A proposed ballot question to repeal Massachusetts' ban on rent control, and cap rent increases at most properties has been struck down by the state's highest court.
The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling focused on an aspect of the ballot initiative that exempted religious facilities from rent control. The justices concluded that because that exemption would require the state to assess the intent and finances of religious groups, it violated the state's constitution. The ruling is a conclusion to a legal challenge against the ballot question brought forth by a group of Massachusetts voters.
Carolyn Chou heads the coalition behind the ballot question. She said they're disappointed by the court's decision, but confident the movement to make rent more affordable in Massachusetts will continue, even if the question doesn't go before voters in November.
"This was a corporate real estate-backed effort to remove us from the ballot," Chou said. "But we still have the momentum of hundreds of thousands of everyday people on our side."
The ballot question had garnered a swell of grassroots support, with some polling finding as much as 69% of voters in support of rent control. Housing advocates have been sounding the alarm on steadily rising rents for years: a recent report from the Springfield-based housing agency Way Finders found that in Western Massachusetts, around half of all renters are considered cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than a third of their income on their housing.
Locally, rent control supporters also felt the sting of disappointment. Katie Talbot is an organizing director with Springfield No One Leaves, which is part of the rent control coalition. She's frustrated that the court's ruling had little to do with the main thrust of the ballot question.
"It feels like a silly technicality," Talbot said. "It feels like a technicality and it feels like it took the option out of the hands of the voters to make a decision."
The rent control ballot question had been certified by Attorney General Andrea Campbell's office before facing this legal challenge. In a statement released after the court's decision, Campbell said her office "got it wrong."
"We certified the initiative because we believed the exemptions avoided the type of interference with religion that the state constitution prohibits," Campbell said. "The [Supreme Judicial Court] disagreed and developed a new framework to apply to initiatives that mention religion going forward."
There is still legislation moving through Beacon Hill that would introduce a slightly different version of rent control. Unlike the ballot question, which would have introduced a statewide cap on rent increases at around 5% each year, the legislation ups that to around 10%. Notably, the legislation allows for cities and towns to opt into rent control individually. Springfield, Holyoke, and Amherst have all passed resolutions in support of that bill.
It's not clear if there is sufficient political will to pass it. In early June, the coalition behind the rent control ballot offered lawmakers a deal: push rent control through the chambers, and in exchange, the group would drop the ballot question. The structure of that deal essentially used the more restrictive rent control language of the ballot question as leverage to incentivize the passage of less intense regulation. Without a ballot question in play, lawmakers may not feel the pressure to cross the finish line this session.
But Carolyn Chou is optimistic.
"We believe that we have shown how much momentum is on our side," Chou said. "There is a compromise that can work for tenants, homeowners, small landlords and developers. And we are prepared to keep moving forward on that."
