Rent-control proposals continue to rear their heads in states and communities around the country—and REALTOR® associations carry on their drive to educate consumers and lawmakers about why such initiatives are not a good idea.
This year, a particularly onerous ballot proposal is set to be decided by Massachusetts voters in November. The proposal would cap rent increases at 5% or the level of inflation, whichever is lower, and would apply in every city and town across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. A coalition of concerned citizens and housing advocates—including the Greater Boston Real Estate Board and the Massachusetts Association of REALTORS®—is battling to defeat the measure.
The stakes are high, says Conor Yunits, executive vice president of the Issues Management Group, who chairs the campaign to defeat the measure. The ballot proposal offers few exceptions, and passage would result in depressed real estate values, putting municipalities that depend on property tax revenue in a fiscal bind, Yunits says.
The National Association of REALTORS® has committed $3 million in the form of an Issues Mobilization Grant and is watching the measure closely, says Drew Myers, NAR state and local policy representative. “If passed, it will become the most aggressive statewide rent cap in the U.S.,” Myers says.
The campaign to oppose the measure, Housing for Massachusetts, has filed a lawsuit seeking to have the proposal removed from the November ballot. But coalition members aren’t waiting for a court decision to sway public opinion. They’ve launched a full-blown effort that includes press conferences, legislative hearings, public events and research showing the deleterious effect the measure will have on cities and towns around the state.
What the Research on Rent Control Shows
In an environment of rising costs, putting government controls on rental cost increases can feel like an appealing way to help low- and moderate-income residents. But most economists who’ve studied the long-term effects of rent control have reached the conclusion that such measures do more harm than good when it comes to rental housing supply and affordability.
Earlier this month, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, in partnership with the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts, released a report that specifically focuses on the impact the Massachusetts proposal will have on municipal budgets.
The study, which examined the effects of rent controls in Cambridge, Mass., and St. Paul, Minn., concluded that the measure would almost immediately shrink the residential property tax base by 6%–9% in municipalities across Massachusetts.
“After a decade, property values would decrease by nearly 14 percent, costing home- and property owners roughly $300 billion,” the report says. “Faced with fast-eroding tax bases, cities and towns will have to choose between deep cuts to services or tax hikes of at least 10% to compensate for the losses.”
Why the Massachusetts Proposal Is So Troubling
Because the measure would apply to all cities and towns in Massachusetts with no opt out, a growing list of mayors has come out against the bill, Yunits says. He cites mayors in the cities of Gardner, Holyoke, New Bedford, Quincy and Worcester.
“We’ve also signed on a number of city council members, up to a dozen chambers of commerce and other business groups,” he says. “And the coalition cuts across party lines. This is a bipartisan issue.”
If passed, the rent caps would apply to roughly 70% of all rental units in the state, the Housing for Massachusetts report says. Exceptions would apply to one- to four-unit owner-occupied buildings, short-term rentals (under 14 days) and facilities used for religious, educational or nonprofit purposes. The proposal also offers a carve out for new construction, exempting “dwelling units for which the first residential certificate of occupancy is less than 10 years old, for a period of 10 years from the date at which such certificate of occupancy was issues.”
But Yunits says, “As far as we’re concerned that doesn’t do anything to protect new construction. When they passed rent control in St. Paul, new construction basically fell off a cliff. Most projects are likely underwritten on a 30-year timeline. Even a project that opened as recently as 2017 could be subject to this rent control as soon as it passes.”
Next Steps
Proponents submitted signatures to get it on the ballot in November, and the Housing for Massachusetts coalition was formed in December 2025.
Last week, the coalition filed a complaint in court seeking to remove the proposal from the ballot on a number of grounds.
For example, the Massachusetts constitution doesn’t allow a ballot question on two unrelated matters, Yunits says, and the proposal mentions short-term rentals, which are covered under a different statute from long-term rentals. In addition, the lawsuit charges that the ballot proposal violates the constitution’s “excluded matters” clause because it eliminates the right to compensation currently guaranteed under the state’s existing rent control law. Specifically, the current law requires municipalities to reimburse housing providers for the difference between rent-controlled and market-rate units.
Yunits says he expects oral arguments to take place in May with the court issuing a ruling by the last week of June.
In the meantime, the coalition will keep up the work of educating consumers on the ramifications of the ballot proposal.
“There have been some public polls, and not surprisingly the question polls well,” Yunits says, “but as people learn what this actually does, we’ve seen opinion move from yes to no.”
The Real Solution: Increase Supply
So, what alternatives exist to help working families afford housing costs?
“Our coalition would consider lots of alternatives, including rental assistance and targeted tax credits for folks struggling with rent,” Yunits says. “We’re open to anything that won’t constrain the supply of housing in this housing crunch.”
Indeed, although affordability is the problem rent-control measures aim to solve, the real solution is increasing supply, Myers says.
Yunits shared the same message with coalition partners at the launch of the Housing for Massachusetts campaign, saying:
“When you look around the U.S. and see where housing prices are falling—like in Austin, Texas, where rents are down 6%, or Phoenix, Ariz., where rents are down 4%—the common characteristic is supply. Cities and states that build new housing supply see prices fall. We know that we need to pick up the pace of housing creation, and that’s why everyone here supports solutions that remove barriers to new affordable and market rate housing, and we welcome new ideas that spur construction. But we also know that any policy that constricts supply will take us backwards, and that’s what this ballot question will do.”
