(Illustration by Dsndrn-Videolar via Pixabay)

MASSACHUSETTS CONTINUES TO struggle to address one of the most severe housing affordability crises in the nation. As representatives of the Massachusetts Housing Coalition, we see firsthand the urgent need for solutions that expand access to safe, stable, and attainable housing across the Commonwealth, but do not see rent control as the ideal means for doing so.

An initiative advancing to the November 2026 ballot proposes to cap annual rent increases statewide at 5 percent or the rate of inflation (whichever is lower), using January 31, 2026, as the baseline rent level. Although the goal of protecting tenants from sudden spikes is noble, evidence from decades of research and practical experience shows that broad rent caps like these often deliver the opposite of their intended outcomes. Some of the undesired consequences include discouraging new construction, reducing maintenance on existing units, and ultimately shrinking the overall supply of rental housing, making the crisis worse for the very renters that these initiatives aim to help.

While no policy is without its trade-offs, rent stabilization as it is currently proposed risks stymying the progress we are finally making through production-focused reforms. State leaders, local municipalities, and the private sector should instead stay focused on strategies that have proven effective: building more homes at all price points, streamlining permitting, and targeting assistance to residents and communities most in need.

Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly banned rent control statewide in 1994 after experiencing its negative effects in communities like Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline. Rental properties under rate caps experienced deferred maintenance, reduced quality, while communities saw a noticeable drop in new rental development. When controls were lifted, housing production rebounded, and the market began adding units again. It’s not by accident, either: When property owners and developers have confidence in the state’s commitment to housing production across all income levels, they historically make continued investment in local communities. Studies reinforce these findings:

  • A new study released in March 2026 from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board and Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis concluded that imposing rent control statewide could depress real estate values by $300 billion, erasing large amounts of municipal revenue tied to property taxes.
  • Researchers at Stanford examined rent control in San Francisco and found it reduced rental supply by 15 percent as landlords converted units to condos or other uses to bypass regulatory hurdles.
  • A review of US policies by the Brookings Institution concluded that broad rent caps tend to benefit higher-income tenants who stay in place longer, while doing little for low-income or new renters. This has also led to higher rental rates for uncontrolled units.
  • In states with limited supply like Massachusetts, rent caps can discourage institutional and nonprofit investors from building or preserving affordable housing, as returns become too unpredictable to justify the risk and they will simply choose to invest in states with less burdensome policies

The proposed initiative would apply to nearly all rental properties, with limited exemptions for very small owner-occupied buildings and units less than 10 years old. Even well-maintained buildings would face restricted revenue growth despite rising costs for taxes, insurance, utilities, and repair costs that have soared in recent years. Even if the state caps rent increases, this doesn’t stop the expense of simply owning the building from continuing to increase, especially with ongoing escalations in materials prices that impact landlords and developers of every size and building portfolio.

The Commonwealth is finally seeing momentum on housing production thanks to recent reforms like the MBTA Communities law, bond bills, and local zoning changes. Thousands of new units are in the pipeline, including deeply affordable ones supported by Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and other affordability tools.

A statewide cap risks derailing this progress.

  • Fewer new homes built: Developers and investors consistently cite regulatory uncertainty as a top barrier. Adding rent caps on top of already high construction costs could stall projects, especially workforce and middle-income housing that relies on market-rate units to cross-subsidize affordable ones.
  • Reduced incentives for preservation and upkeep: Landlords facing capped rents may defer non-essential repairs or exit the rental market altogether, leading to a gradual decline in housing quality. Massachusetts would likely see an outsized impact in this regard considering the high quantity of older triple-deckers and mid-sized buildings (5+ units) located in the Bay State that would remain subject to the caps, even as operating costs continue to rise.
  • Disproportionate effects in Gateway Cities and rural areas: Places like Worcester, Springfield, and North Central Massachusetts already struggle to attract outside investment. Blanket caps could make these markets even less viable, effectively increasing scarcity in the regions that can least afford it. Furthermore, local property owners who grew up in these areas and want to improve their hometowns will be stifled. Rent control impedes pride of ownership from showing up through upgraded housing conditions, façade improvements, beautification of neighborhoods, and streetscape improvements.
  • Underserved communities lose wealth–building opportunities: Not only will struggling areas suffer further divestment, but individuals in these communities attempting to build wealth for themselves will also lose career-making opportunities. The real estate and property maintenance industry in Massachusetts are just now beginning to welcome more diversity. Rent control would stop that progress.

We need real tenant protections, stronger just-cause eviction rules, better enforcement against bad actors, expanded rental assistance, and emergency aid for those facing displacement. But we also need far more homes. The Healey administration’s goal of creating or preserving 40,000 new units by 2027, combined with local efforts in Boston (aiming for tens of thousands more), shows what’s possible when we focus on supply.

The Massachusetts Housing Coalition supports targeted, evidence-based approaches: more funding for affordable housing trust funds, inclusionary zoning that actually delivers units, and incentives for accessory dwelling units and transit-oriented development. These strategies add homes without the unintended consequences of broad price controls. Massachusetts can solve its housing crisis, but only by building our way forward, not by capping our way backward.

Steve Callahan, Jr. Is vice president of business development at Callahan Construction and a board member of the Massachusetts Housing Coalition. Neily Soto is a real estate agent, Methuen city councilor, and president of the Massachusetts Housing Coalition. Peggy Pratt is a real estate broker and landlord, and vice president of the Massachusetts Housing Coalition. She serves on the Greater Boston Real Estate board and is a national coach overseeing seven chapters for the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals.