PROPONENTS OF A ballot measure that would create the strictest statewide rent control in the country are now working to find a way off the ballot through the Legislature. But with no clear buy-in from major industry groups, legislators may not have the appetite to take on sweeping rent control reform in a quickly shrinking window.
The pro-rent control Keep Massachusetts Home coalition has been back-channeling with some real estate leaders since lawmakers asked them to find a middle ground. Over the weekend, they circulated a proposal that would allow cities and towns to opt into a more lenient rent control policy than the ballot measure.
Organizers then went public Tuesday afternoon with what they touted as a compromise: limiting rent increases to no more than 10 percent per year, only in cities and towns that opt in. It’s a much less stringent approach than the ballot question, which would cap increases at either the annual change in the Consumer Price Index or 5 percent, whichever is lower, in all 351 municipalities.
“While we made significant concessions in an effort to reach a true compromise, this legislation would achieve our primary goals of ending the state’s ban on rent control and enabling strong protections from excessive rent hikes and unjust evictions for Massachusetts residents,” said Carolyn Chou, executive director of Homes for All Massachusetts, which is leading the campaign.
The campaign behind the question said it had support for its new local-option alternative from five real estate industry leaders: WinnCompanies, Lupoli Companies, The HYM Investment Group, the Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations, and The Builder Coalition. But there were several notable omissions on the initial list, especially NAIOP and the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, who are leading the high-spending opposition campaign working to sink the statewide ballot question.
Also absent from the talks: any legislators, which makes it harder to forecast whether the House and Senate will embrace the compromise, or if they will reject it in favor of a high-stakes, costly battle at the ballot box.
“Lawmakers were not in the room for these negotiations,” Andrew Farnitano, a spokesperson for Keep Massachusetts Home, told CommonWealth Beacon. “We certainly kept legislators aware of the status of the conversations, but we are presenting this legislative package to them as our negotiated compromise.”
Leaders of the ballot campaign signaled willingness to seek a legislative alternative from the jump, as even rent control backers worried openly about the restrictive statewide mandate approach.
Chou said the campaign is still “prepared to take our rent control ballot initiative to the ballot,” but “we have agreed to not move forward with the ballot measure if this compromise language is passed by July 1.”
While rent control was banned through ballot measure in 1994, soaring rents amid a painful housing crunch prompted a handful of municipalities to ask lawmakers for permission to put some version of rent control or stabilization policies in place. These efforts for years have washed fruitlessly upon the shores of Beacon Hill, where lawmakers indicated little interest or outright hostility to rent control mandates, local options, or individual community exceptions alike.
But the Legislature is bristling at the number of potential ballot measures looking to do an end-run around their preferred lawmaking process. Sen. Cindy Friedman, of Arlington, beseeched both sides of the ballot measure to work it out amongst themselves and put something before lawmakers.
“What would be really wonderful for the Legislature is if you all got together and figured out what a middle ground is,” Friedman said in March.
Backers are gathering their remaining needed signatures to submit for certification by July to make the ballot, after lawmakers declined to act on the measure in May.
“While there are members of the Committee who agree with the concept of rent stabilization, given the complexities of the housing market and the issues raised by the expert, proponents, and opponents,” lawmakers wrote, a majority of committee members reviewing the petition recommended that the Legislature take no action on the ballot measure.
Those worries persist. As lawmakers learned of the proposed legislative language, Sen. Brendan Crighton of Lynn noted “rent control is a complicated issue,” and “concerns for me remain around the impact on housing production.”
Beacon Hill was abuzz for much of Tuesday after initial reports surfaced that a possible deal could soon emerge. As the draft proposal circulated, lawmakers said they were essentially out of the loop.
“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” House Speaker Ron Mariano replied when asked about the preliminary reports around midday, just a couple of hours before the campaign went public with its proposal.
“From what I hear, there’s a lot more people involved in this conversation than the folks that actually made the agreement, so I don’t know where everyone stands yet,” added House Ways and Means Committee chair Aaron Michlewitz.
Conor Yunits, a spokesperson for the NAIOP- and Greater Boston Real Estate Board-backed opposition campaign, responded to the proponents’ announcement Tuesday by saying “no compromise has been reached.”
“We were formally contacted by the Yes campaign on Sunday with language that differs from the proposed ballot question, including sections that remain problematic for housing creation and communities,” Yunits said. “In good faith we will review their proposal, but the materials they sent us also differ from what they sent the press today. There have been no direct conversations between our campaign and the proponents.”
While the Senate has indicated openness to considering compromises on both the rent control measure and another that would change state zoning in a bid to make starter home construction easier, the House has kept its cards close. In 2020, the House shot down a proposed amendment to an economic development bill that would have allowed a version of local-option rent control.
“A lot of members will say, ‘What is the point of even bringing this up?’ Because the overwhelming majority of us took a position on this [in 2020],” House Majority Leader Mike Moran told WBUR in 2023 during a conversation about revisiting rent control.
Gov. Maura Healey says she is a “no” on the ballot initiative, citing real estate industry concerns that it would injure the state’s ability to attract development. The state’s high court is expected to hand down a ruling on whether the measure is fit for ballot within the next few weeks.
That the proponents are behind the attempted compromise is usually an indication of concern that support might be softer than expected.
Recent polling is only mildly instructive. Emerson College polling found 60 percent of voters said they would vote yes on a ballot measure to limit annual rent increase in Massachusetts to no more than 5 percent, though the question does not note that most of the time the rent hikes would be limited to the rate of inflation.
In polling from Polity Research Consulting for the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, 69 percent of respondents said they would definitely or probably vote to approve a ballot question imposing statewide rent control.
But favorability tends to decline over time in ballot campaigns. And the opposition blitz is in full swing and ready to spend tens of millions of dollars, highlighting the measure’s provisions as more limiting than any prior legislative effort in the state or nation.
Somerville, for instance, asked lawmakers this term to allow the city to limit increasing rents to the rate of inflation plus 2 percent, or 5 percent max, whichever is lower. Boston pitched a plan for the lower of inflation plus 6 percent, up to 10 percent.
The compromise language closely mirrors California’s state policy, which sets its rates at the lower of inflation plus 5 percent, or no more than 10 percent. Some communities are also allowed to craft their own policies in the Golden State.
The legislative pitch would also allow property owners to reset rents to market rate upon vacancy, rather than locking the same rent in place or allowing for a modest increase, so long as the tenant left voluntarily or because of a “just cause” eviction.
Several provisions are still making some real estate leaders nervous, apart from a general resistance to rent control.
The proposed bill includes some of the same exemptions as the proposed ballot measure – like owner-occupied buildings of four units or fewer – meaning it would still capture many small landlords. It would also allow cities to create or restore rent control boards that would review landlords’ requests to raise rents beyond the caps, and limit no-fault evictions or non-renewals except for specific reasons.
It also includes an unusual proposal that seems likely to throttle future state legislation.
While a simple majority in a municipality could vote to adopt this new rent control system, the document states that if the law later changes after it takes effect, the local ordinances would remain unchanged unless the changes are readopted or amended by a local supermajority.
This “creates an intentionally high bar to amend the terms of this bargain at a later date,” according to the draft proposal.
Lawmakers indicated on Tuesday that they would be surprised if that provision survived debate.
This story was updated to incorporate a new statement from Conor Yunits, a spokesperson for the campaign opposing a statewide rent control ballot question.
