Revere Councilor Silvestri says rent control would have stopped city development
BOSTON, Jan. 29, 2026……A new campaign opposing a proposed rent control ballot question launched Thursday, giving more structure to the statewide fight over housing costs, development and protecting renters.
As supporters promote the initiative as a “21st century” solution to soaring housing costs, opponents argued the fine print tells a different story — one they say would cover nearly every rental unit in Massachusetts, chill housing production and squeeze out small property owners.
The debate sharpened at the kickoff for Housing for Massachusetts, the ballot committee opposing the initiative. Supporters say the proposal is not the same kind of rent control as voters repealed in 1994. Opponents agree — but not in the way advocates intend.
“The proponents are right about one thing: this is not your father’s rent control,” said committee chair Conor Yunits. “It is so much worse.”
Yunits said the measure’s statewide mandate, rigid rent caps and lack of local discretion make it more extreme than past policies that applied only to certain communities, and more restrictive than rent control laws elsewhere. He repeatedly returned to supply as the key driver of affordability.
“When you look around the U.S. and see where housing prices are falling — like Austin or Phoenix — the common characteristic is supply,” Yunits said at an event held at the Church on the Hill across the street from the State House. “Cities and states that build new housing supply see prices fall.”
The pro–rent control coalition, Homes For All Massachusetts, says tenants need immediate protection from sharp rent hikes while housing production catches up after lagging behind for so many years.
“Right now in Massachusetts, rents can legally double overnight,” Carolyn Chou, executive director of Homes for All Massachusetts, said in a release responding to the opposition campaign’s launch. “We need basic protections against excessive rent hikes.”
But Yunits said the ballot question goes beyond targeted protections. Annual rent increases would be capped at the Consumer Price Index or 5%, whichever is lower, using rents in place on Jan. 31, 2026 as the baseline, with no option for communities to opt out.
“This will apply to every single residential dwelling unit in every community in Massachusetts,” Yunits said. “And communities cannot opt out, even if local residents vote against it.”
That statewide mandate became a recurring theme, contrasted with years of debate over unsuccessful bills that would grant communities the option of adopting rent control locally.
House Speaker Ron Mariano has cited those debates in arguing that rent control lacks broad legislative support and “is not going to spur any construction.”
Revere City Councilor-at-Large Marc Silvestri pointed to his city’s recent history. Fifteen years ago, he said, Revere had vacant lots and neglected properties. New development expanded the tax base, funded services, and — after an initial spike — helped rents level off.
“We figured out that a one-size-fits-all mandate is not the solution,” Silvestri said. “The fastest way to stop a city like Revere from developing would be putting rent control on it.”
Supporters reject claims that the proposal is anti-development, citing language in the measure to create a 10-year exemption for new construction. But Yunits questioned whether that would be sufficient, pointing to St. Paul, Minnesota, and Montgomery County, Maryland, where opponents say apartment construction dropped sharply after rent control was adopted — even with longer exemptions.
Denise Jillson, a small property owner and leader of the 1994 repeal campaign, said Massachusetts has already seen what happens when rent control constrains supply. During Cambridge’s rent control era, she said, housing stagnated and rental units disappeared.
“Rent control didn’t solve the housing crisis,” Jillson said. “It exacerbated it.”
She cited census data showing Cambridge added about 600 occupied units in the 1980s while roughly 3,000 rental units went off the market. After repeal, she said, investment surged, property values rose and affordable housing expanded through local trust funds rather than rent caps.
Supporters counter that the proposal is fundamentally different.
“We are talking about a 21st century rent control,” New England Community Project Executive Director Noemi “Mimi” Ramos said in December. “This is not the same rent control that we had many, many decades ago.”
But Amir Shahsavari, president of the Small Property Owners Association, said the measure would fall hardest on small, hands-on landlords — especially those excluded from the exemption for owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer units.
Most small property owners in his group, he said, operate just above that threshold or do not live in their buildings but manage them personally.
“I don’t live in my rental units, but I own five. Why should I be treated the same as a national or international conglomerate?” he said, adding that he goes to his tenants personally to make repairs or shovel snow, as opposed to large international real estate companies.
Insurance costs have jumped 20% to 40% and maintenance costs 30% to 50% in recent years, he said, leaving little flexibility under a rigid CPI-based cap.
If those owners exit the market, Shahsavari warned, properties are more likely to be acquired by large corporate entities who don’t have a personal relationship with renters.
“The tenant who needs help at two in the morning ends up talking to a recording,” he said.
Supporters dispute that the opposition is driven by small landlords alone. Campaign finance filings show Housing for Massachusetts raised $431,600 last year, largely from commercial real estate interests, the pro-rent control coalition said. Ramos said executives have pledged up to $30 million to oppose the proposal.
Rent control advocates point instead to grassroots support from people who are fed up with soaring rents. More than 124,000 signatures were collected across 332 communities, without paid gatherers, to get the proposal this far down the road toward the November ballot.
A Boston Globe/Suffolk University poll in November found more than 62% of 500 registered voters support a cap on annual rent increases.
If the Legislature does not pass the measure by the first Wednesday in May (May 6), petitioners must collect 12,429 additional signatures by June 17. If certified, the question will appear on the 2026 ballot.
