their tenants if each and every one of their tenants didnt write an annual letter demanding interest and one @ the end of their tenancy asking for their deposit.

And MTO had the biggest showing @ this meeting. MTO employs zero attorneys on its staff. MTO has no profit from any decision made by the buildings committee. Tenants want good landlords and want to work with them to address their concerns while keeping loopholes closed for bad landlords. Can we agree on that?

I hope that Alderman Shiller and her sub-committee got the message that something needs to change.

I know that the owners group tried to take advantage of the foreclosure issue to get our concerns and inequities addressed. The notion that we are trying to gut the RLTO or that we are trying to take advantage of tenants is simply nonsense.

Our complaints are not about interest on security deposits, comingling, or the time required to return deposits. Owners live in fear whenever we have a tenant not paying rent. We live in fear that the tenant that stiffed us for thousands of dollars in rent will cost us thousands of dollars more because of a small technical error.

I encourage the sub-committee to find these tenants that have sued owners for one of these minor technical infractions. I believe that they will find that the tenant received very little in compensation and that their attorneys are receiving large sums. I think they will find that these cases are not about the tenant, not about an abuse that the CRLTO is attempting to avoid, and not about the landlord trying to take advantage of a tenant. I think you will find that this is about the profit motivation of a small group of lawyers that have found a way to make large sums of money because of the way the CRLTO is written.

I hope that Alderman Shiller and subcommittee will take a serious look at the issues and injustice and come up with a solution that will allow good landlords to focus on running their properties and working on ways to make better neighborhoods in Chicago.

So read my correction above, but apparently Shiller is not a landlord as I previous wrote. However, she did say that she was during the meeting – apparently the entire room of 150 people all misunderstood her together.

Maybe this is something to look into? I don’t generally report on Shiller or her ward, but maybe there’s something there.

I sincerely apologize for the mistake. I hope you will take my good word that she did say it, and other people heard it too! Still, it was an error and the error is mine.

Thanks for the post on an important, under-reported issue. Thanks for going to Council Chambers so we don’t have to. Thanks for writing up the antics of that whacky alderman of mine. Say, I am a battered veteran of the Brewer campaign in the 50th during which I met an Alan C., are you any relation by any chance?

One detail in your story which has raised eyebrows among veteran Shiller-watchers is that Shiller is herself a landlord. Did you perhaps get any more detail on this you could share?

Thanks again!
Hugh