Chambers and Elected Officials Join Push to Protect Housing and Local Budgets
BOSTON, MA – January 29, 2026 – Housing for Massachusetts today kicked off its campaign to defeat a proposed ballot question that will do lasting damage to the state’s housing supply and municipal budgets. Seeking inclusion on the November ballot, the proposed ballot question would mandate the nation’s most restrictive statewide rent control policy in each of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts.
Small property owners, elected officials, local Chamber leaders, and more joined Housing for Massachusetts to remind voters about the state’s history with this failed policy, and the devastating impact it would have on housing creation.
“Rent control has failed wherever it’s been implemented,” said Amir Shahsavari, President of the Small Property Owners Association. “We are small, mom and pop businesses who provide 65% of the housing throughout Massachusetts, and we take great pride in providing well maintained places to live. When policies come about that threaten our businesses, they not only hurt us, but the renters who depend on us.”
The ballot question would restrict annual rent increases to the annual change in the consumer price index (CPI), which averaged just 2.58% from 2005-2024, up to a maximum of 5%. That would be the lowest statewide cap in the U.S. Unlike in other states, the Massachusetts proposal would also apply to vacant units, meaning that for property owners who kept rents lower for elderly or long-term residents, they will never be able to catch up to market rates when those homes are vacated. It provides no pathway for property owners to recoup the cost of investment or property maintenance, and the artificial caps fall well below the increases in property taxes, insurance, and other costs small property owners face.
“As a first generation American and an owner of a three-family, I work hard to keep it well maintained and at reasonable rents for my tenants,” said Alex Guardiola, Worcester community leader and small property owner. “Rent control would directly impact my ability, and the ability of many small property owners, to reinvest in our properties. That reinvestment is what keeps neighborhoods stable and shows that people believe in the future of their communities.”
Most critically, the proposal would devastate new housing creation, just as it has done everywhere else it has been tried. Most recently, in Minnesota, Saint Paul experienced a 79% decrease in new apartment construction permits after adopting rent control. In Montgomery County, Maryland, permits for new apartments fell from 2,093 to only 54 between 2024 and 2025 after adopting rent control. Massachusetts is already facing a severe housing crisis – the Commonwealth cannot afford additional barriers to the creation of new homes.
“We need policies that increase housing production, economic growth, and responsible investment, NOT statewide mandates that discourage development and create uncertainty for communities and employers,” said Helen Shiner, Interim Executive Director, Quincy Chamber of Commerce. “Our success depends on maintaining a balanced approach of encouraging responsible development while protecting the character and stability of our neighborhoods.”
Mayors and City Councilors have also joined Housing for Massachusetts to oppose this question, because of the impact it would have on community investment and municipal budgets. Under this proposal, every non-owner-occupied rental property in Massachusetts, with minor exceptions, would be covered under rent control. As history has shown in Cambridge and as other communities in New England are now experiencing, rent control leads to lower property values and either municipal budget reductions or tax hikes on single family and condo owners.
“A one-size-fits-all mandate is not the solution to our housing crisis,” said Revere City Councilor At Large Marc Silvestri. “We have made progress by encouraging economic growth, expanding housing supply, and investing in our existing housing stock. Just 15 years ago, Revere was full of empty parking lots. Growing housing supply is what will address affordability, not a mandate forced upon every municipality in the Commonwealth.”
Massachusetts has a unique history with rent control, as Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge implemented the program for nearly 25 years until voters repealed it through the statewide ballot process in 1994. During the 94 election, voters across the Commonwealth recognized that the policy did not benefit low-income residents. In fact, an MIT researcher at the time found that 90% of occupants of rent-controlled units in Cambridge were white, college educated, in their prime earning years aged 25 to 40, single and living alone. That fundamental flaw is not corrected in the ballot question proposed in 2026.
“Going backwards is not the answer,” said Denise Jillson, Leader of 1994 Rent Control Repeal campaign and small property owner. “ In the 1980 census, Cambridge had 38,800 occupied housing units, with about 30,000 occupied by renters. By 1990 – we had added a TOTAL of 600 occupied housing units. And renters occupied just 27,000 of them. Virtually no housing creation, and 3,000 rental units went off the market in ten years. Rent control did not solve our housing crisis.”
At the event, Housing for Massachusetts announced that its initial members include a geographically and civically diverse mix of leaders and organizations from across the Commonwealth, including:
- Holyoke Mayor Joshua Garcia
- Revere Mayor Patrick Keefe
- The Quincy Chamber of Commerce
- Revere City Councilors Marc Silvestri, Joanne McKenna, Ira Novoselsky, and Paul Argenzio
- Plymouth County Register of Deeds John Buckley
- The Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce
- United Regional Chamber of Commerce
- Former Boston City Councilor Frank Baker; and
- Roberta Smiley, President of the NAREB Greater Boston, Massachusetts chapter.
“This coalition has already brought together small property owners, local business leaders, Mayors, City Councilors, and everyday citizens who fully understand the ramifications of this proposed ballot question, and what it will mean for the future of housing in our Commonwealth,” said Conor Yunits, Chair of Housing for Massachusetts. “It is a poorly written, poorly thought-out policy that will do lasting damage to housing in Massachusetts. We need real solutions for our housing crisis: not broken policies that have already failed.”
Learn more about Housing for Massachusetts and join our coalition at housingformass.com.
###
Media Contact:
Julianne Hester
press@housingformass.com