SJC Finds Rent Control Ballot Question ‘Unconstitutional’

BOSTON — What many real estate professionals had called a “disaster in other states,” The Supreme Judicial Court released its ruling on the rent control proposal, rendering the ballot question push as ‘unconstitutional.’

The ruling puts an end to what was promised to be one of the most expensive ballot battles in Massachusetts, as well as the ‘strictest’ rent cap in the country. The court ruled the rent control question could not move forward because it would have exempted units that are operated in religious facilities. Under the Massachusetts constitution, certain matters, including religion, cannot be subject to an initiative petition. Since the ballot initiative included the exemption for religious institutions, Justice Frank Gaziano ruled that the question ‘relates to religion’ and cannot appear on the ballot.

In early June, rent control supporters pushed for a compromise bill, urging state lawmakers to pass it as legislation before July 1. But top lawmakers delayed, waiting for the Supreme Judicial Court to rule.

Housing for Massachusetts, the coalition opposing rent control, released a statement this morning, applauding the SJC’s decision. “Today, the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed that the nation’s most extreme rent control proposal was unconstitutional. While we firmly believe that Massachusetts voters were prepared to vote ‘no’ in November, today’s decision puts the issue to rest and protects our housing pipeline and our communities from the proven damage that rent control inflicts. We are incredibly grateful to the countless small property owners, real estate professionals, elected officials, and community leaders who supported our coalition, and we look forward to working together to create more homes and tackle affordability through real policy solutions.”

Proponent representative, Noemi Ramos, chair of the Yes campaign, expressed disdain for the ruling. “Rather than accept any restrictions on their ability to extract profits from our communities, a few private equity-backed real estate investment corporations financed this lawsuit in a desperate attempt to avoid a ballot campaign they were set to lose ... while we disagree with the court’s interpretation, the issue raised by the court is easily fixable, and doesn’t affect the substance of our proposal.”

A Special Joint Committee hearing was held on Beacon Hill in March. Since that time, a coalition within and outside the real estate industry galvanized, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, mobilizing developers, realtors, small property owners, construction/tradespeople, business groups, and municipal, city & town officials. Under the Housing For Massachusetts coalition, the alliance grew through 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.