* The Illinois Realtors are apparently trying to get ahead of a story about a new housing proposal from the Illinois Municipal League. Press release…
At a time when Illinois families are already struggling to find affordable housing, the taxpayer-funded Illinois Municipal League (IML) is advancing a sweeping proposal that Illinois REALTORS® warns could further choke supply, inflate costs, and cross serious legal lines.
The proposal appears designed to gut and replace Governor Pritzker’s Build Up Illinois Development (BUILD) plan - the state’s most viable path to increasing housing supply - with a wish-list of anti-real estate measures.
“This proposal isn’t just misguided, it’s dangerous,” said Jeff Baker, CEO of Illinois REALTORS®. “It raises serious legal questions, proposes outright price fixing, and undermines the very goal of making housing more accessible. At the worst possible moment, IML is throwing a wrench into efforts that are actually moving Illinois forward.”
Among the most controversial elements is a push to regulate real estate transaction costs - an approach that violates U.S. antitrust laws. The proposal also layers on aggressive rent control policies and grants municipalities unprecedented power to override private HOA agreements, opening the door to forced, higher-density development with little regard for existing communities.
Illinois REALTORS® is calling on state leaders to reject what it views as a deeply flawed and disruptive proposal and to stay the course on policies that expand housing supply, protect property rights, and deliver real affordability.
“With more than 80% of voters demanding action on housing costs, this proposal does the exact opposite,” Baker added. “Illinois doesn’t need political distractions—we need solutions. This isn’t one of them.”
The Realtors have been working closely with Gov. JB Pritzker on his housing plan. But the IML appears to be flanking them on their left. Clever.
* From Brad Cole, CEO of the Illinois Municipal League…
Our proposal is aimed at improving housing affordability – that’s what we thought this was all about –not protecting the profits of REALTORS. We are simply putting forth policy alternatives for the General Assembly to consider, recognizing there are often multiple paths to achieve a shared goal. We look forward to further conversations about our proposal, and any other proposals, with the Governor’s Office, members of the General Assembly and other stakeholders.
* Some excerpts from the proposal…
Lowers the cost of purchasing a home by capping excessive real estate commission structures;
Reduces construction costs by exempting residential building materials from the state portion of sales tax;
Protects residents of condominium and homeowners’ associations from unreasonable cost burdens;
Requires prevailing wage for workers on projects benefiting from this Act while supporting workforce development for skilled construction jobs;
Allows workforce training initiatives for construction trades;
Prioritizes state infrastructure funding for communities actively increasing housing supply;
Prioritizes residential housing development as a higher land use than solar energy farms;
Delivers property tax relief by tying increased Local Government Distributive Fund (LGDF) revenues directly to dollar-for-dollar reductions in property taxes;
Like I said, it’s clever. It even has some stuff for the unions. Much more at the link.
- DuPage Saint - Friday, May 1, 26 @ 1:44 pm:
Until you allow smaller homes to be built and regulate permit fees housing costs will continue to rise. Also is there really a market for a 2 or 3 bedroom home without a basement or garage? It seems many first time buyers want to start where their parents ended up
And finally title policies are hugely expensive and talk about junk fees that and the fact that attorneys get kick backs from title companies ought to be regulated
- Philo - Friday, May 1, 26 @ 1:55 pm:
“Reduces construction costs by exempting residential building materials from the state portion of sales tax” In many jurisdictions the aggregate local sales tax rate is higher than the state’s 5.0% rate. Why not exempt the local portion too? Oh, right.
- fs - Friday, May 1, 26 @ 2:10 pm:
So the solution from municipality’s is essentially “let us keep doing what we’ve been doing”
The problem is the way they’ve been doing it has helped create the problem that needs fixed.
Their whole proposal feels unserious and just ploy to kill the proposal. And I can’t believe their members, many who are very outspoken against things like rent control, are suddenly all in on it. There are good faith proposals intended to move conversation forward on an issue….and then there are things like this. I guess we’ll see how it plays.
- fs - Friday, May 1, 26 @ 2:10 pm:
So the solution from municipality’s is essentially “let us keep doing what we’ve been doing”
The problem is the way they’ve been doing it has helped create the problem that needs fixed.
Their whole proposal feels unserious and just ploy to kill the proposal. And I can’t believe their members, many who are very outspoken against things like rent control, are suddenly all in on it. There are good faith proposals intended to move conversation forward on an issue….and then there are things like this. I guess we’ll see how it plays.
- Cool Papa Bell - Friday, May 1, 26 @ 2:11 pm:
=Until you allow smaller homes to be built and regulate permit fees housing costs will continue to rise.=
There is one of those little villages in the Springfield area that currently requires any new home to be 1500 sq feet or larger. 75% of the existing homes dating to the 40/50s are under 1000 square feet. It’s absurd to think someone would build a 1500 square foot home in that area. Especially when considering the cost.
= Also is there really a market for a 2 or 3 bedroom home without a basement or garage?=
Yes. Considering so much of the old stock of homes is 2 and 3 bedrooms, there is demand. And given families are smaller and many people aren’t having kids. Modern 2/3 bedroom homes on nice lots would be sold in no time.
However there is simply less profit in building those homes. Until someone addresses the cost of building and the speed of zoning and approvals then we will always be well behind on improving the quality and quantity of housing stock.
- TNR - Friday, May 1, 26 @ 2:13 pm:
It is clever, as a political strategy. But the proposal is not very useful as a policy strategy for creating more housing. And the actual ideas that are offered mostly fall into the let’s-spend-someone-else’s-money category.
Look, there are a lot of reasons for the housing shortage — and undoubtedly the cost of building is at the very top. But NIMBY zoning restrictions are high on the list, too.
I don’t suspect BUILD is going to pass this year, but if the problem continues to grow, the municipalities are only going to be able to hold it off for so long. The mayors should offer some kind of reasonable compromise or they’ll risk get rolled eventually.
- Candy Dogood - Friday, May 1, 26 @ 2:29 pm:
Listen, folks, you don’t want people that can’t afford payments on a house that costs more than $400,000 moving into your neighborhood. You have to make sure that the affordable housing is on the other side of town and those kids go to a different school than your kids.
/snark
===It seems many first time buyers want to start where their parents ended up===
If one considers the average price of the available housing inventory, I think that a lot of folks would probably expect a bit more than that home their parents may have bought in the 1940s or 1950s.
- Felix - Friday, May 1, 26 @ 2:31 pm:
Looks like the stuff for unions is prevailing wage and PLAs for developments that receive government “benefits” like grants and state sales tax exemptions. Aren’t those already pretty standard labor requirements when you get public dollars to build things in Illinois?