Boston is considering bringing back rent control, a policy abolished statewide in Massachusetts since 1994, in an effort to address the city’s escalating housing costs and growing affordability crisis. For landlords, especially those with large portfolios, proposed rent regulations could significantly impact operations and bottom lines. As debates continue over the merits and risks of rent stabilization measures, landlords should understand the key provisions, analyze the potential impacts, and review what compliance could entail if new policies are enacted.
Fundamentals of Boston's rent control laws
In her first State of the City address, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu outlined a housing agenda aimed at increasing affordability through expanded requirements for income-restricted units in new developments as well as rent stabilization policies to protect tenants. Specifically, Mayor Wu proposed expanding Boston’s Inclusionary Development Policy (IDP) to require projects with 7+ units to make 20% of them income-restricted, up from the current 13% requirement. She also put forward a rent stabilization plan that would limit annual rent increases to 6-10%, tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Mayor Wu contends these measures will help address an affordability crisis where the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment has reached $2,500. She argues rent stabilization policies are different than “old” rent control models with more negative consequences. However, the mayor’s proposals have faced pushback from real estate groups and developers who warn of slowing housing production. There are also legal obstacles, as rent control was banned statewide in Massachusetts in 1994 after a voter referendum.
Rent increase caps
The centerpiece of Mayor Wu’s rent stabilization plan is annual caps on rent increases tied to the CPI, likely in the range of 6-10% based on her comments and details that have emerged about the proposal. This aims to prevent sudden large rent hikes that could displace tenants. However, Massachusetts state law currently prohibits any form of rent control after voters approved a 1994 ballot referendum banning the practice statewide.
For rent stabilization measures to be enacted in Boston, the statewide ban would need to be lifted either through a new state law or voter referendum. Mayor Wu and supportive lawmakers argue caps on annual increases are needed to protect tenants from unaffordable rent hikes, while real estate groups warn such policies will stifle new development. This debate will continue as proponents push to overturn the state prohibition on rent control.
Tenant protection provisions
In addition to capping annual rent increases, Mayor Wu’s rent stabilization plan is expected to include provisions aimed at protecting tenants from unjust evictions. Specific tenant protections in the proposal have not been released yet, but are likely to include requirements for landlords to show “just cause” for terminating tenancies. This could restrict evictions to cases like non-payment of rent versus allowing no-fault evictions.
Other measures that could be enacted include requiring relocation assistance payments for certain no-fault evictions and prohibiting eviction without advance notice and a court order. Tenant advocacy groups strongly support such policies to prevent displacement and ensure stability. However, landlord organizations have raised concerns about limiting owners’ control over their properties and increasing costs. The scope of tenant protection rules will be a key question as new rent regulations are debated.
Exemptions and incentives
To balance concerns from landlords and developers, Mayor Wu’s rent stabilization plan will likely exempt certain types of properties like new construction. This aims to maintain incentives for building more market-rate housing even with rent regulations on older existing units. Exempting new buildings from annual increase caps has been a feature of other cities’ policies.
However, some critics argue broad exemptions for new construction will limit the impact on affordability. On the flip side, narrow exemptions or none at all could hamper development. Getting the details right on exemptions will be crucial to avoiding unintended consequences from rent stabilization policies, especially potential negative effects on housing supply.
Impact on landlords
For Boston landlords affected by new rent regulations, the most direct impact would come from annual caps on rent increases tied to inflation. This policy would limit the upside of raising rents year-over-year, potentially constraining profit margins. Landlords would have less flexibility to raise rents to market rates when demand is high or recoup capital investments via higher rents.
Proposed tenant protections could also pose challenges for landlords by restricting eviction rights and adding relocation payment obligations. However, exemptions for new construction may limit the impact for landlords focused on new development opportunities. Overall, rent stabilization measures could require adapting business plans and operations to function under new regulatory constraints and uncertainty.
The economic and social implications
Beyond direct impacts on landlords and tenants, the broader economic and social implications of rent control are hotly debated. Proponents argue policies like rent caps and tenant protections prevent displacement, stabilize communities, and make housing more affordable for residents vulnerable to rent hikes. They contend benefits outweigh potential downsides.
However, critics warn rent regulations could negatively impact housing quality and supply over the long run. By capping rent upside and adding operating costs, they argue policies could disincentivize landlords from maintaining and improving properties. Critics also argue construction of new units could be hampered, worsening shortages over time. Weighing these potential trade-offs will shape the rent control debate.
Compliance requirements for landlords and tenants
If Boston enacts new rent stabilization policies, both landlords and tenants will need to understand compliance requirements. For landlords, this may include registering rental units, disclosing allowable rent levels, providing mandated notices for rent increases and terminations, and adhering to restrictions on evictions and obligation for relocation payments. Training staff and modifying internal systems would be crucial to avoiding violations.
For tenants, compliance may center on providing required notices and documentation related to tenancy, rent levels, maintenance issues, and disputes over allowable rent increases or eviction notices. Both landlords and tenants would need to be informed on their rights and responsibilities under any new regulations.
The policy debate surrounding rent control
Boston’s push for rent stabilization comes amid a lively policy debate on the merits and risks of rent control. Proponents argue rent regulations are needed to make housing more affordable and prevent displacement of vulnerable residents. They say smart policies can protect tenants while avoiding major negative impacts seen under some past “old” rent control models.
Critics counter that rent control will inevitably restrict new construction and could lead to deterioration of existing housing quality over time. They also argue it reduces economic mobility and flexibility. Finding the right policy balance is crucial, but challenging. The rent control debate involves important trade-offs between affordability, stability, supply, quality, and mobility.
Long-term sustainability of rent control measures
Given the risks cited by critics, a key question surrounding Boston’s proposed rent stabilization policies is their long-term sustainability and impact on the housing market. Backers argue “new” rent control models aim to avoid major unintended consequences through measured caps, exemptions, and pairing controls with policies to spur supply like zoning reform.
Yet some research on modern rent stabilization has still found negative impacts on supply over time. Monitoring outcomes and making adjustments will be important if Boston enacts new policies. The long-term sustainability of rent control may hinge on calibrating policies carefully and coupling them with other reforms to promote housing growth and affordability.
The role of rent control in urban housing policy
Boston’s proposals reflect a broader trend of cities looking to bring back rent stabilization measures to combat soaring housing costs after previous policies were abolished decades ago. With affordability challenges mounting nationwide, policymakers are reevaluating rent regulations as one tool to provide tenant protections without severely hampering housing supply and quality.
Getting the details right on design, implementation, and monitoring of new rent control policies will be crucial to avoiding past policy mistakes. While not a cure-all, calibrated rent stabilization could potentially play an important role in urban housing policy alongside other reforms aimed at boosting supply, affordability and protections.
The intersection of rent control and inclusionary zoning policies
In addition to rent stabilization, a key part of Mayor Wu's housing agenda is expanding Boston's inclusionary zoning policy (IDP) to require more income-restricted units in new developments. This demonstrates how rent control is being paired with other measures aimed at promoting affordable housing and preventing displacement.
Inclusionary zoning policies that mandate or incentivize affordable units can work synergistically with rent stabilization to protect tenants in existing properties while also boosting affordable supply. However, designing the policies in tandem is crucial to ensure rent regulations do not severely hamper development of income-restricted units. Getting the balance right will be an important consideration as Boston expands its IDP alongside potential rent stabilization.
Other cities with modern rent control
Boston is not alone in revisiting rent stabilization amid housing affordability challenges. Looking at examples and case studies from other cities that have implemented forms of modern rent control could provide valuable insights for policymakers in Boston.
For instance, Oregon recently became the first U.S. state to enact statewide rent control with a policy tying annual increases to inflation. Early data shows the policy moderated rent hikes but critics argue it is dampening new construction. In California, a decades old rent stabilization law restricts increases on older units in certain cities like San Francisco, generating intense debate over impacts. Analyzing experiences in cities and states with existing rent regulations can help inform the policy design process in Boston.
Tradeoffs between rent control and housing vouchers
Some policy experts argue that expanding housing voucher programs, such as Section 8, could achieve affordability aims without the risks and distortions of rent control. Vouchers help make existing units affordable for tenants by subsidizing rents, while avoiding placing regulatory burdens on landlords or restrictions on rent levels. However, voucher programs depend on sufficient public funding.
As Boston weighs rent stabilization, examining the tradeoffs between regulatory approaches like rent control versus expanding housing subsidies through vouchers could be worthwhile. Each policy tool has pros and cons, and likely work best together as part of a multifaceted strategy. Rent control aims to stabilize costs in the existing stock, while vouchers help tenants afford market-rate units.
If Boston moves forward with new rent regulations, landlords should be prepared to operate under a different regulatory environment. While the debate continues over balancing housing affordability and stability with supply and quality, active engagement by the real estate industry will be key to crafting effective policy. With careful design, impact monitoring, and adaptation, rent stabilization measures could potentially be part of the policy mix to make urban housing more equitable.