Rent control in Massachusetts refers to laws and proposals that limit increases in rents for residential housing in Massachusetts. The state adopted temporary rent controls after World War I and World War II. Beginning in 1970, Massachusetts authorized certain municipalities to adopt local rent-control programs. By 1994, rent control remained in effect in Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline, before voters approved a statewide ballot initiative prohibiting most local rent-control laws.
Debate over rent control has continued amid housing affordability concerns. Supporters have argued that limits on rent increases can improve housing stability and reduce displacement, while opponents have argued that such limits can discourage housing production and investment and can produce unequal benefits. Surveys of economists and empirical studies have generally found that rent controls can lower rents for incumbent tenants in the short run but reduce rental supply and maintenance, driving up rental prices over time.
In 2025 and 2026, supporters advanced an initiative petition that would create the strictest rent control law in the country, but the courts ruled that as written it was ineligible for the ballot.
Early efforts
In 1920, as troops returned home from World War I amid an economic recession, Massachusetts experienced a tight rental market. The Great and General Court of Massachusetts adopted several laws to address the situation, including one limiting annual rent increases to no more than 25%.A subsequent state analysis found that some landlords circumvented the limits by evicting tenants or refusing to renew leases so they could charge higher rents to new tenants, while others simply raised rents by the full 25% allowed.The law expired three years later.
In response to housing shortages caused by the Great Depression and World War II, Congress enacted emergency price controls on consumer goods and rents in 1942. Although the federal controls lapsed in 1953, Massachusetts continued its own policy until 1955, when Governor Christian Herter vetoed an extension.
Late 20th century Campaign for rent control In 1969, a group of students at Harvard University, who were also members of Students for a Democratic Society, complained that courses were taught with a 'liberal-establishment' bias and demanded courses with a more 'radical' approach. In response, the university created a course that included field work gathering signatures petitioning for rent control.
Legislative adoption On August 30, 1970, Governor Francis W. Sargent signed into law a bill that authorized rent control in municipalities with more than 50,000 residents, potentially affecting more than 40 communities. The law had an expiration date of April 1974 and then was extended to December 31, 1975, and again to March 31, 1976. After April 1, 1976, special acts were passed for the municipalities who wanted rent control, but there was no state-wide authorization.
Municipalities that opted in were required to establish and administer local rent‑control programs consistent with the statute's standards. The statute froze maximum rents at the amounts charged six months before local adoption, creating an immediate rollback for units whose rents had risen during that period.
The Act applied broadly to existing rental housing but expressly exempted transient accommodations, dwellings built or converted after January 1, 1969, units already regulated under another governmental program, owner‑occupied two‑ and three‑family houses, cooperative or educational housing, and locally defined “luxury” apartments, provided no more than twenty‑five per cent of the locality's rental stock was excluded.
Local adoption and repeals In 1969, the Town of Brookline and the City of Boston both passed local laws instituting rent control. A special law was passed giving Boston the authority to implement its proposal in the final days of 1969. The Supreme Judicial Court struck down Brookline's law, saying it had no authority to institute rent control without permission from the state.
Lynn, Somerville, Brookline, and Cambridge adopted rent control when given the chance under the state-wide law passed in 1970. Each was required by the law to establish a rent‑control board consisting of three to five members, or to appoint a single rent administrator. In 1976, hours before the statewide law expired, special laws were passed granting rent control authority to Cambridge and Somerville; Boston and Brookline had previously been granted authority earlier in the year.
The Board of Aldermen in Somerville voted, 6–4, in November 1978 to repeal its rent control law, effective March 1, 1979. There were an estimated 10,000 units under rent control at the time.
In 1974, the voters of Lynn overwhelmingly repealed rent control. Malden voters overwhelmingly rejected rent control in 1989. After a three year campaign, Greenfield rejected a proposal to adopt rent control also in 1989.
Boston began decontrolling units in 1976, allowing rents to reset when new tenants moved in, and relaxing other controls. In 1976, Somerville allowed rates to rise to market levels when new tenants moved in, but rents were subject to government control after that. Brookline began decontrolling units in 1991.
Rent control boards Local boards in communities with rent control approved or disapproved of increases in the rent to each unit under their jurisdiction. Rent control boards were "akin to a quasi court" and had executive, legislative, and judicial powers. They passed new laws, enforced new laws, and judged whether or not their laws had been violated. The boards were empowered to set maximum rents, promulgate regulations, hold hearings, adjudicate petitions, and employ staff. Housing providers bore the burden of proof during the evidentiary hearings.
Before evicting a tenant from a rent-controlled unit, a landlord first had to secure a certificate of eviction from the board by establishing one of the statute's narrowly defined just causes: non‑payment of rent; the tenant's material violation of lease obligations or creation of a nuisance; owner‑occupancy or occupancy by an immediate family member of the owner; board‑approved plans for substantial rehabilitation or demolition; or the landlord's permanent withdrawal of the dwelling from the rental market.
Hearings were recorded and extensive documentation was required contributing to a judicial atmosphere and exacerbating tensions between tenants, housing providers, the rent control boards and their examiners.
Small property owners who moved out of state needed to return to Massachusetts every time they wished to raise rents or make other changes so that they could appear in person before the rent control boards.
Board decisions were subject to de novo review in the district court, and willful overcharges or unlawful evictions were punishable as criminal offenses.
Fair net operating income Landlords could petition for rent increases only when necessary to obtain a “fair net operating income,” a benchmark that directed boards to consider six specified factors: changes in property‑tax assessments, unavoidable increases in operating costs, capital improvements, alterations in services, physical deterioration, and the cost of normal repairs. In several instances, Rent Control Boards considered losses of $8,500 in one year and $23,000 over three years to be "a fair net profit" for the property owners.
Mortgage expenses were not allowed to be considered when calculating an approved rent. Legal and management fees were also not allowed to be passed on to tenants, and neither was lost rent due to non-payment. The chairman of the Small Property Owners Association complained this was unfair given "all the recordkeeping, minutia, logs, filings and considerable headaches associated with ownership of a rent-controlled building" and that "all owners know that to go to the rent board without legal representation is to leave without your kneecaps."
Repairs and upkeep Landlords could not increase rent without permission, even for basic repairs and upkeep, and instead had to submit detailed requests and proposals to the Rent Control Board to "prove" that the work had been done with the cheapest possible materials. Housing providers would have to pay for repairs or to replace broken appliances and then submit receipts to the rent control boards, who were under no obligation to approve increases to recover the costs. Tenants were able to withhold rent in response to alleged faults with their units without providing any evidence.
It could take between six months and two years of adversarial hearings before the Rent Control Board for a decision to be made. If an increase in rent was approved, it could take six weeks to six months before the increase was passed on to the tenant, and it would be temporary. Rents went back down after the cost of the capital improvements were recovered by the landlord. Tenant advocates said that granting any rent increases for repairs, even temporary ones, undermined the idea of rent control itself. Dozens of tenants "stormed a City Council meeting" in Cambridge in 1992, protesting the fact that the rent control board allowed housing providers to increase rents to pay for repairs and upgrades.
When one housing provider spent over $200,000 in capital improvements on his property, the Cambridge Rent Control Board refused to allow him to raise rents to cover the expenses. Not all of the repairs were required, the Board said, because new electrical and water service were not mandated by building or safety codes. The owner sued, and a Superior Court justice ruled that the Board was imposing criteria not found in the regulations; she ruled in favor of the housing provider.
Because of delays in processing applications, inflation ate away at the amount landlords could ultimately collect in rent increases for capital improvements. Economist Herman B. Leonard of Harvard Business School found that landlords received between 70% and 75% of what the Rent Control Board deemed to be "fair." This, he said, was a "dramatic squeeze" on operating budgets, and led to less upkeep, lower quality, and faster deterioration of rent-controlled properties.
Vacancy decontrol Over time, Boston and Brookline instituted systems of vacancy decontrol where rents could rise to market levels as tenants moved out, but Cambridge strengthened its program over the years. Like in similar communities across the country, complaints were heard from both landlords and tenants in all three communities, but "the discontent is nowhere near as fierce as in places where stringent rent control measures remain intact."
Rent control in Boston
+ Rent-controlled units in Boston Date Number of rent-controlled units Notes Early 1970s 110,000 1975 120,000 1976 122,000 1977 74,000 February 1980 8,000 buildings had rent-controlled units January 1981 45,000 units December 1981 35,000-40,000 units January 1988 80,000+ units February 1989 90,000 units December 1990 95,000 units June 1993 20,000 units 1994 22,000 units
Mayor Kevin White signed Boston's first rent control ordinance in November 1969, and a special state law authorized the city to implement it. The ordinance established a five-member Rent Control Board with authority to set maximum rents for covered apartments. Boston amended its program after Massachusetts enacted statewide enabling legislation in 1970, and the board was subsequently given authority to consider rent increases, regulate evictions, and determine whether properties qualified for exemptions.