TED JANKOWSKI
Education is needed

A rent stabilization proposal was rejected by the Boston City Council, sparking an outcry among tenants gathered at City Hall last week.

The City Council voted 8 to 5 against the Community Stabilization Tenant and Small Property Owner Act, which was crafted by the Boston Tenant Coalition as a way to give relief to tenants who are struggling and being displaced by the city’s high rents.

The vote came after heavy lobbying from tenant advocates who supported the measure and real estate industry leaders, who vehemently oppose any efforts to control or restrict rents.

Immediately after the vote, Steve Meacham, a community organizer from Boston’s Jamaica Plain neighborhood, disrupted the council meeting and lashed out at the council for its vote.

“This vote is a vote to displace thousands of people,” Meacham said.

His comments spurred tenants who had gathered to hear the vote to yell “shame” and later to start chanting “vote for people not for profit.”

Tenants had to be escorted out of the council chambers by municipal police, who then blocked the entrance of the chambers.

A ‘Failed’ Policy

The outburst followed some impassioned statements from councilors, many of whom said they struggled with the vote.

Under the proposal, disabled, elderly and low- and moderate-income tenants would have been able to challenge rent increases of more than 5 percent. Other tenants would have been able to dispute increases of 10 percent or more.

Councilor Maureen Feeney, chairman of the council’s Government Operations Committee that recommended voting against the act, acknowledged that there were significant modifications to the latest proposal compared to a similar rent control measure brought before the council two years ago.

The new measure was “worthy of consideration,” she said. But citing statistics from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Feeney noted that rents for an average two-bedroom apartment in Boston had fallen by 10 percent, while rents for a three-bedroom and four-bedroom apartment had dropped 15 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

Several councilors repeated many of the concerns about the act that were raised by opponents, including the possibility of landlords not investing in their properties and the possible chilling effect any effort to control rents would have on new-home construction.

The Boston Municipal Research Bureau, for example, had argued that the act would hinder efforts to develop more rental housing at all income levels and would discourage the financing of housing in Boston at a time when housing production has been on the rise and median rents in the city have been declining.

Some councilors said they feared the act would devalue rental properties, pushing rental property owners to seek tax abatements and shifting the property tax burden to single-family homeowners.

Councilor Rob Consalvo questioned how the act would help tenants who can’t afford rents now and wouldn’t be able to afford any type of rent increase. “This attempts to cure the symptom but the not the disease,” he said.

But Councilor Michael P. Ross said he felt compelled to support the proposal because longtime tenants living in his district, which includes Mission Hill, are being displaced by college students who are willing to pay higher rents.

“There are people in my district who, if we don’t pass this, will lose their homes,” he said.

Some councilors argued that voting for the act would simply be a symbolic gesture, since the state Legislature was unlikely to approve the home rule petition. Councilor Maura Hennigan disputed that notion, saying the act would provide stability in tenants’ lives.

Minutes before the vote, Councilor Chuck Turner chastised councilors for supporting the interests of the business community instead of protecting the interest of residents, and accused investors and developers of being bullies for threatening not to invest in the city if the act was approved.

“The investment community is telling us that the only thing that matters is the bottom line,” Turner said. Voting for the act would send a message that councilors had the “guts” to stand up to the “bullying” from the investment community, he said.

Despite the strong reaction from tenants, the vote was not surprising to many observers, including Ted Jankowski, chief executive officer of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board.

“Actually it’s a stronger margin than it was two years ago, so that’s a positive sign,” Jankowski said. “I think we need to educate people on the issue. I really do. I think that people now [are] starting to recognize that [rent control is] a failed social policy of the ’70s – that it just doesn’t work anymore.”

He added, “I hope now that we can work to continue discussions with other public officials that it just doesn’t work so that we don’t see the issue surface again and people can begin to focus on the real issue, which is how to provide affordable housing, how to protect the existing subsidies right now. There is an assault on Section 8 housing in Washington. There’s been proposed cutbacks in … the last couple of years, so it’s important that people keep their eye on the ball to protect the existing affordable housing that’s out there.”

In a statement, the Boston Tenant Coalition said, “The lines in this battle were clearly drawn, and the outcome is clear: Councilors were either in favor of providing modest relief and stability to the residents of Boston, or they were in favor of protecting the real estate industry’s right to make enormous profits at the expense of our communities.”

When asked if the coalition would pursue another proposal, the group’s coordinator, Kathy Brown, said: “The issue isn’t going away and we’re not going away.”

Voting for the act were Hennigan, Ross, Turner and Councilors Felix Arroyo and Charles Yancey. Voting against were Feeney, Consalvo and Councilors Jerry P. McDermott, Michael Flaherty, John Tobin, Stephen J. Murphy, James M. Kelly and Paul J. Scapicchio.

Aglaia Pikounis may be reached at apikounis@thewarrengroup.com.