BOSTON, MA – April 27, 2026 – In a Banker & Tradesman story last Friday on how rent control could threaten the future of local banks, ballot question proponents finally admitted that most restrictive rent control proposal in the U.S. is built on false narratives.
Carolyn Chou, head of Homes For All Massachusetts, the subsidiary of the New York-based Right to the City Alliance backing the ballot question, told reporter Sam Lattof:
“In general, we believe this is really about the large rent increases we see, particularly in corporate landlords. Most landlords are not raising the rent huge amounts, year over year.”
That admission completely undercuts the false messages that ballot question proponents have been spreading for months. Additionally, this ballot question, as proposed, applies to ALL rental property owners who do not live in their rental units. There is no language explicitly directed to “corporate landlords,” nor does the word “corporate” appear even once in the ballot question language.
But Chou didn’t stop there:
“The average person who owns a two- or three-family would be exempted from this policy,” she said.
That claim is absurdly false. The ballot question exempts only OWNER-OCCUPIED buildings of four units or fewer. In fact, if this ballot question passes, a person or family who “owns a two- or three-family” and rents it out will be treated the same way as if they were a Wall Street hedge fund with 10,000 apartments. In Massachusetts, over 60% of rental units are owned by small property owners.
“Homes for All Massachusetts persists in falsely conflating the vast majority of small property owners with large corporations,” said Amir Shahsavari, President of the Small Property Owners Association. “Moreover, their admission that the majority of landlords do not impose steep rent increases eliminates the justification for rent control altogether. Small property owners, local government, and housing advocates need to work together to address the housing crisis, rather than resurrecting a failed policy that harms everyone.”
“I take pride in maintaining my property and providing stable housing for my tenants,” said MassLandlords member Stacy McGrath in testimony opposing the rent control ballot question. She owns a triple decker that has been in her family since 1906, but does not live there. Despite what Chou claims, McGrath’s three-family would be subject to rent control. “All three of my units are currently below market rent. Policies structured like this ballot initiative would effectively penalize small housing providers, who have voluntarily kept their rents affordable.”
The centerpiece of the Banker & Tradesman story is Milbury National Bank CEO John Latino, whose argument, found in an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Judicial Court, outlined how the ballot question threatens the future of the bank.From the Banker & Tradesman article:
“Millbury National Bank does not sell any of its loans, and they are primarily adjustable-rate mortgages, according to Latino… Many of its loans were underwritten on the assumption that rents would increase in between tenants, as units are renovated, but increases planned by its borrowers are greater than what would be allowed under rent control. If the loans were to default, Millbury National could fail, Latino wrote.
“‘A lot of our customers are smaller landlords,’ Latino said in an interview Friday. ‘They have, typically, just a small amount of properties – maybe one or two or three investment properties. A lot of them also have full-time jobs… Our customer base is not multi-million-dollar corporations. These are community members that live and work in this community, and they’re proud to be landlords, proud to take care of their properties.’”
You can read the full story from Banker & Tradesman here: https://bankerandtradesman.com/rent-control-would-threaten-local-banks-survival-ceo-says/
Learn more about Housing for Massachusetts and join our coalition at housingformass.com.
###
Media Contact:
Julianne Hester