CRIME-FREE HOUSING ORDINANCES
HB3110 would prohibit counties, municipalities, and housing authorities from adopting or enforcing “crime-free housing” or similar tenancy regulations that penalize people because they have contacted police, emergency services, or have certain criminal justice involvement. The bill bars local rules that impose penalties on residents, tenants, landlords, or property owners solely because of contact with law enforcement or emergency services; that require landlords to evict or refuse to lease based on a tenant’s criminal history, arrest, or association with someone who has had such contact; that treat emergency calls as a nuisance; that require a tenant to obtain a certificate of occupancy as a condition of tenancy or utility service; or that create tenant registries intended to discourage or exclude renters.
The bill also creates a private right of action in circuit court against a county, municipality, or housing authority for injunctive relief, monetary relief, attorney’s fees, and costs. It expressly limits claims to actions against the governmental entity and not against landlords, property owners, management companies, leasing agents, or real estate agents. In addition, it repeals existing provisions in the Counties Code and Illinois Municipal Code related to ordinances penalizing tenants for contacting police or emergency services, and it limits home rule authority so local governments cannot enact inconsistent tenancy regulations. The bill would take effect immediately if enacted.
HB3110 would significantly restrict local government authority over rental housing policy in Illinois by preempting county, municipal, and housing authority ordinances that function as crime-free housing measures. It would amend the Counties Code, Illinois Municipal Code, and Housing Authorities Act, remove existing statutory provisions on this topic, and establish statewide rules governing how local governments may regulate tenancy-related conduct tied to police or emergency-service contact. The bill would also expose local governments to litigation and damages claims for noncompliant ordinances, while preserving landlords’ ability to voluntarily conduct criminal background checks.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no formal legislative debate or vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears designed to protect tenants and renters from local crime-free housing policies, suggesting a tenant-rights and housing-access orientation. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials means sentiment cannot be measured directly from proceedings.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s preemption of local control and its limits on crime-free housing enforcement. Supporters would likely emphasize tenant protections, fair housing, and preventing penalties for calling police or emergency services, especially for domestic violence or other emergency situations. Opponents may object that the bill restricts counties and municipalities from using housing policy to address nuisance or safety concerns and could limit local flexibility in regulating landlords and tenants. A further point of debate is the bill’s private right of action against local governments, including attorney’s fees and monetary relief, which could increase municipal exposure to lawsuits.