Any proposal to control or stabilize rent in Boston will have to pass through a thicket of obstacles on Beacon Hill, including conservative leadership in the House of Representatives who may not be keen on the idea.
Just call her a true believer.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu is forging ahead with a proposal to bring rent control back to the city, and she’s doing it in the teeth of a declining housing market, an uncertain economy and deep skepticism on part of developers.
Wu made rent control – or “rent stabilization” – as the mayor and supporters have tried to rebrand it – a centerpiece of her mayoral campaign back in 2021.
But after forming a study panel in the spring made up of housing activists and nonprofit types, leavened with a developer or two, momentum at City Hall for taking on such a potentially divisive issue appeared to be sputtering.
Both the city’s housing and development chiefs – Sheila Dillon and Arthur Jemison, respectively – talked of taking a more cautious approach to ensure the development community’s concerns were addressed.
A proposal would not likely to be ready to prime-time consumption February or March, it was said, and then would still have to pass the City Council before going to the State House, where its fate remains highly uncertain. Then a story in the Boston Globe landed with a thud last week: “Wu Floats Rent Control Proposal That Would Cap Rent Hikes at 10 Percent.”
It’s not clear that timeline has really changed, despite the flurry of news stories last week after Wu having informally floated the genesis of her plan to the rent control panel.
Whether the way the story broke was an intentional dish-off to the Globe – a time-honored practice at City Hall than spans many mayoral regimes – or just a good scoop, is also unclear.
However, one thing is plain to see: Wu is sending a message that rent control, far from being put on the back shelf or on slow train to nowhere, remains a key piece of her uber progressive agenda and political persona.
Officials Tried to Calm Developers
Both Jemison and Dillon have been at pains to try and reassure increasingly jittery real estate developers and investors that Boston remains a welcoming place to build and do business in.
The pair have certainly had their work cut out for them. There was mounting concern, even before rent control reared its head again, over the mayor’s perceived animus towards developers – making clear she won’t meet with individual developers – and moves to boost both already fairly significant affordable housing requirements and linkage payments.
And the influence and counsel of Jemison and Dillon most likely can be seen in the proposal the mayor appears to have settled on, one that calls for a cap on annual increases that could go as high as 10 percent, with increases before inflation limited to 6 percent per year.
There’s also a pretty significant concession to concerns that rent control could stymie new housing construction at a time when a shortage of rental units and condos in the city has driven housing costs to insane levels.
New apartment, condominium and other residential projects would get a 15-year exemption from the city’s proposed cap on rents.
But at the end of the day, it’s not Dillon or Jemison who are driving the car, it’s Wu.
The two key advisors had spoken openly and publicly with reporters on the various facets of the mayor’s efforts to revamp how development is done in Boston, including the rent control issue.
But when news broke of the mayor’s proposed 10 percent cap, neither Dillon nor Jemison could be reached for comment, referring all questions to the mayor’s press advisers.
Will Beacon Hill Play Ball?
Industry organizations that represent landlords and developers – in particular, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board and the Small Property Owners Association – all blasted the plan.
Any form of rent control is bad, both groups contend, and will only stymie plans for new housing.
But one major housing developer, while clearly not thrilled, also grudgingly acknowledged the Wu’s plan was “not as bad as it could have been.” They asked for anonymity to be able to freely discuss a proposal from a mayor who still wields enormous power over the fate of individual developments, however much she decried that reality on the campaign trail.
Rather, rent control would be another factor that would have to be taken into consideration, and one that real estate investors would surely look at when deciding which cities and projects to put their money into, and thus what actually can get built in Boston.
That said, this developer was more concerned about Wu’s other proposals – raising the percentage of subsidized units in new apartment and condo buildings to 20 percent, for example – and the perception that she is somehow hostile or at least deeply skeptical of development.
Scott Van Voorhis
Nor will this particular player be shutting up shop should Wu’s plan actually clear the State House.
And that remains a very long shot. Gov. Maura Healey has given mixed signals on rent control and probably can’t be thrilled with the prospect of Wu throwing this political hot potato onto her lap just as she starts her first year in office,
But rent control is not likely to get even that far.
Sure, the Senate might hold hearings and maybe even pass something, but the more moderate House of Representatives is not likely, under its current leadership, to play ball.
Still, the debate has just started. And given the emotions, anger and anxieties that rent control stirs up, as long as Wu persists in pushing her plan, we will continue reading and hearing about it, whether or not it has snowball’s chance in hell of ever passing.
Scott Van Voorhis is Banker & Tradesman’s columnist; opinions expressed are his own. He may be reached at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com.
