Rent control has been banned in Massachusetts for more than three decades. But a proposed 2026 ballot question could change that, if voters decide to cap annual rent increases at 5% — at most — across the state.
The politics of it all are already complicated. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu says “yes,” and Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey says “no.” And for voters trying to sort through those competing claims, the terminology — rent control, rent stabilization, caps, exemptions — can be hard to parse.
Alexander von Hoffman, lecturer in urban planning at Harvard Graduate School of Design, joined GBH’s All Things Considered guest host Saraya Wintersmith to break down what it all means. What follows is a lightly edited transcript of their conversation.
Saraya Wintersmith: Help us make it make sense — this terminology in the debate. When people hear “rent control” or “rent stabilization,” what does that actually mean?
Alexander von Hoffman: Good question, and that gets us into the complications of rent control. Rent control, as you said, is a way of putting a cap on rents. But more specifically, it’s considered to be the stricter way of approaching rents. It puts a strict level on the rents without any exceptions — and even in extreme form, it can be a rent freeze.
Rent stabilization, which people use just to confuse us, is generally considered more flexible. This came out of New York City, the idea of rent stabilization, because they had a whole batch of apartments from a certain time period that they didn’t include in their first rent control [measure], so they had to figure out some formula. So, rent stabilization generally uses some kind of formula for rent increases and is considered more flexible.
Wintersmith: Massachusetts had rent control in places like Boston, Cambridge and Brookline before the 1994 ban. What did those policies look like at the time, and why were they ultimately repealed?
Von Hoffman: When you look at it historically, we’ve had rent control since the early 20th century. They’re usually adopted during times of inflation — particularly, as you might imagine, rent [inflation] — but general inflation. Often, not always, they’re first adopted in places where you have a lot of activism of a liberal, left-wing persuasion.
After World War I, the United States experienced a lot of inflation. New York City, in particular, had a housing crunch and rents soared. So they adopt [rent control] there.
Later, in the ’70s, I think the first town to really accept the second wave — or the third wave — of rent control was Berkeley, California.
It tends to be places that have experienced a time when there’s a hike in prices, and particularly rents, but also, it pops out where you have a lot of activism. I don’t need to tell you that Boston and Cambridge [are] nurturing grounds for activists, I think, so that was part of the reason you saw it here.
Wintersmith: Supporters of rent control say it can provide some stability and help prevent displacement. From a policy standpoint, what problems is rent control designed to solve?
Von Hoffman: That is the question. It would be interesting to ask the framers of this new ballot petition, because as soon as you get into it, you begin to see some of the complexities when you intervene in a complicated economic system.
So, the first thing is, what’s the purpose? Well, obviously, it’s to keep down the rents. But should there be income targets? Is it right for affluent people in luxury apartments to benefit from rent control? I don’t have the answers — I just have questions. And then, there are other complications. What is the mechanism that will enforce the rent control? New York has commissions that calculate the maintenance and interest costs of buildings, and so on.
I would just say, to begin with: Tenants, generally, love rent control, and they will fight to keep it.
But few, if any, economists ever like it. Some of the problems that economists find [are] that if you cap the revenue that you can receive from rental units, that discourages new construction. Because why would people want to invest in something where their hands will be tied as to how much revenue they can get? That becomes counterproductive, because new construction of apartments would increase the supply and should help lower the rents. Without revenue for existing buildings, landlords generally reduce the amount they spend on the buildings. That takes its toll on maintenance, and you can begin to see deterioration of rental units.
In certain places, when you have a maximum allowable rent increase — I think it’s 5% in this ballot initiative — landlords might not have bothered to raise the rents, or they only would have raised it a little bit. That’s particularly in down-market places — you can think of working-class towns across Massachusetts.
But now, there’s a law that says you’re controlled and you’re allowed a 5% increase. So now, landlords say, “All right, I’ll do it.” It has the perverse effect of encouraging them, or getting them in the habit of, raising the rents.
Wintersmith: You’ve done a great job describing the trade-offs voters should consider as they think about this ballot question. What else can you tell us about some of the long-term effects? Is there any research from cities like New York or San Francisco that suggests what happens when we leave rent control in place for a long time?
Von Hoffman: Well, there are studies that say it reduces displacement and is good in that sense, and keeps the rents down, which is its purpose. So that’s on the plus side.
But over time, relatively high-income households take advantage of the situation.
In Cambridge, one of the reasons rent control lost popularity was a scandal that occurred when it was discovered that the mayor of the city, who was a prosperous lawyer, was living in a rent-controlled apartment. There was nothing illegal about that, so there are some contradictions and tensions within this whole setup of rent control.
Wintersmith: I’m going to ask you, while I have you, given your personal experience and your scholarship, where do you think you’ll fall with the ballot question?
Von Hoffman: I think I’ll go with the governor on this [and vote “no”].
I want to say, though, that Mayor Wu did point out that she would have preferred for the ballot measure to give a local option, which gives flexibility so that maybe Springfield has a different situation than Boston, Cambridge or Somerville. It would also give the local political sentiment a way to control that.
So, even Mayor Wu has, I don’t want to overstate it, but —
Wintersmith: A conditional yes.
Von Hoffman: Yes.
