This Women's Network event will offer an insightful conversation with Joanna Geraghty, the first woman to lead a major U.S. airline.
03/19/2025
11:30am - 1:00pm
The Westin Boston Seaport
Join us for our Government Affairs Forum featuring the 45th Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Andrea Campbell.
03/20/2025
9:45am - 11:00am
Sheraton Boston Hotel
This event offers buyers and diverse businesses an opportunity to explore the challenges MBEs face and the benefits of partnering with them.
03/24/2025
4:00pm - 5:30pm
The Urban Grape
Go deeper than basic DEI training to achieve higher productivity, satisfaction, and revenue growth with our new corporate workshop.
This program is in redevelopment. Click this page for DEI resources.
Our Women’s Leadership Program enables you to take your leadership to the next level by arming you with the most in-demand leadership toolkit.
Our Boston’s Future Leaders (BFL) program provides emerging leaders with a socially conscious and civically engaged leadership toolkit, as well as the opportunity to apply their knowledge through experiential assignments.
City Awake empowers young professionals in a variety of ways that encourages these rising leaders to stay invested in the region’s future success.
We are developing an ecosystem of corporations and partners with the influence and buying power to transform economic inclusion for minority business enterprises (MBEs).
Small businesses are the backbone of the Boston economy. Learn more about the resources available through the Chamber.
BIMA (the Boston Interactive Media Association) serves a vibrant community of like-minded professionals from agencies, brands, publishers, and ad-tech companies with business interests in the New England market.
For over 30 years, the Chamber’s Women’s Network has connected female professionals of all background and career levels. Today, our Women’s Network is the largest in New England, strengthening the professional networks of women each year.
The Massachusetts Apprentice Network convenes employers, training providers, and talent sources interested in developing and implementing apprenticeship programs in occupations across industries and statewide in fields such as tech, advanced manufacturing, healthcare, financial services, and more.
Explore our mission and values to better understand how we are leading the business community forward.
Our member directory is your resource to discover, connect, and engage with Boston’s businesses from every industry and sector.
November 14, 2023
On behalf of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and our 1,200 members, I write to oppose H.3744, An Act petition for a special law authorizing the city of Boston to implement rent stabilization and tenant eviction protections, H.1304 and S.872, An Act enabling local options for tenant protections, H.2103 and S.1299, An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants, and H.1319, An Act limiting rent increases and creating a rental arbitrator. The Chamber has deep concerns about rent control policies set forth by these proposals and urges the committee to reject them.
The Chamber agrees that housing affordability poses a major challenge to the state’s economic competitiveness and ardently believes that the way to address it is by increasing housing production and supply. The Chamber vocally supported policy efforts to stimulate housing production statewide, including the Housing Choice Act and regulations that set housing density standards near public transportation. However, bills imposing rent control overlooks the significant and historical pitfalls of rent stabilization: an overall reduction in housing production, higher housing costs for non-controlled units, and poorer housing quality. The risks associated with these pitfalls are amplified by the approach to implementing rent stabilization which includes ambiguous, undefined terms and grants broad, undefined powers to yet-to-be defined entities.
Rent Stabilization Limits Access to Affordable Housing
Increasing housing supply and tenant mobility creates widespread access to affordable housing. Rent stabilization limits access by reducing both methods: it chills both housing production and tenants’ willingness to move.
The impacts of imposing rent stabilization on housing production can be seen clearly in other cities that recently adopted rent control policies. St. Paul, Minnesota voters adopted rent stabilization policies in 2021 and in 2022, the first year of implementation, data shows a stunning 50% drop in housing production.[1] The impacts were so swift and so detrimental that the city changed course within six months to exempt new construction and allow for greater increases between tenants, among other changes.
Ultimately, less housing production creates scarcity and raises rents for units not covered by rent stabilization. New York and Los Angeles both maintain longstanding rent stabilization policies, however, even with decades-long policies that limit rent increases, the median rents in both cities rank among the highest in the country.
Rent control and stabilization policies also lead to less tenant mobility, making it harder for new residents to access affordable housing. As tenants remain in rent-controlled and rent-stabilized units – regardless of their income level or financial situation – residents looking to find new housing or potential new residents who wish to move into the city will find only higher rents in non-stabilized units.
These factors – less housing supply and reduced tenant mobility – are proven to create higher housing costs in rent control environments. A 2018 study evaluating San Francisco’s rent control policies after a 1994 change of the law found that rent control reduced rental unit supply by 15% and limited tenants’ mobility by 20%.[2] The report concluded “…while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the laws.”[3] The outcome is clear: as a whole, city-wide rents went up, not down.
Rent Control and Stabilization Negatively Affects Housing Quality
Policies that control a landlord’s ability to set rents also discourage investment in and regular upkeep of housing units. The result is the controlled housing stock decays while the non-controlled stock improves, creating sharp disparities in housing quality.
This dynamic played out in Cambridge, MA during its two decades of rent control. A 2012 policy brief from the National Bureau of Economic Research on the end of rent control in Cambridge notes that: “…evidence indicates that ownership investments in rent-controlled units, including maintenance, upkeep and capital improvements, were lower than investments in non-controlled units.”[4]
Furthermore, some proposals such as H.3744, leaves the door open for an oversight entity that would have regulatory authority and the power to determine “fair return standards.” This means that even for owners looking to make property improvements and investments, Boston could restrict their ability to recover necessary expenses for building maintenance or ordinary improvements.
Omits Consequential Details
Several proposals create the option to grant immense power to an administrator or board that will promulgate regulations to oversee local rent regulation. These include registration, fair return standards, tenant notification, and other potential powers that are undefined in the legislation. There are no guardrails that provide a check or balance on the regulatory entity. The legislation lacks details on the regulatory entity’s structure, its span of control, its specific responsibilities, or how the public would interact with it.
There are several missing and consequential details that would have huge implications on the ability for landlords to navigate the outcome of this petition should it move forward, including an administrative process for disputes, how they may or may not recover the costs of necessary maintenance and renovations, changes in local or state tax policy, and legal and communication requirements with tenants.
Proposals also give municipalities the authority to regulate conversions to condominiums and cooperatives, likely a defensive measure to prevent the shift to ownership that would result from rent regulation. Massachusetts already has a condo conversion statute that provides for certain tenant protections and allows for municipalities to adopt restrictions on condo conversions of rental properties with four or more units.[5] These protections include notice requirements, a prohibition on high rental increases, and a right of first refusal. Boston itself adopted stricter standards, giving tenants five years to relocate if an owner wishes to convert units into condos. It is unclear, and not included in the petition, how the city seeks to further regulate in this area.
Outcomes and Alternatives
A study from the Brookings Institute best summarizes the ultimate outcomes for the City from a rent stabilization policy: “While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood.”[6] The evidence is clear that rent stabilization is not the solution to the region’s housing affordability challenge.
The state is at a critical moment for addressing housing costs, and the best way to lower housing costs is to increase supply in the region. To better serve the city and residents, the Chamber urges the state to focus on faster permitting and better coordination among housing departments involved in the development process rather than adopting a high-risk, vague policy that will undoubtedly place a fierce chill on housing production in Massachusetts.
[1] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data Systems Local Permitting Database.
[2] Diamond, McQuade, Qian – The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco. American Economic Review 2019.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Autor, et al. – Housing Market Spillovers: Evidence from the End of Rent Control in Cambridge Massachusetts. National Bureau of Economic Research 2012.
[5] Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983.
[6] Diamond, Rebecca – What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control? The Brookings Institution 2018.
Popular Resources