iStock illustration

Massachusetts residents could have a chance to repeal the state’s 30-year ban on municipal-level rent control measures, following Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s decision to allow a referendum on the topic onto the state’s 2024 ballot.

Cambridge state Rep. Mike Connolly had filed a petition to put a question on the ballot that would give towns and cities the ability to regulate private apartment rents, deposits and broker fees so long as those rules didn’t “deprive an owner of fair net operating income.”

Crucially, the measure would not apply to units younger than 15 years or to two- and three-family units – guardrails that rent control advocates believe will keep new housing development economically viable in the former case and protect the smallest “mom-and-pop” landlords in the latter, both contentions real estate groups have challenged. Towns and cities would also be able to add further exceptions to their local rules.

All ballot questions’ constitutionality must first be certified by the state attorney general before they can advance to the next stage in the process to get before voters.

If successful, Connolly’s ballot question would open the door for officials in Boston and Somerville, and potentially other communities, to follow through with prior pledges to set up local rent control regimes.

The highest-profile proposal, crafted by Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and billed as “rent stabilization“, largely follows the outlines of Connolly’s ballot question and caps annual rent increases at 6 percent plus the annual increase in the local Consumer Price Index up to a maximum of 10 percent. Wu has defended her proposal from criticism by real estate industry leaders saying that the city’s housing market needs “circuit breakers” to help guard against displacement, and from opposition by hard-line tenant advocates who want a total 5 percent cap on rent increases. Wu’s proposal and others remain stuck in the state legislature, who under current law must approve it.

The Greater Boston Real Estate Board, which had already poured $400,000 into a mailer-and-digital-ad campaign against Wu’s proposal before it passed the City Council, said it was considering appealing Campbell’s decision to the state Supreme Judicial Court.

“We are disappointed in the Attorney General’s decision to allow the rent control ballot question to move forward as we believe it clearly violates the state’s constitution. We will review the AG’s decision and give serious consideration to appealing to the Supreme Judicial Court to ensure this confusing, overarching question cannot proceed. Massachusetts has a housing crisis which can only be addressed by creating more housing in all communities, not by reverting to the failed policies of the past like government price controls on rent,” GBREB CEO Greg Vasil said in a statement.

As for Connolly’s ballot question, he and his allies will have to gather 74,574 signatures before early December before the proposal heads to the state legislature. Even if the state legislature doesn’t pass the measure as filed before early May 2024, Connolly and his allies will be still be able to force it to appear on the ballot by collecting 12,429 more signatures before early July. But in each round of signature-gathering, only a quarter of names can come from any one county, potentially imposing an important obstacle proponents will need to overcome.