“Rent control is revenue neutral.” That’s the claim of ballot question proponents in Massachusetts.
Worcester business and civic leaders strongly disagreed with that idea last week when Housing for Massachusetts joined the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce for a roundtable discussion on the economic consequences of the statewide rent control ballot question.
Our bipartisan local panel included:
-State Senator Michael Moore
-State Representative Joseph McKenna
-Local housing investor Jackson Restrepo
-Real estate expert, broker, and MassLandlords, Inc. board member Erin Zamarro; and
-Small property owner, Realtor® and Massachusetts Association of REALTORS® board member Michael DeLuca
All of them oppose this ballot question because of the damage it would do to housing in Worcester County, Central Massachusetts, and the state as a whole.
While all agreed that we have a serious housing challenge, they also agreed that this ballot question in not the answer.
-Senator Moore underscored that every community is different, and that a one‑size‑fits‑all, state‑run regime undermines local decision‑making.
-DeLuca pointed out that rent control has already failed in Massachusetts and in many other communities.
-Zamarro highlighted the community role of thousands of small property owners—who make up more than 60% of landlords statewide—and their focus on keeping rents reasonable while maintaining their buildings.
Worcester officials added a critical fact: 33% of the city’s rental housing is already “naturally occurring affordable housing” (NOAH) — units affordable to low‑ and moderate‑income households without public subsidy. But if this ballot question passes, many of the small owners of those NOAH units will be forced to raise rents to the legal maximum each year just to avoid further erosion in their property values.
That local concern is echoed in last month’s report from Evan Horowitz at the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts, which found that the rent control ballot question would reduce property values statewide by roughly $300 billion over ten years. The City of Worcester alone faces an estimated 18.53% loss in property values. Across the county, the same one‑size‑fits‑all law would mean:
-Larger losses in places like Southbridge (around 19% of assessed value)
-Smaller but still significant hits even in tiny New Braintree (about a 6% decline)
In every community, that means the same hard choice: cut critical services like teachers, public safety, and road maintenance even further — or shift more of the tax burden onto single‑family homeowners.
How are local leaders in your city or town thinking about these trade‑offs?
Are they factoring projected property‑value losses into their budget discussions and their stance on rent control?
Join the conversation on LinkedIn.