By Tony Palomba
City Councilor At-Large
As an At-Large City Councilor in Watertown Massachusetts I am acutely aware of the housing storage that Massachusetts is facing – both for those who wish to purchase a home and who would like to rent. We also know that the cost of homeownership and renting is continuing to climb. The burden of these two factors makes it difficult to provide low-income and moderate-income residents with affordable housing.
In Watertown approximately half of our residents are renters, 39% of whom are “cost burdened”, meaning that they spend more than one-third of their income on housing. The median income for Watertown renters is $105,360 with many renters having an income of about $77,000.
The Commonwealth is taking some steps to address our housing storage through legislation and regulatory changes, though the Healey’s administration’s goal of 220,000 units by 2030 will most likely not be reached. We all can agree that the more housing units built the better but we also need to acknowledge that those who can afford the cost of new homes and rental units will not be low-income residents and that it will be many years before the supply of housing will be greater than the demand and prices will drop so that greater numbers of low-income and moderate-income residents will be able to afford home ownership and reasonable rents.
In the meantime, we need to find ways to stabilize rent costs to maintain the diversity in Watertown and to provide renters with the opportunity to stay in Watertown. With increasing rents, folks are forced to move out of Watertown to communities where they can afford to rent. Who will replace them? Mostly likely those with higher incomes who can afford the monthly rent. A community’s diversity comes in many forms – racial, ethnic, and income. Without efforts to stabilize rents, Watertown will have less income diversity. Further stabilizing rents will make it less likely that our neighbors will be displaced and thus we will benefit from residents able to stay in town and contribute to the vitality of our community. What can we do to have a mix of residents with a range of incomes and neighbors who want to stay in Watertown?
Rent control or rent stabilization is one housing policy that can protect Watertown renters as well as thousands of other renters throughout the Commonwealth. Housing and tenant activists and those who are committed to address the displacement of low- and moderate-income renters from their communities have collected the necessary signatures to put a question on the rent control on the ballot in November. At the same time, there are ongoing discussions between these groups, representatives of the real estate industry, and legislators focused on crafting a compromise between the language of the ballot question and more modest examples of rent regulation now before the legislature. (It should be noted that the ballot question exempts owner occupied building of a certain size.)
The Homes for All Coalition, which has collected the necessary signatures to put the rent control referendum on the ballot, has chosen to endorse a compromise bill that is also supported by some in the real estate industry. However, Housing for Massachusetts, a real estate industry-based advocacy group who does not want rent control of any kind, opposes the compromise bill.
The legislature should move to pass the compromise bill before the end of June. If the bill is not passed by then the referendum goes on the ballot. I hope you will join me in supporting the compromise plan and will contact your legislators urging them to pass it immediately. A compromise bill will help maintain income diversity in Watertown and other Massachusetts communities and make it possible for low- and moderate-income individuals and families who rent to remain in their communities. It will also avoid an expensive and bruising referendum battle. However, if our Legislature does move to pass a compromise bill, I hope you will join me in voting “yes” on the referendum question in November.
Massachusetts voters in 1994 banned rent control for a simple reason: it doesn’t work.
Study after study, including research from MIT about the impacts in Cambridge, has found that rent control discourages investment in housing, leading to fewer homes, less home and building maintenance, and lower property values. In the 1970s, Massachusetts faced a severe housing crisis and passed rent control to try and fix it. But rent control only made things worse. We cannot let history repeat itself.
A study by the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts: “Almost immediately, the 2026 rent control ballot question would upend the real estate market, shrinking the residential property tax base by 6-9 percent in municipalities all across the Commonwealth.”
Untold Threat: Rent Control Ballot Question Will Imperil Municipal Budgets
At the moment we cannot find funding for a new middle school, what is the plan if this passes?
Study by Stanford Researchers: “…We find that rent control led to a 15 percentage point decline in the number of renters living in treated buildings…This 15 percentage point reduction in the rental supply of small multi-family housing likely led to rent increases in the long run…the passage of rent control ultimately led to a housing stock which caters to higher income individuals…Taking all these points together, it appears rent control has actually contributed to the gentrification of San Francisco, the exact opposite of the policy’s intended goal.”
Does this sound like policy that is going to be successful and true to it’s goals in the long run?
Renters are routinely subject to yearly rent increases. Management companies refuse to negotiate increases down, because they make more money from increases than they lose in having to upgrade units when they turn over. Heaven help elderly and fixed-income renters who can’t sustain yearly increases or can’t afford to move. Obviously, retaining good tenants stabilizes neighborhoods and encourages tenant involvement in civic affairs since they feel they have a stake in where they live. A major benefit of caping rents is anti-displacement, which allows long-term residents and low-income families to remain in their homes. Caping annual rent increases at the rate of inflation or at a flat percentage provides tenants with financial predictability which keeps working-class residents, elders, and low-income tenants from becoming housing nomads as a result of rapidly gentrifying municipalities. Fears that landlords will not maintain their properties or will convert rentals to owner-occupied condos and that rent limits will reduce property values, increase taxes, and negatively affect municipal revenue are reasons for rent-stabilization opposition. Left out of the picture is the fact that massive rent hikes are unfair and encourage homeowner versus renter tension.