1994 Massachusetts rent control referendum

Rent control in Massachusetts 1994 Massachusetts elections Rent control in Boston, Massachusetts Rent control in Brookline, Massachusetts Rent control in Cambridge, Massachusetts The 1994 Massachusetts rent control referendum, designated Question 9, was a statewide ballot initiative approved on November 8, 1994, that ended the existing rent-control programs in Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge. The measure passed by approximately 51 percent to 49 percent, despite opposition from a majority of voters in all three municipalities, and took effect on January 1, 1995. It prohibited most forms of local rent control while allowing municipalities to establish voluntary programs that compensated participating property owners for lost rental income. The initiative grew out of opposition to Cambridge’s rent-control system, which retained significantly stricter restrictions than those in Boston and Brookline. Members of the Cambridge-based Small Property Owners Association pursued statewide repeal after unsuccessful efforts to obtain relief through local government, litigation, and state legislation. Their complaints concerned limits on rent increases, difficulties recovering maintenance costs, and restrictions preventing some owners from occupying their own properties. Legal challenges to the petition’s signatures and eligibility delayed the initiative, but court rulings ultimately allowed it onto the ballot. The repeal campaign, organized through the Massachusetts Homeowners Coalition, emphasized fairness to small property owners and argued that rent control benefited some affluent tenants while discouraging investment and burdening landlords of modest means. Opponents maintained that rent control protected affordable housing and prevented displacement, and argued that statewide repeal would override local decisions about housing policy. The campaign attracted relatively little public attention, although repeal supporters substantially outraised their opponents. Following the vote, officials in Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge sought state legislation to preserve their local programs, but those efforts did not restore rent control. The legislature provided temporary protections for certain low-income tenants for up to two years. A subsequent effort to place a measure restoring municipal rent-control authority on the 1996 ballot failed to gather the required signatures. Rent control in Massachusetts Massachusetts authorized local rent control in 1970. The programs limited rents and restricted evictions in covered housing, with local boards administering rent adjustments and other regulations. By 1994, only Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge retained active rent-control systems. Boston introduced vacancy decontrol in 1976, allowing apartments to leave rent control when tenants moved out, and Brookline began a partial phaseout in 1991. Cambridge retained a substantially stricter system, generally continuing controls between tenancies and imposing extensive restrictions on condominium conversions, owner occupancy, and the withdrawal of apartments from the rental market. Opponents argued that rent control worsened housing shortages, accelerated building deterioration, and imposed financial and regulatory burdens on property owners. Housing providers complained that permitted rents failed to keep pace with operating expenses and that obtaining increases to pay for repairs required lengthy hearings and extensive documentation. The restrictions discouraged investment, contributed to deteriorating buildings, and encouraged owners to convert rental apartments into condominiums. Contemporary reporting in Boston linked financially distressed rental properties to abandonment and urban blight, and described allegations that restrictions on rents and conversions created incentives for arson. The distribution of benefits and costs was another source of controversy. Rent-controlled apartments were not means-tested, and studies found that many were occupied by middle- and upper-income households, including professionals, students, and even European royalty. Opponents argued that the programs therefore provided substantial benefits to tenants who did not need assistance while limiting access for people seeking housing. Lower assessments on regulated properties also shifted part of the municipal property-tax burden onto homeowners and owners of uncontrolled buildings, an issue that helped mobilize opposition in Brookline. In Cambridge, disputes over rent adjustments and restrictions preventing some owners from occupying their own properties helped give rise to the Small Property Owners Association. After unsuccessful efforts to secure substantial changes through local government, litigation, and state legislation, association members led the campaign for statewide repeal. Supporters of rent control maintained that it preserved affordable rental housing and protected tenants against displacement; they opposed repeal as a threat to those protections and to local control over housing policy. Preliminary attempts at repeal Small Property Owners Association The repeal effort was led by small Cambridge landlords who felt they were being unfairly treated by the local rent control board.Moncreiff 1996 117pf In this way, they used a state ballot question to achieve a primarily local policy change and end what "had long been an ugly, simmering local dispute."views placeMoncreiff 1996 117 The Small Property Owners Association had its start when David P. Sullivan purchased a six-unit building from his father; all units were rent-controlled.Moncreiff 1996 118 The rent control law allowed landlords to recover possession of a rent-controlled unit if they wanted it for themselves or a family member, and Sullivan wanted to rent it to his daughter, who was getting married.Moncreiff 1996 118 The Rent Control Board denied his petition, however, and it took two years and "substantial concessions" to the tenant in order to get them to leave.Moncreiff 1996 139 The episode aggrieved Sullivan and his family, who believed the Rent Control Board was acting outside the law and was hostile to landlords, and so he helped to found the Small Property Owners Association (SPOA).Moncreiff 1996 118 Likewise, Denise Jillson purchased a four-family home with her husband.Moncreiff 1996 118 She wanted to use the same provision of the law that allowed owners to occupy their own properties, but was subject to a long delay by the Rent Control Board.Moncreiff 1996 118 While Jillson and her family were living with other relatives, the tenant in the unit she wished to inhabit was subletting rooms in the apartment.Moncreiff 1996 118 This led to Jillson becoming a co-chair of the SPOAfight and the leader of the statewide ballot campaign.Moncreiff 1996 118 The other co-chair of the SPOA was Salim Kabawat.fight By 1993 the organization had more than 1,400 members, many of whom were elderly and immigrants.pay case The SPOA frequently fielded phone calls from distraught property owners who were upset with the way their tenants or the Rent Control Board was treating them.case Legislative and legal attempts After the 1991 Cambridge city council elections, the SPOA, seeing a pro-rent control majority for the next two years who were not open to compromise, launched a fundraising campaign to challenge rent control in the courts.fight Their case focused on five points:fight It had been over 20 years since a housing emergency was declared, and the emergency was now over. Rent control failed to provide housing to the poor and the elderly, which was its stated purpose. Housing providers were not receiving a fair net operating income. The prohibition of condo conversions was illegal. Rent control constituted a taking of private property without just compensation. After losing the case and their appeal, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case, partly on a technicality.supreme plea The SPOA, which had nearly 1,000 members by this point, launched another lawsuit in 1992.new A Superior Court judge threw out 13 of the 16 claims in March 1993.setback The judge said many of the issues raised in their lawsuit would be better address in the Statehouse or in City Hall.setback With the help of Rep. Philip Travis, the SPOA filed four pieces of legislation in 1993 that would erode rent control in Cambridge.square The first would exempt any building with six units or fewer from rent control, the second changed the way rent-controlled properties were assessed, the third would allow rent-controlled units to remain vacant for more than four months, and the last would require the any community that wanted to retain rent control to re-certify that a housing emergency still existed 20+ years after it was used to justify the establishment of rent control.square pol Ballot campaign Legal background Jon R. Maddox, a Cambridge lawyer, became involved with the Small Property Owners Association in 1993 after learning that his condominium was subject to Cambridge's restrictions on owner occupancy of certain condominium-converted units.Moncreiff 1996 118–119 Maddox was in danger of being prosecuted for living in a condominium he owned. The legal basis for the 1994 initiative petition rested on the argument that rent control was a matter of state policy rather than a purely local issue.Moncreiff 1996 119 Maddox's initial draft would have prohibited rent control outright, but the Attorney General's office raised concerns that it might be excluded from the initiative process because its practical operation would be limited to particular municipalities.Moncreiff 1996 120–121 Maddox revised the petition to authorize all Massachusetts cities and towns to adopt a limited form of rent control, which effectively abolished it, while prohibiting any other form of rent control.Moncreiff 1996 121–122 Under the proposal, a community could adopt rent control but would have to pay housing providers, who would have to opt in to the program, for lost rent.hurdle pf Tenant activists said the voluntary section, which would apply to every community in the Commonwealth, was a "sham."pf No municipality would adopt it, they said.pf The Attorney General's office concluded that the revised petition was not restricted to particular localities because it gave every municipality some legal authority it did not previously have.Moncreiff 1996 122 Cambridge tenants formed the Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protection to oppose the effort.place The Campaign argued that because rent control was primarily a local issue, and that the elected city council in Cambridge supported rent control, that it was "antidemocratic" to try and adopt a state law banning it;place it was a special state law that granted Cambridge the authority to institute rent control. Signatures gathered The SPOA filed the initial paperwork to bring the question to the ballot in August 1993.filed The petition was certified on September 1, 1993; proponents then had to gather more than 70,000 signatures by November 17, 1993.seek The City of Cambridge challenged the certification, but the Supreme Judicial Court upheld it.Moncreiff 1996 130–131 Within three weeks of certification, the newly-formed Massachusetts Homeowners Coalition had an office set up with furniture, telephones, computers, and a fax machine.case They also had volunteers staffing it from 9 am to 9 pm, seven days a week.case There were volunteers from across the state who participated in the campaign.case The effort was supported by The Massachusetts Association of Realators and the Massachusetts Rental Housing Association.case No more than 25% of signatures could come from a single county, so organizers felt lucky that the three communities with rent control were in three different counties.case Court challenges After the first round of signatures was filed, the Secretary of the Commonwealth determined that the petition had 69,926 allowable signatures, 360 fewer than the 70,286 required to advance the initiative.Moncreiff 1996 127 Jillson and the other original petition signers challenged the determination in Massachusetts Superior Court, arguing that enough signatures had been wrongly rejected to overcome the shortfall.Moncreiff 1996 128 Rent control supporters from Cambridge, Boston, and Brookline intervened in the case in opposition to the petition proponents.Moncreiff 1996 128 The proponents reviewed uncertified signatures and compared them with voter-registration lists, telephone books, and city directories.Moncreiff 1996 128 During the litigation, both sides also challenged signatures that had been certified or rejected by local officials.Moncreiff 1996 128–129 In one episode, opponents challenged several Quincy signatures as forgeries and had them disqualified.Moncreiff 1996 129war A tenant activist asked the Attorney General to seek a criminal investigation, but received no response.war The petition proponents then submitted an affidavit from a handwriting expert stating that they were forged by one of the people opposing the petition in court.Moncreiff 1996 129war On April 22, 1994, after weeks of testimony, Judge Martha B. Sosman ruled that the petition proponents had established enough additional signatures to exceed the requirement by 34 signatures.Moncreiff 1996 129lease pf Separately, the City of Cambridge spent $110,000 an outside law firm to try and kill the measure.suit maddox They argued that rent control was a home rule matter and not an appropriate subject for a public referendum.suit Tenant activists were excited the city filed the lawsuit, but the Massachusetts Homeowners Association called it a waste of taxpayer dollars.suit In July, a unanimous Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that "although it may appear to be a purely local issue, it is not," and thus the question could appear on the ballot.brelis Justice Ruth Abrams, who long occupied a rent-controlled apartment, recused herself from the case.brelis Both sides had lawsuits against the Secretary of the Commonwealth.war Messaging During the fall campaign, the Massachusetts Homeowners Coalition framed Question 9 primarily as a fairness issue rather than only as a defense of property rights.Moncreiff 1996 131 Campaign consultant Dennis Dyer argued that the personal resentment felt by property owners affected by rent control would not necessarily persuade voters who had not shared those experiences.Moncreiff 1996 131 Polling conducted for the campaign found that women were more likely than men to support rent control, and so the campaign emphasized fairness and assistance to small-property owners rather than relying only on arguments about property rights or economics.Moncreiff 1996 131 The campaign's central message described rent control as a well-intentioned but failed policy that benefited some affluent tenants while burdening property owners of modest means.Moncreiff 1996 131 Campaign literature used several small-property owners to put a "face and heart" on the campaign.Moncreiff 1996 131 The campaign's principal handout featured Barbara Pilgrim, Val Jean Cox, Vinny Bologna, and Helen and Peter Petrillo, whose stories were presented as examples of small landlords burdened by Cambridge's rent control system.Moncreiff 1996 131–132 Pilgrim was an older Black woman supporting herself and her disabled husband while being unable to collect rents that covered her mortgage and other costs.Moncreiff 1996 131 The campaign also said that one of Pilgrim's tenants could afford to spend winters in Florida and summers on Cape Cod.Moncreiff 1996 132 Cox, also a Black woman, lost her rent-control exemption for her owner-occupied three-family house after temporarily moving out to care for her seriously ill mother.Moncreiff 1996 132 Bologna was unable to live with his family in a house he had renovated and, instead, the rent control board ordered him to rent out the house while he lived with his family in a one-bedroom apartment.Moncreiff 1996 132 The Petrillos lost an owner-occupancy exemption for a three-family house after allowing their daughter and her family to move in following a fire at the daughter's home.Moncreiff 1996 132 The same material was included, with additional detail on rent control's effects, in press kits sent to newspaper editorial boards around the state.Moncreiff 1996 132 Only two newspapers in the state, The Boston Globe and The Patriot Ledger, opposed the ballot measure.Moncreiff 1996 132 More libertarian messaging, including calls to get government out of people's homes, was used mainly in bumper stickers and yard signs.Moncreiff 1996 132 Some campaign participants wanted more direct attacks on prominent rent-controlled tenants, but Jillson and others worked to keep the campaign focused on Dyer's broader fairness strategy.Moncreiff 1996 132 Campaign By mid-October, the campaign was a sleepy one with little excitement or news coverage.silence When rent-control supporters held a press conference that had been planned for weeks, not a single reporter attended.silence Even at a meeting of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, few people seemed to know what Question 9 was.silence Others were confused that a No vote meant keeping rent control, and a Yes vote meant to abolish it.silence Supporters of the ballot question raised $444,213 and opponents raised $62,105 by the first reporting period.study silence This relatively small amount of money made it difficult to campaign, though supporters of Question 9 expected radio ads to being airing shortly.silence Proponents spent $88,000 on consultants and $3,500 on a focus group.silence Many observers saw the repeal effort as difficult because it was often not just the poor and the elderly who benefited from rent control, but middle class and even wealthy renters.lease Proponents of the repeal argued that it kept rents artificially low, made it hard to lease a property, and made it difficult to make repairs and improvements to the property.chong Opponents argued that it kept prices from rising too quickly in a tight market.chong Results and aftermath Election results + Election resultsrail Jurisdiction Yes No Statewide 1,034,594 980,723Boston 56,539 64,663Brookline 9,184 11,677Cambridge 13,262 18,556 At the November 8, 1994, state election, voters approved Question 9, abolishing rent control.Moncreiff 1996 133 The measure received 1,034,594 votes in favor and 980,723 votes against, or about 51 percent to 49 percent.Moncreiff 1996 133 Officials in Boston and Brookline blamed Cambridge for failing to modify its extreme version of rent control and upsetting voters enough to ban it statewide.divides rift Cambridge City Councilor Sheila Russell, who supported rent control, agreed.rift "If we had only listened to [the small property owners] and helped them out in the last five years, they would never have gone to this extreme," she said.rift Although the initiative passed statewide, it lost in Cambridge, where voters rejected it by 58 percent to 42 percent.Moncreiff 1996 133 It also lost in Boston, another municipality with rent control, but carried enough votes elsewhere in the state to prevail.Moncreiff 1996 133 The measure won in six eastern Massachusetts counties, including Middlesex County, where Cambridge is located.Moncreiff 1996 133 Attempts to undo the election Within days of the election, Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge officials all worked to overturn the election and keep rent control in their communities. On the Thursday following the vote, the Boston City Council approved a home rule petition asking to reinstate rent control.rail Brookline's Town Meeting also voted for a home rule petition to keep rent control two weeks later,layne and the Cambridge City Council sent a home rule petition to Beacon Hill the week after that.dowdy As he had promised to do,rail Governor William Weld, who lived in Cambridge and voted in favor of the repeal, vetoed the Cambridge bills after both the House and the Senate approved it in lame duck sessions.promise The Senate rejected the Brookline bill after the House approved it, and the two chambers approved different versions of the Boston bill, forcing a conference committee.promise Rent control supporters made an unsuccessful attempt to place a new measure on the 1996 state ballot.Moncreiff 1996 140 In August 1995, the Attorney General certified a proposed initiative titled the "Community Empowerment Act", which would have authorized municipalities to impose rent control among other local powers.Moncreiff 1996 140 Supporters of Question 9 challenged the certification, arguing that the Massachusetts Constitution barred initiative petitions that were substantially the same as a measure submitted to voters in either of the two preceding biennial state elections.Moncreiff 1996 140 The challenge became moot when supporters of the Community Empowerment Act did not submit any signatures to the Secretary of the Commonwealth by the filing deadline.Moncreiff 1996 140 Extension for some tenants After the repeal, the Massachusetts General Court passed a law protecting low-income tenants in rent control apartments from being evicted for up to two years; full time students were not eligible.lease move wong livesMoncreiff 1996 139 The bill was passed with less than two minutes left before the end of the legislative year on January 3, 1994.wong Only 9.4% of tenants in rent-controlled apartments applied for and received protection, giving credence to the assertion of opponents of rent control that it had become an entitlement program for middle- and upper-income tenants."Moncreiff 1996 139 References SJC rules on rents July 15, 1994 Matthew Brelis 19, 23 The Boston Globe Landlords gearing up to take case to voters November 8, 1993 13, 18 The Boston Globe Jennifer Kingson Bloom https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/11/7/citizens-dispute-question-9-pif-question/ Citizens Dispute Question 9 Curtis R. Chong November 7, 1994 October 22, 2023 The Harvard Crimson Rent vote divides landlords, tenants Pamela Ferdinand The Boston Globe November 10, 1994 33 Rent-control compromise gets Cambridge OK Zachary R. Dowdy November 21, 1994 The Boston Globe 17, 52 SPOA will fight... all the way to D.C. Rob Rawson November 28, 1991 1, 22 The Cambridge Chronicle Toni Locy August 5, 1993 66 Fifteen initative petitions are filed for '94 and '96 ballots The Boston Globe Campaign reform, other initiatives leap signature hurdle Peter J. Howe The Boston Globe December 2, 1993 39 Town Meeting in Brookline seeks state OK on rent control Rachel Layne November 16, 1994 The Boston Globe 37 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/09/19/mass-city-gets-a-new-lease-on-life/9b8249b7-a1d1-4b6c-a4e7-a305c9dcb833/ Mass. City Gets New Lease on Life The Washington Post Judith Havemann September 19, 1998 October 23, 2023 Rent control lives - for poor Doris Sue Wong January 5, 1995 21, 24 The Boston Globe Question 9 and transition relief Jon Maddox The Boston Globe September 25, 1994 2 City https://rentcontrolhistory.com/chapters/renters-who-needed-to-move-couldnt-qualify/ Renters who needed to move couldn't qualify. Mass Landlords, Inc January 3, 2024 https://bostonglobe.newspapers.com/article/the-boston-globe/129525857/ Cambridge landlords file new challenge to rent control laws Gary S. Chafetz January 10, 1991 23 August 10, 2026 The Boston Globe subscription Rent control: Does it pay? Jennifer Kingson Bloom April 25, 1993 69, 72 The Boston Globe Legislature to get rent control petition Pamela Ferdinand Michael Kenney City 5 The Boston Globe May 1, 1994 Tenants say question has no place on ballot November 8, 1993 13, 18 The Boston Globe Jennifer Kingson Bloom US Supreme Court will not hear landlords' anti rent control plea 1 October 10, 1991 The Cambridge Chronicle Rent policies out of control Bella English March 24, 1993 25 The Boston Globe As promised, Weld vetoes Cambridge rent control bill Matthew Brelis The Boston Globe December 10, 1994 17 Landlords rail against moves to undo rent-control rejection Adrian Walker Peter J. Howe The Boston Globe 34 November 11, 1994 https://bostonglobe.newspapers.com/image/440628930/?clipping_id=133711021 November 13, 1994 August 15, 2026 The Boston Globe City 1, City 4 Pamela Ferdinand After vote, the rent rift gets wider subscription Owners seek rent control ban September 12, 1993 The Boston Globe City 5 Rent control opponesnts dealt setback by ruling Doris Sue Wong The Boston Globe March 25, 1993 26 Both camps silent on rent control issue Pamela Ferdinand Howard Manly The Boston Globe October 16, 1994 City 1, City 10 Cambridge owners, tenants square off at hearing on rent control bills Jennifer Kingson Bloom March 24, 1993 The Boston Globe 23 Study: Companies investing in ballot question campaigns Chris Reidy October 11, 1994 23 The Boston Globe City joins rent-control suit Jennifer Kingson Bloom March 11, 1994 22 The Boston Globe Supreme Court declines Cambridge rent case Peter S. Canellos October 8, 1991 20 The Boston Globe Two views of rent control November 8, 1993 13 The Boston Globe Jennifer Kingson Bloom Rent control war intensifies Jennifer Kingson Bloom March 30, 1993 The Boston Globe 24 Rent control compromise is approved Doris Sue Wong January 4, 1995 1, 17 The Boston Globe Works cited Moncreiff Robert P. The Repeal of Rent Control in Cambridge New England Journal of Public Policy 23 September 1996 12 1 https://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol12/iss1/6/?utm_source=scholarworks.umb.edu%2Fnejpp%2Fvol12%2Fiss1%2F6&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages Category:1994 in Massachusetts Category:Rent regulation in the United States Category:Political history of Massachusetts