Case Study: How to Fight a Rent Hike

Royal Arms demonstrates how broad participation (30% of 100 units) plus in-person engagement can force a corporate landlord to negotiate.

Madison Property Management tenants extracted concessions from a management company by acting quickly and publicizing the issue.

Case Study 1: Rent Hikes at Royal Arms 

Background:

Royal Arms is a 100-unit apartment complex near Hilldale, home to a mix of elderly tenants, working-class families, and graduate students. It had historically been a tight-knit community. For years, the property was managed by Randy Deal, a landlord who was relatively well-liked since he kept rent increases modest. In Winter 2023, Deal passed away and Orosz Properties acquired the building.

Escalation:
Tenants quickly noticed a change: maintenance requests went unanswered, communication broke down, and lease renewal notices came with sudden rent hikes of 20–40%, giving tenants only two weeks to decide whether to re-sign.

Organizing Steps:

• A tenant named D began by putting up Madison Tenant Power flyers reading: “Pissed about Orosz? Call or text neighbor D.”

• This sparked the first tenant meeting in the parking lot, organized with MTP support.

• Together, tenants drafted a letter to the landlord. Though few wanted to add their own text, one night of door-knocking secured about 100 signatures (roughly 30% of the building).

Tenant Power in Action:

• The landlord agreed to meet, where 60 tenants (and a journalist) confronted him. His justification was that he “had a right to pay back the bank loan.” Under pressure, he extended the lease renewal deadline and addressed some maintenance requests.

• A second letter followed, signed by 120 tenants, threatening to move out if rents were not lowered. Orosz did not reduce rents outright, but enough tenants left that the landlord was forced to temporarily drop rents to fill vacant units.

• Alongside the fight, tenants raised $5,000 to help cover rent for three elderly neighbors with health problems.

Takeaways:

• Why did landlord Les Orosz respond? The sheer number of signatures showed collective power and made it harder to ignore tenants.

• Participation level: About 30% of tenants signed on.

• Tactics: Early steps focused on gauging readiness—tenants avoided escalatory terms like “demand” and weren’t yet prepared for a rent strike. Instead, door-to-door outreach (by a team of 5–6 tenants) proved critical in building numbers.

Case Study 2: Rent Hikes at Madison Property Management

Background:

In October 2023, tenants at a 40-unit student-heavy building managed by MPM received lease renewal offers. For years, rents had risen modestly—just $5–10 annually. Suddenly, tenants were hit with a $900 rent increase (roughly 30%).

Escalation:
Many tenants hadn’t even noticed the emailed lease offers until one tenant, Pierce, knocked on doors to spread the word. With a looming deadline, there was little time to organize.

Organizing Steps:

• Over a weekend, the tenant knocked every door to collect contact info and alert neighbors.

• Tenants attempted to host a Zoom meeting, but turnout was low (only P and one other attended). A text group chat became the main tool for coordination.

• Using an MTP template, tenants drafted a first letter citing bedbug infestations and nonfunctional basement units to justify limiting increases to 10%. About 45% signed on via email.

Tenant Power in Action:

• MPM initially rejected the letter, calling the proposed increase “reasonable” compared to other landlords. This deflated momentum.

• A second letter used stronger language but gained only 25% support.

• Despite this, within a week MPM backpedaled and compromised, lowering the increase from 30% to 20%.

Takeaways:

• Why did MPM respond? Even with less than a majority, tenants’ collective push created enough pressure and publicity (an article appeared in The Daily Cardinal in November 2023) to force a concession.

• Participation level: 45% signed the first letter, 25% the second.

• Tactics: Unlike Royal Arms, door-knocking was primarily done by a single tenant (P). Most signatures were gathered over email, which limited deeper connection.