Sound Policies: An Analysis of Just Cause and Relocation Assistance Impact on Rents
Twelve cities adopted Just Cause protections paired with meaningful relocation assistance. This analysis compares what happened to their rents against eight similar cities that adopted neither policy.
Overall, the study finds no evidence to support the claim that these tenant protections lead to rent increases.
Institute for the Public Good · Rent data: Zillow ZORI, May to May, 2016–2026
What Just Cause protections do
Just Cause tenant protections are designed to ensure that tenants are allowed to choose to continue their tenancy in a rental unit each year unless the landlord has a specified, legitimate reason to refuse to renew the lease such as a family member moving in, substantial rehabilitation, or taking the unit off the market. They are based on an understanding that moving is a costly, destabilizing process for tenants that can lead to housing instability or homelessness and that good tenants should have a presumptive lease renewal. They are also designed to ensure that landlords don’t use retaliatory or discriminatory reasons not to renew a lease. They do not impact a landlord’s ability to evict or non-renew if a tenant is violating the lease, and hold no bearing if the tenant decides to non-renew on their own.
Just Cause protections have been growing across the country in recent years and are now found in at least 33 municipalities. There are also broad protections in eight states and Washington D.C. Some jurisdictions require relocation assistance for tenants that are forced to move through no fault of their own, but fall into one of the allowed categories for non-renewal.
The proposed Chicago ordinance
The proposed Chicago Protecting Renters Ordinance includes a form of Just Cause protections plus relocation assistance. The ordinance as first introduced requires that landlords must specify a reason for non-renewal and if the reason falls within the list of qualified reasons they must pay the greater of $5,000 or 5 months relocation assistance. Qualified reasons are: a relative moving in, significant rehab, converting to condo, or demolishing the unit. For any other reason, landlords must pay the greater of $10,000 or 10 months relocation assistance. For owner-occupied 2-6 flats the amount is the greater of $3,000 or 3 months rent for all reasons.
Three claims, tested
Although the cost is avoidable (only if landlords fail to renew the lease) and should only happen on rare occasions (presumably in most cases good tenants will be renewed), the real estate industry is claiming that:
The cost of relocation assistance will be passed directly on to renters.
Tenants across the city will see increased rents.
The increased cost for landlords will stifle development.
The study examines these claims by looking at cities that have adopted the two policies and compares rent increases to similar cities that have neither policy. It also accounts for the impact of rent control. The study does not seek to make a definitive claim about what factors did cause rent to rise or fall, but rather to isolate the presence of Just Cause Assistance and relocation assistance to see if there is evidence for the claim that the implementation of those two policies drive rent increases. Overall, the study finds no evidence to support the claim that these tenant protections lead to rent increases.
Key findings
Six findings, each stated as an absence of evidence rather than a causal claim.
Rents did not grow faster
Comparing cities that have adopted just cause and relocation assistance policies to similar cities without the policies revealed no evidence that rents grew faster in the cities with the policies after the policies were implemented. On average, cities that adopted the policies saw an average 2.2% annual increase after the policies were adopted while comparison cities (with neither policy) saw an average of a 3.6% increase. This is not a claim that the policies caused a slower rate of rent growth. Rather, it demonstrates that there is no evidence of rents growing at a faster rate.
Growth slowed, not sped up
When looking at trends in rent growth comparing what was happening in the years before the policy was adopted to the years after it was adopted there was still no evidence that putting the policies in place led to rent growth. After adopting, these cities’ rent growth slowed by an average of 3.3 points more than comparable cities without the policy — the opposite of the speed-up the landlord argument predicts. This is not a claim that the policies caused a slower rate of rent growth. Rather, it demonstrates that there is no evidence of rents growing at a faster rate.
Region and period don’t explain it
The first two key findings held true when accounting for regional differences and the particular trends of the time period.
Rent control was not binding
The presence of rent control in the cities with Just Cause and relocation assistance did not account for slower rent growth because in the years examined in the study, the cities’ overall rent increases fell below the rent cap. Therefore the growth was not being constrained by rent control. In addition, the study looks at rents on new apartment listings, while rent control applies to apartments with existing tenants. So the rents being analyzed were following trends in vacant units not constrained by rent controls.
No pass-through pattern
There was no evidence that when comparing cities with the Just Cause and relocation assistance against each other that larger amounts of required relocation assistance correlated with rent growth – rebutting the argument that the cost will be passed on directly to tenants.
Development was not stifled
There was no evidence that Just Cause and relocation assistance stifled development. Cities with these policies had a higher median permitting rate than those without: 63 per 1000 vs 43 per 1000. Policy cities also showed no more decline than comparison cities after adoption. This study is not positing that the policies increase permitting rates, rather showing that we do not see evidence that these policies decrease permitting rates.
How the cities were chosen
The study looks at year over year rent increases in cities that added or expanded relocation assistance to Just Cause policies that offer, at the high end, at least 3 months of rental assistance to make it comparable to Chicago’s policy. They are then paired with a group of comparison cities that have similar characteristics (such as median rents, renter share, population, market type) to see how rent increases compared.
Policy cities met all of the following requirements:
- Has in place a Just Cause policy with relocation assistance or Just Cause plus rent increase triggered relocation assistance
- The policy city’s top-end rental assistance requirement is at least 3 months of assistance to make it comparable with Chicago’s proposal.
- Adopted their policies some time between 2016-2026.
- Had a local ordinance that goes beyond the state minimum.
- Has available rent data going back to 2016
Included cities with Just Cause and relocation assistance
| City/County | State | Relocation assistance amount | Date passed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burbank | California | 3 months | 2023 |
| Concord | California | 2-4 months rent plus $2,000-$3,000 moving stipend | 2024 |
| Glendale | California | 3-6 months | 2019* |
| Los Angeles | California | $10,550-$27,400 | 2023 |
| Oakland | California | $8,106-$12,315 plus $2,500 for vulnerable tenants | 2018 |
| Pasadena | California | $8,340-$18,135 | 2023 |
| Richmond | California | $4,355-$10,504 | 2017* |
| San Diego | California | 2-3 months | 2023 |
| San Jose | California | $9,695-$17,380 | 2017 |
| Portland | Oregon | $2,900-$4,500 | 2017 |
| Bellingham | Washington | 3 months rent triggered by rent increase more than 8% | 2024 |
| Seattle | Washington | $2,677 (landlord portion)/3 months if due to rent increase | 1990 (TRAO) 2022 (EDRA) |
*This is the year that these cities met the 3 month threshold. To read more about the specific relocation assistance policies see relocation assistance policy sources.
The comparison group
Comparison cities were chosen because they did not have Just Cause protections or relocation assistance and based on how they matched with the cities that adopted the policies on the following factors: median rent, renter share, median income, multifamily housing share, population size, and racial breakdown.
In addition, comparison cities were chosen because they had tight, inelastic markets–meaning they were supply constrained and expensive cities, similar to the cities where the policies were adopted.
| City | State | Population | Median rent | % renter | % multifamily | Median income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston | MA | 684,379 | $1,620 | 65% | 44% | $71,115 |
| Cambridge | MA | 116,632 | $2,221 | 65% | 55% | $103,154 |
| Newton | MA | 88,593 | $1,940 | 28% | 14% | $151,068 |
| Quincy | MA | 94,207 | $1,501 | 53% | 38% | $77,562 |
| Waltham | MA | 62,777 | $1,726 | 48% | 30% | $95,964 |
| Brookline | MA | 59,180 | $2,268 | 51% | 54% | $117,326 |
| Chicago | IL | 2,709,534 | $1,112 | 55% | 41% | $58,247 |
| Honolulu | HI | 348,985 | $1,491 | 55% | 59% | $71,465 |
| MEDIAN | 105,419 | $1,673 | 54% | 42% | $86,763 |
Swipe the table sideways to see all columns.
How well the two groups match
Here is how the policy cities matched with the comparison cities on average.
| Factor | Adopted Policies Cities (12) | Comparison cities (8) | How well they match |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median rent (2015-19) | $1,056-$2,107 (median $1,618) | $1,112-$2,268 (median $1,673) | STRONG Nearly identical medians (~$1,620 vs ~$1,675) and fully overlapping ranges. |
| Renter share | 40%-67% (median 54%) | 28%-65% (median 54%) | STRONG Identical medians (54% vs 54%). Same renter-heavy market. |
| Median household income | $53,396-$109,593 (median $74,760) | $58,247-$151,068 (median $86,763) | GOOD Medians ~$74,800 (adopted policies cities) vs ~$86,800 (comparison); ranges overlap heavily. |
| Multifamily housing share | 21%-53% (median 36%) | 15%-60% (median 43%) | GOOD Both apartment-heavy; ranges overlap (adopted policies cities 21-53%, comparison 15-60%). Comparison median (43%) a touch higher than adopted policies cities (36%). |
| Population size | 88,764-3,966,936 (median 312,664) | 59,180-2,709,534 (median 105,420) | PARTIAL Adopted policies cities skew larger (median ~313k vs ~105k), but the comparison group has a city at every size tier: Chicago (2.7M) and Boston match the big adopted policies cities; the Massachusetts suburbs (Brookline, Newton, Waltham) match the small ones. Los Angeles (4.0M) has no exact equal – Chicago (2.7M) is closest. |
Although the analysis does not rely on one to one comparisons, there was an attempt to match each city with at least one closest comparison. The rent explorer in the next section uses each city’s closest match as its default overlay.
Closest match comparison cities
| Adopted policies city | Pop | Rent | Renter | Income | Closest comparison | Pop | Rent | Renter | Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles | 3,966,936 | $1,450 | 63% | $62k | Chicago | 2,709,534 | $1,112 | 55% | $58k |
| San Diego | 1,409,573 | $1,695 | 53% | $79k | Boston | 684,379 | $1,620 | 65% | $71k |
| San Jose | 1,027,690 | $2,107 | 43% | $109k | Brookline | 59,180 | $2,268 | 51% | $117k |
| Seattle | 724,305 | $1,614 | 54% | $92k | Honolulu | 348,985 | $1,491 | 55% | $71k |
| Portland | 645,291 | $1,248 | 46% | $71k | Honolulu | 348,985 | $1,491 | 55% | $71k |
| Oakland | 425,097 | $1,445 | 59% | $73k | Honolulu | 348,985 | $1,491 | 55% | $71k |
| Glendale | 200,232 | $1,622 | 67% | $66k | Boston | 684,379 | $1,620 | 65% | $71k |
| Pasadena | 141,258 | $1,710 | 58% | $83k | Quincy | 94,207 | $1,501 | 53% | $77k |
| Concord | 129,183 | $1,716 | 40% | $89k | Waltham | 62,777 | $1,726 | 48% | $95k |
| Richmond | 109,884 | $1,509 | 50% | $68k | Quincy | 94,207 | $1,501 | 53% | $77k |
| Burbank | 103,703 | $1,692 | 58% | $75k | Quincy | 94,207 | $1,501 | 53% | $77k |
| Bellingham | 88,764 | $1,056 | 54% | $53k | Quincy | 94,207 | $1,501 | 53% | $77k |
Source: Census ACS 2015-2019 5-year (DP02-DP05), Zillow ZORI
There is no evidence that the policies led to rent growth over time when compared to comparison cities
On average, cities that adopted the policies saw a 2.2% annual increase after the policies were adopted while comparison cities saw an average of a 3.6% increase.
Rent trajectory explorer
Portland, ORPick a city to see its year-over-year rent change against its closest comparison city. The dashed marker is the year relocation assistance took effect; everything to the right of it is the “after” period.
Source: Zillow ZORI, May to May. Growth rates for 2017 are measured against 2016 baselines. Richmond has no 2016 baseline, so its series begins in 2018. Comparison group average is the average across all eight comparison cities for the years following that city’s adoption.
Every policy city grew slower than the comparison group
Lining up each city’s post-adoption average against what the comparison cities were doing in exactly the same years, the pattern holds across all twelve. The gap ranges from a fraction of a point in Concord to nearly three points in Oakland.
Average rent change in Just Cause and relocation cities vs. comparison cities
Average annual rent change in the years after each city adopted relocation assistance.
Source: Zillow ZORI, May to May. Across all twelve cities the averages are 2.2% (policy cities) and 3.6% (comparison cities).
Full data table — year over year percent rent change, all 20 cities
| City | St | Relo yr | Rent 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | Rent 2026 | Change 16-26 | Inflation adjusted |
|---|
*Data was not available for Richmond in 2016; its rent change is measured 2017–2026.
Rent growth before and after adoption
When looking at rent growth before and after the policies were adopted (for those that both had a “before” and “after” dataset in the study time frame), average rent growth before the policies were adopted was 5.5% and after was 2%, a decrease of 3.5%. In comparison cities, average growth before the policy was adopted was 3.7% and after was 3.5%, a decrease of .2%. So we can only attribute a .2% decline to a more general trend of declining rents during those years. The remaining −3.3% (3.5% minus the 0.2% comparison decline) is unique to the Just Cause and relocation assistance cities and it shows a decrease, not an increase. This is not a claim that the policies caused rent to decrease, but simply that there was no evidence of an increase.
Difference in rent growth before and after the year of adoption
Change in rent growth not accounted for by the general climate, in percentage points. Every bar points the same direction: slower growth after adoption, beyond what the comparison cities did.
Source: Zillow ZORI, May to May. Portland, San Jose and Richmond are excluded because they adopted in 2017 and have no “before” period inside the study window.
Before and after table, with comparison city rates
| City | Relocation assistance implementation year | Adopted Policy Cities | Comparison Cities | Change in rent growth not accounted for by general climate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |||
| Oakland | 2018 | 5.7% | 1.2% | 3.9% | 4.1% | −4.7 |
| Glendale | 2019 | 6.9% | 3.4% | 3.5% | 4.3% | −4.3 |
| Seattle | 2022 | 1.7% | 1.7% | 2.3% | 4.2% | −2.0 |
| Los Angeles | 2023 | 4.9% | 1.1% | 3.8% | 3.4% | −3.4 |
| Burbank | 2023 | 5.3% | 2.1% | 3.8% | 3.4% | −2.8 |
| San Diego | 2023 | 7.3% | 1.3% | 3.8% | 3.4% | −5.6 |
| Pasadena | 2023 | 5.2% | 2.2% | 3.8% | 3.4% | −2.6 |
| Concord | 2024 | 4.5% | 2.8% | 4.2% | 2.9% | −0.3 |
| Bellingham | 2024 | 8.3% | 2.4% | 4.2% | 2.9% | −4.6 |
| AVERAGE | 5.5% | 2.0% | 3.7% | 3.5% | −3.3 | |
Source: Zillow ZORI May to May
Is this just the West Coast?
A valid critique of this finding is that the cities that adopted the policies are all on the west coast and the comparison cities are all on the east coast. One could posit that the west coast and east coast cities are not comparable groups because there were distinct differences by region during the time period of the study that could be obscuring other effects. West Coast rental markets declined sharply for reasons unrelated to tenant protections — tech layoffs, out-migration, remote work, heavy new supply in some markets — while Midwest/Northeast markets had some of the strongest rent growth in the country1. To examine this claim a list of 27 west coast comparison cities was generated. They were not included in the original comparisons because they weren’t as strong match candidates and California has a statewide just cause and one month state relocation assistance policy making them not meet the comparison criteria (however the west coast comparison group does include cities with neither policy). For the purposes of examining this claim they were added as a new comparison group.
Here is the list of west coast comparison cities:
Looking at rates of increase in 2018-2019 (this excludes the post pandemic years which were anomalies) and comparing them to 2023-2025 (the west coast declining/east coast growth period) we find that while the east coast cities showed a slight increase, west coast cities with the policy or without the policy showed similar levels of decline. So the difference can not just be attributed to the regional difference.
West Coast comparison group: rent increases by group
Average annual rent change by group, 2016–2026. The West Coast cities with the policies and the West Coast cities without them move together; the East Coast comparisons diverge.
Source: Zillow ZORI.
Rent control at the state and local level was not a binding factor on the rent increases in this dataset
An argument could be made that all of the cities in California plus Portland have rent control and that would account for the slower growth in rents. Chicago does not have rent control as it is prohibited by state law and would have no bounds on rent increases.
Rent control policies put caps in place setting the maximum percentage that rent can be raised each year for qualifying units. In most cases, including in California2 and Oregon,3 the caps only apply to units that are occupied and rents reset to whatever the landlord wants when units turnover.
There are two findings that demonstrate that rent control is not a limiting factor in the rent increases seen in the cities with the adopted policies.
First, in every year but 2022 (which was a post-pandemic spike) and 2017, none of the cities falling under the 10% California rent control cap4 or in the case of Portland,5 the Oregon cap of 9.2%-14.6%, saw rent increases up to the capped amount. So rent increases were not hitting up against a rent cap barrier. In other words – the rent increases in every year except 2017 and 2022 naturally fell below the rent cap so the cap did not kick in.
Years that rent growth exceeded the rent control cap
Year-over-year rent change in each policy city. Only the boxed cells — almost all of them in the 2022 post-pandemic spike — reached the applicable cap.
Source: Zillow ZORI May to May. Richmond has no 2017 figure. Washington State (Seattle, Bellingham) has no comparable statewide rent cap over most of this period; those rows are shown for completeness.
Second, in cases where the rent increase did hit up against the state or a lower local cap, the data shows rents blowing through the caps because rent control in California and Oregon only applies to units that are occupied and rents reset when a tenant moves out. The rent data used for the comparisons are based on rents for units that are turning over as Zillow ZORI measures asking rents on new listings (an appropriate metric since relocation assistance is always paired with a unit turning over) and vacant units are not constrained by rent control. This explains why the amounts were able to exceed the capped amount in 2017 and 2022. If you add in local ordinances that restrict rent increases beyond the rates set at the state level there is further evidence that rent control is not constraining rents in the dataset. For example in Los Angeles, from 2020 to 2024 there was a rent freeze,6 yet in 3 of those 4 years L.A.’s average rents increased due to the rent cap not applying to units turning over. Likewise Oakland had a .8% cap from 2025 to 2026 and rents grew in the dataset by 6.3%.
Greater amounts of required relocation assistance does not track with greater rent increases, rebutting the “pass through” cost argument
Among the cities with adopted relocation assistance policies the amounts of assistance vary widely from an average of $4,422 all the way up to $18,975. If the real-estate lobby’s assertion were true – that these costs would be calculated into the rent and passed on to tenants – you would expect to see greater amounts of assistance leading to greater rent increases for the jurisdiction. Sorted by assistance amount, there is no pattern in the way rent increased the 3 years after the policy took effect. Concord, and Glendale are two cities that had similar amounts of relocation assistance, but had vastly different cumulative rent changes ranging with Concord at 5.8% and Glendale at 15.5%. LA, which has the highest amount of assistance available, showed one of the lowest growth rates at 3.4%. Seattle, which has the lowest amount of assistance showed nearly twice the growth rate of Los Angeles.
Amount of relocation assistance compared to rent growth
Each dot is a policy city. Horizontal position is how much relocation assistance the ordinance requires, converted to dollars. Vertical position is cumulative rent growth over the three years after the policy took effect. Hover or tap a dot for detail.
If the cost were being passed through to renters, the dots would climb from left to right. They do not. Source for rents: Zillow ZORI. Source for amounts: relocation assistance policy sources.
Full table — assistance requirements and rent growth by city
| City | Relo yr | What the ordinance requires | Rent used (May of relo yr) | Average months rent | Months to dollars | 3-yr window | Avg rent increase/yr (3 yrs after) | Cumulative rent increase (3 yrs after) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seattle | 2022 | $2,677 to 3 months (avg) | $2,056 | 2.2 | $4,422 | 2023-2025 | 2.0% | 6.2% |
| San Diego | 2023 | 2-3 months (avg 2.5) | $2,873 | 2.5 | $7,182 | 2024-2026 | 1.3% | 4.0% |
| Portland | 2017 | $2,900-$4,500 | $1,350 | 2.7 | $3,700 | 2018-2020 | 2.4% | 7.4% |
| Burbank | 2023 | 3 months | $2,578 | 3 | $7,734 | 2024-2026 | 2.1% | 6.4% |
| Bellingham | 2024 | 3 months (rent-increase trigger) | $1,959 | 3 | $5,878 | 2025-2026 | 2.4% | 4.8% |
| Richmond | 2017 | $4,355-$10,504 | $2,019 | 3.7 | $7,430 | 2018-2020 | 3.2% | 10.0% |
| Concord | 2024 | 2-4 mo (avg 3) + $2,500 | $2,414 | 4 | $9,743 | 2025-2026* | 2.8% | 5.8% |
| Glendale | 2019 | 3-6 months (avg 4.5) | $2,193 | 4.5 | $9,870 | 2020-2022 | 5.1% | 15.5% |
| Oakland | 2018 | $8,106-$14,815 | $2,368 | 4.8 | $11,460 | 2019-2021 | −0.4% | −1.6% |
| Pasadena | 2023 | $8,340-$18,135 | $2,725 | 4.9 | $13,238 | 2024-2026 | 2.2% | 6.5% |
| San Jose | 2017 | $9,695-$17,380 | $2,673 | 5.1 | $13,538 | 2018-2020 | 2.2% | 6.6% |
| Los Angeles | 2023 | $10,550-$27,400 | $2,666 | 7.1 | $18,975 | 2024-2026 | 1.1% | 3.4% |
Source Rents: Zillow ZORI / Sources: relocation assistance policy sources
How often is a payment actually made?
Another important thing to note about passing on costs is that based on available data from cities that track relocation assistance payments, incidence of making the payments is rare. Portland, Oregon and Seattle track the number of relocation assistance payments each year. In Portland, with similar relocation assistance triggers as Chicago’s Proposal over a 5.5 year period between FY 2018 and 2023, Portland landlords paid relocation assistance 1,356 times or an average of 246 times per year.7 With 139,059 rental households in Portland8, that equals .17% of units annually. Seattle’s policy, which is only triggered by a rent increase over 10%, had 290 applications for relocation assistance, with 67 found eligible9. With a renter population of 238,76910 that is .02%. The infrequency of these payments can be one factor to explain why we did not see an overall trend of increased rents.
Percent of rental units receiving relocation assistance per year
Every square is one rental unit. One thousand squares; the highlighted ones receive relocation assistance in a year.
Portland: 246 payments a year on average against 139,059 renter households. Seattle: 67 eligible against 238,769 renters — less than one unit in a thousand, too few to render as a full square.
Tenant protections do not stifle development
Another important finding rebuts the argument that tenant protections have a chilling effect on multi-family development. Cities that adopted the policies have a higher median multi-family permitting rate per 1000 housing units (63) than the comparison cities (43).
Multi-family permits issued per 1,000 housing units, 2016–2026
Cities with the policies in teal, comparison cities in ochre. The dashed lines mark each group’s median.
Source: Census Building Permits Survey (place-level annual). Honolulu is excluded for lack of comparable data.
An argument can be made that using average permits over a period of time could obscure a pattern of declining permitting after adoption among cities with Just Cause and relocation assistance policies. Cities like Seattle and Los Angeles did in fact see a decline in permitting after their policies were adopted.
Examples of cities with declining permitting after adoption of policies
| City | Relo yr | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seattle | 2022 | 9161 | 9294 | 7395 | 10277 | 6082 | 11716 | 8572 | 4826 | 5490 | 3898 |
| Los Angeles | 2023 | 12094 | 12486 | 13663 | 11740 | 10438 | 11613 | 13525 | 10236 | 7447 | 7363 |
Source: Census Building Permits Survey (place-level annual)
However, when taken as a whole, all cities in both the policy group and the comparison group saw a decline during the years 2022-2025 (the most common years of adoption of policies) potentially related to the interest rate-driven construction slow-down.11 Cities that adopted the policies fell no harder than comparison cities which would be expected if it were true that the tenant protections were stifling development.
Permits per 1,000 housing units, year over year
Both groups declined through the interest-rate-driven slowdown. The comparison cities fell further in percentage terms.
Source: Census Building Permits Survey (place-level annual)
Does increased development explain lower rent growth in cities with Just Cause and relocation assistance?
Given that the cities that adopted the Just Cause and relocation assistance policies did see more overall permitting than comparison cities, could it be argued that rents would have risen, but were ultimately mitigated by more development?
It is possible that development had some impact on mitigating rents, but it can’t explain the full slowing of rent growth. Based on what we know about how increased development impacts rents, it would be implausible that the small amount of additional development seen in cities with the Just Cause and relocation assistance policies could lead to the full amount of slower rent growth as compared to the comparison cities. Let’s look at those numbers:
- Median permits per 1,000 units of housing, 2016–2025: 63 in cities with the policies, 43 in comparison cities.
- The difference between those two numbers is 20 units per thousand over a decade or about 2% more housing stock over a decade.
- This difference translates into .2% more units built per year, or 2 units per thousand per year.
- When rent growth was compared between the cities with the policies and comparison cities, the cities with the adopted policies had 1.4% less growth in rent annually on average.
So .2% more housing would have to be attributed to 1.4% less rent growth on average per year to make this argument stick. If this were true, it would mean a 1:7 ratio of housing growth to rent decline – said differently, 1% of additional building would equal a 7% decline in rent.
When compared to existing research on the impact of development on rents, these numbers seem implausible. Studies show much lower rates of decline per 1% of additional development.
Rent decline per 1% of additional development
What the “development explains it” argument would require, next to what the research actually measures.
A 2025 University of Chicago study12 showed that 1% of additional development leads to a .19% of rent decline. A 2019 NYU study13 showed that for every 1% of additional development, rents declined by .1%. Therefore it is unlikely that additional development could account for the level of slower rent growth in cities with Just Cause and relocation assistance.
What this report does and does not claim
There are many factors that contribute to rent growth and decline, including amount of development, renter population growth, availability of land to expand units, turnover rates of units, economic factors like layoffs and inflation, a global pandemic, remote work and, more recently, price fixing software that uses rental data to set rents at the highest possible rate. This report does not seek to explain the specific reasons why rent grew or declined in cities with or without the Just Cause and relocation assistance policies. It simply demonstrates that when looking at two particular factors–the presence of relocation assistance with Just Cause–there is no evidence that these policies contributed to rent growth.
Chicago’s rents have risen every year for the past ten with the exception of the post-pandemic bust in 2021. In this last year, rents have risen faster in Chicago than the other nine largest U.S. cities14. What we know is that tenants are struggling and an increasing number of them are paying more than 50% of their income for rent15. We know that policies that increase affordability for tenants like relocation assistance that can help with moving costs, application fees, and increased rent will have a direct impact on a tenant’s ability to maintain housing. Rents will continue to rise whether or not we have additional tenant protections. Policies like Just Cause and relocation assistance increase tenant stability and are sound policy for ensuring residents can stay in their homes, and when that is not possible, can afford to move and find stable housing.
Sources & notes
Rent figures throughout are Zillow ZORI, measured May to May, which tracks asking rents on new listings. Permitting figures are from the Census Building Permits Survey (place-level annual). City characteristics are from the Census ACS 2015-2019 5-year estimates (DP02-DP05).
- Rental market trends, ReSimpli. ↩
- Article 1, Rent Stabilization Ordinance, Chapter XV §151.06 — automatic adjustments. Document. ↩
- Oregon Revised Statutes §90.323. ↩
- California Attorney General, Tenant protections. ↩
- Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, Rent stabilization. ↩
- CBI Commercial, Understanding the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (2024). ↩
- City of Portland, relocation assistance filings record. ↩
- RentCafe, Portland average rent market trends. ↩
- PubliCola, “Sometimes Begrudgingly, Landlords Are Finally Paying Relocation Assistance” (Feb 2024). ↩
- Census Reporter, Seattle, WA profile. ↩
- Floor Covering News, “Multi-family: state of the industry 2023”. ↩
- University of Chicago, journal article on development and rents (2025). ↩
- NYU Furman Center, study on new construction and rents (2019). ↩
- Axios Chicago, Chicago rent growth vs. big cities (Mar 2026). ↩
- Chicago Sun-Times, “Chicago renters spend income on housing and utilities” (Feb 2024). ↩
Relocation assistance policies
Relocation assistance policy sources
| Jurisdiction | State | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Burbank | California | burbankca.gov — tenant protections |
| Concord | California | cityofconcord.org — ordinance document |
| Glendale | California | glendalerentalrights.com — guide to rent increase relocation assistance |
| Los Angeles | California | housing.lacity.gov — relocation assistance (PDF) |
| Oakland | California | oaklandca.gov — code compliance relocation program |
| Richmond | California | ci.richmond.ca.us — Richmond relocation ordinance |
| San Diego | California | sdhc.org — tenant protections guide (PDF) |
| San Jose | California | sanjoseca.gov — Ellis Act ordinance |
| Portland | Oregon | portland.gov — renter relocation assistance |
| Bellingham | Washington | bellingham.municipal.codes — BMC 6.14.020(C) |
| Seattle | Washington | seattle.gov — economic displacement relocation assistance |