Rent control in Boston, Massachusetts was a system of municipal regulations that limited rents and evictions in certain privately owned rental housing. Boston adopted rent control in 1969 amid a housing shortage, and the Massachusetts Legislature authorized similar programs in larger municipalities the following year. The system remained in effect until Massachusetts voters abolished rent control through a statewide ballot initiative in 1994, with repeal taking effect on January 1, 1995.
Boston's Rent Control Board established maximum rents, considered landlords' applications for increases, regulated evictions, and determined which properties qualified for exemptions. The law was repeatedly amended during its 25-year history. Vacancy decontrol, adopted in 1976, permitted rents to be reset when tenants moved out, although property owners were required to obtain certificates from the board. The city also adopted regulations intended to prevent landlords from removing apartments and boarding-house rooms from the rental market or converting them into condominiums.
Supporters maintained that rent control protected tenants from steep rent increases and displacement during periods of limited housing availability. Critics attributed reductions in rental housing, decreased construction, condominium conversions, building deterioration, and property abandonment partly to regulated rents that did not keep pace with taxes, utilities, mortgages, and maintenance costs. Rent-controlled apartments were not means-tested, and studies found that many were occupied by middle- and upper-income tenants. The policy was also associated with lower property assessments, increased tax burdens on other property owners, and reduced mobility among tenants who did not want to lose below-market rents.
Legislative history Local adoption Mayor Kevin White signed into law a rent control ordinance in November 1969. It established a five-member rent control board that had the power to set rents in about 25% of all rental units, excluding luxury units, public housing, and buildings with three or fewer units. A special state law granting the City permission to implement the ordinance was enacted in the final days of the 1969 legislative session.
Statewide law 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 Boston and the two other 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 25% of the locality's rental stock was excluded.
1970s The local ordinance was amended a few months after adoption to make it more closely match the legislation enabling rent control in the rest of the Commonwealth. The law was considered weak as a tenant had to first complain to the Rent Control Board before an action could be taken against a housing provider. Two years later, a stronger ordinance was adopted.
Vacancy decontrol On New Year's Day in 1976, White signed a new bill extending rent control for another four years. It strengthened the power of the Rent Control Board and weakened the power of the administrator. It also allowed for the deregulation of apartments as they became vacant, allowing rents to reset when new tenants moved in. The law had an expiration date of December 31, 1979 but was extended for three more years.
However, decontrol was not automatic. The Rent Control Board established "a comprehensive set of rules and regulations" that owners must follow in order to obtain a "certificate of vacancy." Part of the application process involved submitting signed affidavits from both the housing provider and the tenant moving out.
The Rent Control Board took several months to consider and approve applications for decontrol permits due to a backlog and a lack of personnel to process requests. While waiting for the paperwork to be processed, units could not be rented and property owners lost money. Until the housing provider had the certificate, the Board considered the apartment to still be under the previous rules and rents could not be raised for the new tenants.
Confusion over the need for permits, which were mandated months after vacancy decontrol took effect, led to some tenants being charged higher rents before a certificate was obtained. In March 1977, the Rent Control Board ordered housing providers to repay tenants in 183 different buildings a total of $24,130. There were 14 who were expected to be referred to the Boston Housing Court. Most of the complaints involved small landlords with three or fewer buildings.
In the 2.5 years after vacancy decontrol began, 40,000 units were removed from rent control. By the end of 1978, 35-40% of all rent-controlled apartments had been decontrolled.
1977 study A 1977 study group appointed by Mayor White produced an 80-page report in which it was recommended that rent control be eliminated for all except low-income, elderly tenants. Any landlord who had a disproportionate share of such tenants would receive a tax rebate. It said that rent control was designed to be temporary and in response to an "emergency" shortage of housing in 1969, but was not supposed to be a long-term solution.
The Boston Globe, which had previously supported rent control, editorialized after the report was released that "after 10 years, [rent control] is not working here" and that it should be repealed. The "point has come in this city," the editorial board said, "where rent control is counterproductive and should be abandoned." Tenant groups, on the other hand, asked for tighter rent controls and for the staff members who produced the report to be fired.
Two months later, White announced that he would not seek the end of rent control but propose adjustments to address the concerns of both landlords and tenants.
1980s
In the mid-1980s, a new rent control and condo conversion ordinance was adopted and was set to expire on December 31, 1994. During hearings on whether or not to extend the law, it was estimated that allowing rent control to lapse would enable the city to collect an additional $14 million in tax revenue. The president of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board also noted that rents had fallen, on average, $50 per month over the previous two years at a time when costs such as water bills were rising dramatically.
It was ultimately voted, 12-1, to extend rent control until December 31, 2004. The vote took place in June 1993 even though the law was not set to expire until the last day of 1994. Six of the 13 members on the council had already announced their intentions not to run for reelection in 1994, and Mayor Flynn was preparing to become ambassador to the Vatican, prompting calls of foul play from housing providers.
A provision of Boston's rent control law stipulated that landlords could not increase rent without first giving the tenants the option to terminate the lease. Both the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the United States Supreme Court upheld the provision. Property taxes also had to be paid before a housing provider could request an increase in rent.
1990s By the 1990s, Boston's form of rent control had softened with almost 200 amendments over the previous 20 years. Rent increases were limited to 12%, and only in some buildings.
A new tax was instituted in 1992 on most people renting apartments in Boston to fund the Rent Control Board's operations. The Rent Control Board added a $1 a month fee that was to be collected by landlords and then submitted to the Rent Control Board. Eight months later, it was raised to $1.50.
Rent control board 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.
Rent increases When seeking an increase in rent, housing providers had to prove to the Rent Control Board that the increase was justified. They had to appear at a hearing and show bills or other documentation to convince the board that an increase was necessary. Before rent could be increased, tenants had to be notified and properties had to be inspected. Property owners could apply yearly for increases tied to the Consumer Price Index, up to 5%.
During the first five years of rent control, 90% of housing providers who owned nine or fewer units did not receive any rent increases. At the time, 61% of the city's housing stock was made up of buildings between two and nine units. The chief justice of the Boston Housing Court, Paul G. Garrity, opined that "the small landlord needs protection. He just does not have the ability to absorb the costs."
Petitions for an increase in rent to the Boston Rent Control Board took, on average, three months.
In the early 1980s, a new law was passed allowing tenants who lived in non-rent-controlled apartments to file a grievance if their housing provider increased the rent. The Board did not have the authority to mandate prior approval for increases for non-controlled units, but could require landlords to give their tenants a rent reduction.