Cambridge Lawmakers Split as Statewide Rent Control Measure Heads Toward November Ballot

A proposed ballot measure to reinstate rent control statewide is moving closer to voters this November — and splitting the Cambridge lawmakers who represent the city on Beacon Hill.

Cambridge first implemented rent control in 1970 to curb steep rent hikes, adopting one of the most stringent policies in Massachusetts. But a razor-thin statewide vote repealed the policy in 1994, banning rent control across the Commonwealth.

The proposed ballot initiative would cap annual rent increases for most residential units at the rate of inflation or 5 percent, whichever is lower.

The measure, launched by Homes for All Massachusetts — a statewide coalition of grassroots tenant and housing organizations — has already cleared the first signature threshold required to advance to the State Legislature.

Lawmakers have until May to vote on whether to enact the proposal themselves or allow it to advance to the November ballot. If they reject it, supporters will need to collect a second round of nearly 13,000 signatures to place the question before voters statewide.

But rent control has long been a flashpoint in state and local politics, and as the vote draws near, Cambridge’s incumbent legislators have landed on opposite sides of the issue.

State Rep. Marjorie C. Decker, who has represented the 25th Middlesex District — which covers Harvard’s Cambridge campus — since 2013, voiced support for the proposal while emphasizing the need for “a broader strategy to expand supply and affordability.”

“Immediate tenant protections must be paired with a broader strategy to expand supply and affordability, but inaction is not an option,” Decker said.

State Rep. Mike L. Connolly, who represents parts of Cambridge and Somerville, said he would “absolutely” support a rent control measure if it appears before voters in November.

Opponents of the proposal — including State Sen. William N. Brownsberger ’78 and Gov. Maura T. Healey ’92 — argue that reinstating rent control statewide would hinder housing production.

Brownsberger called the proposal “very, very harmful” in a Friday interview with The Crimson, saying rent control discourages both construction and maintenance.

“When rent control is in place, there are two kinds of problems. One is that people who build and maintain housing are unable to earn returns sufficient to induce them to build or maintain housing. So new housing is not built, existing housing is not maintained,” Brownsberger said, adding that rent control was a “blunt instrument” rather than a targeted solution.

Brownsberger pointed to alternatives — including eliminating broker fees and expanding rental assistance programs — that he said would provide targeted relief without discouraging development or lowering costs for tenants who do not need assistance.

Connolly and Decker, however, have taken a different approach. Connolly has sponsored multiple bills to lift the state’s long-standing ban on rent control, including a current proposal — which Decker has also signed on to — that would allow municipalities to enact local rent stabilization ordinances. None have passed.

“I’m very convinced that rent control is a very reasonable and proven effective policy,” Connolly said, “and that we can do these policies in ways that protect tenants, that are also fair to small landlords, and that also can support additional housing production.”

—Staff writer Wyatt T. Zurline can be reached [email protected].