HB3687 creates the “Let the People Lift the Ban Act,” a comprehensive new landlord-tenant law intended to expand tenant protections and standardize rental housing rules across Illinois. The bill sets out legislative findings about housing affordability, rent burden, and housing instability, then establishes a broad framework governing rental agreements, tenant and landlord rights and duties, remedies for noncompliance, security deposits, retaliatory conduct, and lockouts. It also requires an Attorney General summary of the Act to be attached to rental agreements and made available in multiple languages.
A major feature of the bill is its treatment of rent control. HB3687 amends the Rent Control Preemption Act so that the current statewide ban on local rent control would not apply if local voters approve a referendum authorizing rent control. It also allows referenda at the level of a district, precinct, ward, or similar subdivision, and changes home rule treatment so local governments may exercise concurrent authority to augment the Act’s protections. The bill further repeals the Retaliatory Eviction Act and incorporates those protections into the new framework.
The bill would substantially revise Illinois landlord-tenant law by creating a new statutory act governing residential rentals and by amending existing rent-control preemption rules. It would impose new disclosure, habitability, notice, security deposit, and anti-lockout requirements on landlords; create or expand tenant remedies such as rent withholding, lease termination, damages, and attorney’s fees; and set limits on lease provisions, late fees, move-in fees, and security deposits. It also updates the Mobile Home Landlord and Tenant Rights Act so mobile home security deposits are governed by the new Act’s Section 60, while preserving certain mobile-home-specific provisions.
Based on the bill text, the overall sentiment is strongly pro-tenant and pro-rent-control reform. The findings section frames the legislation as a response to housing shortages, rising rents, and displacement, suggesting a policy goal of expanding affordability and stability for renters. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented legislative debate in the supplied materials, but the structure and findings indicate the bill is designed to advance tenant protections and local flexibility over rent regulation.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s rent-control provisions and the breadth of its landlord obligations. Landlords and property owners would likely object to the authorization of local rent control by referendum, the expansion of tenant remedies, the limits on security deposits and fees, and the detailed habitability and disclosure mandates. Tenant advocates would likely support those provisions, especially the anti-retaliation, lockout, and repair rights. Another possible area of dispute is the bill’s treatment of exclusions and exceptions, including owner-occupied small buildings, single-family homes, and mobile home parks, which may be viewed as either necessary carve-outs or as gaps in coverage depending on the stakeholder.