I’ve been watching the Massachusetts housing debate for a long time, and I have to be honest with you: what’s happening right now feels different. This isn’t just another legislative push that dies in committee. There’s a ballot measure in play, 88,000 certified signatures behind it, and polling showing nearly 63% of voters in support. If you’re a developer, investor, or landlord in this state, you need to pay attention.

But I also want to make the case for what I think is the right answer, because rent control isn’t

What’s Actually Being Proposed

A coalition of housing advocates and labor unions is pushing to cap annual rent increases at the lower of inflation or 5%. That part might sound reasonable on the surface, until you compare it to what other states have done.
Oregon and California both have rent control, but they allow increases above inflation in certain circumstances. This Massachusetts proposal does not. That’s the key distinction, and it’s what makes this one of the toughest proposed rent regulations in the country.

The measure would exempt new construction for 10 years and owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer units. Beyond that? You’re in the cap.

The Political Reality

Here’s what makes this particularly interesting from where I sit: the Democrats are not unified on this. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu is all in, she’s backing the measure and pointing to an affordability crisis that’s real. Average two-bedroom rents in Massachusetts are sitting around $2,560 a month, roughly 74% above the national average. In Boston proper, you’re closer to $3,370. Tenants are paying half their take-home pay in rent. That’s not a talking point, that’s a quality of life crisis.

But Governor Maura Healey is opposed. So are the top legislative leaders. When you have the governor and the mayor of Boston in opposite corners on the same issue in the same party, you have a legitimate political fight on your hands.
Meanwhile, developer and landlord groups, including the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, are putting together a multimillion-dollar campaign to defeat the measure. There’s also a legal challenge in the works.

Why Rent Control Doesn’t Solve the Problem

I’m a developer and investor, so I care about what actually happens in markets when strict rent control gets implemented, not just what advocates say will happen.

The case study that keeps coming up is St. Paul, Minnesota. They passed a strict rent cap, multifamily permit issuance dropped sharply, and they eventually had to ease the restrictions. Compare that to Minneapolis, which went the other direction, no rent control, but significant zoning reform, and construction went up. Prices followed.

Massachusetts actually banned rent control in 1994 after a bruising ballot fight. Small landlords at the time reported deferred maintenance, reduced reinvestment, and some exiting the market entirely. We’re hearing the same concerns again from that same group of owners today.

Now look, I understand the tenant side of this. Rents have been brutal. People are getting priced out of neighborhoods where they’ve lived for decades, making impossible trade-offs, taking on longer commutes just to find something affordable. That’s a real problem and it deserves a real solution.

Rent control isn’t one. Price controls on rental housing reduce the very supply that would bring prices down over time. It’s not complicated economics. When you cap the return on an asset, you get less of it built. You’re not solving the affordability crisis, you’re locking it in place for whoever happens to already have a unit, while making it harder for everyone else to find one.

So what’s the actual answer? I think it’s sitting right in front of us.

The Real Solution: Build More, Build Smarter
While Massachusetts is fighting over rent control, Congress is moving the most significant federal housing legislation in decades, and it points directly at the root of the problem. The House and Senate have both advanced bills focused on modular housing and mortgage reform, and they’re heading toward reconciliation before going to the president.
This is the approach that can actually work, and here’s why.

Modular housing changes the cost equation.

The bills would eliminate the “permanent chassis requirement” that’s been one of the biggest complaints from factory-built housing developers for years. The Senate version also raises loan limits for manufactured homes, which widens the financing pool considerably. If you’ve been watching the multifamily space, you already know that major apartment operators are increasingly turning to factory-built construction to cut costs and compress timelines. This legislation would accelerate that at scale, meaning more units, faster, at lower cost. That’s how you bring rents down without killing investment incentives.

Zoning reform gets a nudge, not a mandate.

The bills recommend that cities reform zoning near transit hubs. It’s not binding, but federal guidance on housing policy tends to move states and municipalities over time. The Minneapolis example I mentioned earlier? That was zoning reform doing the work rent control couldn’t. I’ll take a nudge in the right direction.

Environmental review gets streamlined.

Certain urban infill projects would be exempted from federal environmental review under the proposal. If that holds up in final legislation, it removes one of the more frustrating bottlenecks in urban development, the kind of delay that adds cost and discourages projects from penciling out in the first place.

Mortgage access expands.

Small-dollar mortgages for first-time and low-income buyers get new support, and there’s a pilot program that would let qualifying public housing residents build savings as their incomes grow. Demand-side tools like these can make a real difference when paired with adequate supply.

This is the playbook: remove barriers, build more, use innovation to lower construction costs, and let the market do what the market does when you actually let it function. It’s not glamorous. It doesn’t make for a good ballot initiative slogan. But it works.

My Take

The rent control ballot fight and the federal housing legislation represent two fundamentally different theories about how to fix this crisis. One says control prices now, give tenants relief now, worry about supply later. The other says remove barriers, build more, and let competition bring prices down for everyone — not just the lucky ones with rent-stabilized leases.

I know where I come down. But I’m also realistic: 63% of Massachusetts voters currently support rent control, and that’s not a number you dismiss. If this measure passes in November, the 10-year exemption on new construction matters enormously for anyone starting projects today. But the calculus on existing assets changes significantly, and some capital will leave the state. That’s not a threat, it’s just how markets respond to regulatory risk.

My advice: don’t wait to see what happens in November. Run the numbers on your portfolio now. And if you want to actually move the needle on affordability in Massachusetts, support the kind of supply-side reform that Congress is starting to get right, because building our way out of this problem is the only path that helps everyone, not just the tenants who already have a unit.

Daniel Kaufman is a real estate developer and investor based in California and Maine. Views expressed are his own.

Contact Daniel | View Current Projects