Doug Quattrochi

In Massachusetts the rent control debate is back in full force, despite nearly 50 years of political and economic failure. It is a symptom of “majority rules,” a voting method which enables states and nations to veer toward disaster with a mere quarter of their citizens’ approval, as would happen if 50 percent vote in favor in a referendum with 50 percent turnout.  

The popular appeal of rent control is easy to understand. If we pass a law saying that rent can’t increase by more than some small percentage each year, renters who have apartments today can be reasonably certain they will not find themselves priced out of a home.  

Landlords oppose rent control nearly unanimously. Our ongoing policy priorities survey uses score voting to measure both average score and consensus. Opposing rent control rates above a 75 out of 100 for 85 percent of our members. 

We had rent control in Massachusetts. Economists now write about us as a case study: rent control reduced housing supply, reduced housing quality, and had no discernible impact on homelessness. Rent control was abused by wealthy people like former Cambridge Mayor Kenneth Reeves and Judge Ruth Abrams, who took rent controlled apartments for themselves. Rent control’s arbitrary rent boards destroyed businesses and lives.  

In 1994, we passed a law saying that any community could have rent control so long as they paid for the damage it caused. The effect was repeal.  

The long-term solution to the housing crisis is housing supply. But this reasoned viewpoint is outnumbered 10 to 1 in the debate. There are roughly 700,000 renters in Massachusetts, but only 70,000 landlords. Turnout the last 10 years averaged 63 percent. “Majority rules” means a lukewarm third of the population is all it would take to resurrect this disastrous policy. 

Our Public Policies Are Systemically Racist 

“Majority rules” is not just a bugaboo to landlords, it is a major injury to Bay Staters of color. Despite decades of cogent advocacy by voting minorities and tough anti-discrimination laws, Massachusetts’ public policy remains racist in its disparate impact, particularly in housing. 

Without equal opportunity in education, some of us have disproportionately lower incomes. Without equal access to credit because of redlining, some of us have disproportionately lower credit scores. And without equal enforcement of criminal law (e.g., possession of cannabis, which remain on our records even after legalization) some of us have disproportionately worse background checks. Our rental applicants of color have an unfairly, disproportionately difficult time finding and keeping rental housing.  

This was proved in 1994, when we repealed rent control and the number of people of color in formerly controlled housing doubled.  

With only so much rent available to cover risk of loss, landlords held units vacant, waiting for the perfect applicant to come along with high income, perfect credit and no criminal history. And because of our systemic racism, perfect applicants were disproportionately white. It wasn’t racist landlords, it was systemic racism in policy that turned business-relevant numbers into disparate impact. 

No Massachusetts policy is more racist than single–family zoning. The original intent was to keep immigrants out of certain neighborhoods. Zoning has constrained supply so sharply for so long it is now the single most important cause of the housing crisis. 

Because voters of color cannot have the strength of their convictions heard under “majority rules,” precious little progress has been made. 

Why We Should Care about Voting Reform 

It is particularly important for the real estate industry to understand and eliminate systemic racism because the anti-racist movement is being co-opted by an anti-property movement. The organizers calling for rent control also call for taxpayer–funded attorneys for renters, right of first refusal on investment properties and secret eviction courts. These policies are a non-sequitur to the problem of systemic racism in education, credit and law enforcement. 

As an industry, we must fight rent control by supporting and funding voting reform. “Majority rules” and “first past the post” voting methods must be replaced with score voting, instant runoff and/or proportional representation, which show the strength of minority convictions. These new methods can unite landlords and people of color – an economic and a racial minority – to break the gridlock on zoning and the housing crisis. In this way, we will both protect our property rights and move closer toward the promise of liberty and justice for all. 

Doug Quattrochi is executive director of MassLandlords Inc.