Landlords Refute ‘Compromise’ On Rent Control; Proponents Float Concessions

June 04, 2026 — By Carol Meyer

Back Bay, Boston MA

Boston — “What would be really wonderful for the Legislature is if you all got together and figured out what a middle ground is,” said Senator Cindy Friedman of Arlington, back in March, at the conclusion of a Special Joint Committee hearing, where she and her constituents heard from both sides on a proposed Rent Control ballot question, which has been under heavy fire from the real estate industry, and many in the business community.

It has yielded no fruitful results in resolving the nationwide housing crisis in other states, according to Greg Vasil, CEO of The Greater Boston Real Estate Board. “It’s been a disaster in other states, look at St. Paul, where voters approved a 3% cap on annual rent increases in 2021. They’re now considering similar policies in Minneapolis, but the results in St. Paul have already proven to be a disaster … and they would be here in Massachusetts as well.”

Since the March hearing, Vasil’s sentiment galvanized within and outside the real estate industry, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, mobilizing developers, realtors, small property owners, construction/tradespeople, business groups, and municipal, city & town officials. Under the coalition, Housing For Massachusetts, the alliance has catalyzed the commonwealth with gorilla-style campaigns and information, warning the voters of the Bay State with ‘Get the facts’ messaging amidst a wave of broadcast, social and print advertising campaigns, as well as dozens of webinars and live city and town appearances.

And it has worked, greatly, which has consequently silenced the proponents for months, while the clock is ticking.

That is, until Tuesday, when its conflicting coalition group and proponents of rent control, Homes for All, sent out a press release, proposing what they consider a ‘compromise’ to its initial legislation, offering (among a slew of other changes) limiting rent increases to no more than 10 percent per year, rather than the initial plan of increases based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index, or 5 percent, whichever is lower – throughout all 351 municipalities.

“While we made significant concessions in an effort to reach a true compromise, this legislation would achieve our primary goals of ending the state’s ban on rent control and enabling strong protections from excessive rent hikes and unjust evictions for Massachusetts residents,” Home for All coalition Executive Director Carolyn Chou said in a release on Tuesday.

Its sudden outreach to the press has sparked pushback and clarification from the real estate community and its coalition, as the positioning of the proponents’ statement and the concession document were never discussed formally or agreed to.

“No compromise has been reached on rent control. We were formally contacted by the ‘Yes campaign’ on Sunday with language that differs from the proposed ballot question, including sections that remain problematic for housing creation and communities,” said Conor Yunits, Chair of Housing for Massachusetts.

According to the news release, Homes For All framed the rent control ‘compromise’ through ‘input and collaboration’ from tenant advocates, owners and operators, nonprofit and mixed-income housing providers, along with community development organizations, and local developers WinnCompanies, Lupoli Companies, The HYM Investment Group, and The Builder Coalition.

“It’s pretend (referring to changing the legislative offering) … last fall, the poling showed 69% favoring some form or rent control, but that has swung big our way, I think the ads have opened up people’s eyes and have had a great impact, said Douglas Quattrochi, Executive Director of MassLandlords, Inc. who’s association represents over 2,600 small property owners throughout the Commonwealth. Quattrochi says it makes sense that the bigger developers are backing the latest iteration of rent control initiatives. “They don’t want it on the ballot because it will cost them millions to get it through … if they get the compromise through to the legislation, think of the cost savings.”

He says his coalition submitted its own form of rent control to the legislature in February, which included rent freezes and subsidized rents to those who are in need, and it was rejected. “This is all distraction pricing; the numbers don’t matter. The average mom-and-pop property owners don’t usually raise rents; they want reliable tenants who appreciate their property. When the units turn over, they maintain and renovate them and put them back up for market value,” Quattrochi portends.

Just the thought of Rent Control making it on to a very crowded November ballot question card has affected deals, developments and the lives of many CRE professionals, particularly in the multifamily space. “The threat is real, and it has thinned out the buyer pool and certainly has caused some potential sellers to ‘wait and see’ in some situations, said Dennis Kelleher, EVP, Multifamily at Horvath & Tremblay.

“The deals are still happening, but the velocity has slowed and certainly sales are more difficult to get done with the idea of rent control making it to the ballot - on top of high rates and other strains, so downward pressure causes sellers to hold … and rent control historically, is just bad economic policy,” attests Kelleher.

On its redrafted bill, Homes For All states it will eliminate the need for a ‘costly and contentious ballot campaign’ and would bring much-needed relief and predictability for tenants, housing providers, municipalities, and the broader housing market, while granting cities and towns the right to opt in to rent stabilization. A proposal not well-received by property owners.

Real Reporter spoke to Amir Shahsavari, President of Small Property Owners Association (SPOA) on the amended bill. “This so-called compromise will allow cities to create, or restore, rent control boards. Historically, they [boards] were draconian and quite harsh with property owners, preventing them from making needed repairs to the detriment of tenants as well.”

Shahsavari also condemned the proposal as ‘dangerous,’ in that it aims to obstruct state legislation to overturn this proposal in the future, should it pass. “In other words, if the law were to change after it takes effect [at the state level], the local ordinances would remain unchanged, unless the changes are re-adopted or amended by a local super majority,” Shahsavari surmises.

For all the buzz around the state house this week, the Homes For All concession message has yet to be discussed by the legislature or heard from by any politicians yet, which is not a surprise given the fact that the coalition concedes it had not included any lawmakers in its negotiated compromise bill.