Massachusetts Rent Control: What It Means for Housing Quality, Safety, and Your Investment

In Part 1 of this series, we introduced the proposed rent control ballot measure and made the case that the root cause of Massachusetts' housing crisis is a shortage of supply, not a lack of price controls. If you missed it, you can read it here.

Since that post went up in February, a lot has happened. The Legislature is now under the clock, they have until May 5th to act on the proposal. If they don't, supporters need to collect an additional 12,429 signatures by July to secure a spot on the November 2026 ballot. There is also an active lawsuit before the Supreme Judicial Court that could affect the measure's timing or language. In short, this is no longer a hypothetical. It is a live issue that every landlord and property owner in Massachusetts needs to be paying attention to.

In Part 2, I want to focus on something that does not get enough attention in this debate: what rent control actually does to the physical condition of housing and to the quality, safety, and livability of the homes that we live in.

When Revenue Gets Squeezed, Maintenance Is the First Thing That Gets Cut

Property ownership is a business, revenue comes in, and a significant portion of it goes right back out in the form of taxes, insurance, utilities, vendor costs, and maintenance. Responsible owners reinvest in their properties; they replace aging systems, repaint common areas and fix things before they become emergencies. That reinvestment is funded by rental income. When you cap rent increases below what the market, inflationary costs and the properties systems demands, you are not just limiting profit, you are limiting the money available to maintain the asset. This is not a theory. This is simple math.

Massachusetts has some of the oldest housing stock in the country. In many neighborhoods across Greater Boston, Dorchester, South Boston, Quincy, and beyond, the majority of residential buildings were constructed before 1978, and a significant share were built before 1939. For many of these properties, major capital improvements are not optional. They are inevitable. Outdated electrical systems, structural issues, and aging infrastructure present real safety risks and require serious investment.

When these systems fail, they do not fail gradually. They fail all at once.

Our team regularly take on properties that have been neglected for years, dangerous electrical systems, pest infestations, chipping lead paint in units where families with children are living, structural damage, and significant deferred maintenance across the board. We invest the capital required to bring those units back to safe, livable conditions. In my experience, tenants appreciate those renovations and gladly accept a modest rent increase in exchange for safe and upgraded living conditions.

That work is not optional, and it is not inexpensive and it only happens when there is a viable path to fund those improvements. If that path is restricted by a government-imposed cap, fewer of these properties will be rehabilitated and more and more properties will remain in unsafe condition, not because landlords chose neglect, but because the economics of improvement no longer pencil out.

A single building that falls into disrepair affects more than just one owner or one tenant. It impacts surrounding properties, neighborhood stability, and the broader housing ecosystem. Multiply that across a city or a state with some of the oldest housing stock in the country, and the risk becomes systemic. This is not just a real estate issue. It is a public health issue.

The Historical Evidence Is Clear

I am not the only one raising these concerns. Cambridge had rent control from the early 1970s until voters repealed it statewide in 1994. The data from that period showed that rent-controlled units fell into significantly worse physical condition compared to non-controlled units in the same neighborhoods. When rent control was lifted, Cambridge saw a wave of reinvestment, renovation activity surged, property values recovered, and the housing stock improved.

More recently, Montgomery County, Maryland enacted rent control in July 2024. Within months, multifamily building permits dropped by 97%. Not 10 percent. Ninety-seven percent. The signal to the market was immediate and severe.

Here in Massachusetts, that signal is already being sent before a single vote has been cast. In March 2026, National Real Estate Advisors, a firm that had invested billions of dollars in Massachusetts real estate over the prior two decades, announced they would stop investing in the state because of the rent control ballot measure. Multiple housing projects representing thousands of new units have had their funding redirected to other states. Those are real units that would have housed real people in Massachusetts, now being built somewhere else.

The Proposed Law Makes Rents Worse, Not Better

A law designed to make housing more affordable will, over time, make it more expensive and more dangerous.

When rental income is capped below the real cost of operating and maintaining a property, owners face a choice that no one likes to talk about openly. They can absorb the loss, defer the maintenance, or exit the market. Most will do some combination of all three. The units that fall into the worst condition are taken off the rental market entirely, condemned, converted, or simply left vacant. The units that remain become scarcer, and when supply shrinks, rents on the units that are left go up.

We have seen this play out before. After rent control was introduced in cities across Massachusetts in the 1970s, the controlled housing stock deteriorated measurably. When the policy was repealed in 1994, property owners reinvested, units were renovated, and the housing stock recovered. The lesson was clear: the tool meant to protect renters had quietly been destroying the homes they lived in.

The units most at risk under this proposal are exactly the ones that house working families in neighborhoods like Dorchester, South Boston, and Quincy, older multifamily buildings that already require significant ongoing investment to remain safe. Cap the revenue, and that investment stops. The building that needed a new electrical panel this year does not get it. The roof that was borderline last winter gets patched instead of replaced. The lead paint remediation that was scheduled gets pushed back indefinitely. And one day, that building is no longer fit to live in, which means one more family displaced, one more unit removed from an already tight market, and one more block in a neighborhood that looks a little worse than it did before.

Rent control does not create safer, more affordable housing. In the long run, it creates less of it.

A Note on What This Is Not

I want to be clear about something, because I think it is important. I am a renter myself. I understand firsthand that affordability is a real concern and that the pressure on household budgets in Greater Boston has been genuine and serious.

The question is not whether we should care about housing affordability. Of course we should. The question is whether rent control is the tool that actually achieves it or whether it creates the appearance of short-term relief while making the underlying problems significantly worse over time.

Now that the worst of the inflationary pressures are behind us, the right path forward is to continue building more housing and ensuring that the existing stock is safe and operational for the families who live in it. That is what will improve affordability in a lasting and sustainable way.

Whats Next for Massachusetts Rent Control

The Legislature has until May 5th to act. Most observers expect no action, which means the measure is likely headed for the November ballot. We will be watching closely.

In Part 3 of this series, we will look at what rent control would mean for neighborhood stability, tenant mobility, and the long-term health of the communities we all live and invest in here in Massachusetts.

In the meantime, if you have questions about how this legislation could affect your specific property, feel free to reach out directly. This is exactly the kind of issue where having a management partner who follows the market closely, and has a stake in the outcome, makes a real difference.

Jason Rizk

Managing Partner

Longview Properties

(617) 793-7223 www.lvproperties.com

This is Part 2 of a three-part series on the proposed Massachusetts Rent Control ballot measure. Read Part 1 here.