Boston City Hall. The panel crafting Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s promised “rent stabilization” proposal is telling members of the public to not argue about the merits of rent control, only how to implement it.

Will Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s succeed in her drive to bring back some form of rent control if she gets a friendly ear in the State House’s corner office? We’ll see. 

But here’s one thing that is definitely not working: The mayoral- appointed “rent stabilization” panel’s efforts to limit debate on one of the most highly-charged political issues around. 

The 23-member panel has been holding a series of “listening sessions,” but it has made clear there are some things it doesn’t want to hear, namely whether rent control is a good idea in the first place. 

Among the acceptable topics for people taking part in the online forums were not whether but “how” rent increases should be capped, how such a policy should be administered, and whether landlords should be allowed to “bank” rent increases they forgo in particular years.  

Given the high stakes involved and how heated the issue is that directive, repeated at the start of each session, you can just imagine how successful that has been. 

Panel members got plenty of feedback during a July 21 session in which landlords were directed to give input on how a rent cap might be structured, according to reporting by Banker & Tradesman. 

The group of mainly small landlords gave their input all right. Sure, a couple dutifully followed the rules, and even expressed support for capping rents. 

But others were not so compliant, calling for an exemption for small property owners while ignoring the panel’s attempts to restrict the discussion. 

Sheila Grove, who owns six apartments in the South End and has been in the business for four decades, said she talks regularly with developers and keeps a close eye on the neighborhood’s rental market. 

“I reject your assumption that rent stabilization will create more affordable rents,” Grove said. “If you increase the supply then [rents] level off.” 

The same pattern has emerged at the other listening sessions as well, not just the one for landlords. A sparsely attended discussion on Tuesday meant for union members and workers went without attracting a single labor leader, with small property owners, and an irate tenant or two, dominating the discussion.  

Boston Didn’t Vote for Rent Control 

The Wu administration’s attempts to steer the discussion away from the pros and cons and rent control come atop of controversy on the composition of the panel itself. 

When the new mayor rolled out the rent control panel earlier this year, just six of its 23 members had backgrounds in the private real estate sector. 

The rest of the panel is made up of housing advocates, as well as labor leaders, professors, foundation honchos, representatives from tenant groups – even a medical school professor. 

It’s an approach based on a faulty assumption – that the debate over rent control in Boston is a settled matter, that city residents, by electing Wu, also voted overwhelming in favor of rent control, which she has supported. 

Wu did indeed trounce her opponent, beating City Councilor Annissa Essaibi George by a lopsided 64 to 36 percent. 

But given just a third of the city’s electorate turned out for the election, that means Wu won with the support of 20 percent of Boston’s registered voters. 

Scott Van Voorhis

And even then, it would a stretch to assume that every single Wu voter, even in a renter-dominated city like Boston, agreed with her stance on a something as controversial as rent control. Basic economics and Boston’s own experience show that a return of rent control could very well tank housing production in the city at a time when rents are rising like crazy specifically because there aren’t enough apartments to house everyone who needs one. Shouldn’t Wu’s advisory panel hear important critiques like this, too? 

The debate over whether to cap rents in Boston is still a live issue, with the spirited debate that has taken place during the panel’s so-called listening sessions as Exhibit A. 

It’s a message the Wu administration’s rent control panel should have heard loud and clear by now. 

That is if they were truly listening. We’ll have to see when the advisory panel delivers its report whether that’s actually happening. 

Scott Van Voorhis is Banker & Tradesman’s columnist; opinions expressed are his own. He may be reached at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com.