Rent Control in Massachusetts Isn’t Dead. Neither is the Opportunity – Rens’ Take on the SJC’s Decision

Subscribe to It’s Structural on Substack for a weekly look at the policy, deals, and decisions shaping architecture, construction, and development across Massachusetts and beyond – by Rens Hayes IV.

On June 23, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck the rent control ballot initiative from the November 2026 ballot. If you build, finance, or develop in this state, you probably exhaled. I understand the relief. But this is more complicated than a clean win — and the underlying question about the measure, and its effect on investment in Massachusetts, is far from resolved.

Let me begin where I think any honest conversation has to start: The affordability crisis is real. Boston ranks among the least affordable housing markets in the country, and working families, teachers, and nurses are getting priced out of the communities they serve. A 2026 Suffolk University poll found 56% of Massachusetts residents in favor of rent caps. Support like that comes from genuine pain, not ideology, and anyone who waves it off is not paying attention.

But I want to be very clear about where I land on the policy – rent control makes the problem worse. It halts new housing supply, and constrained supply is the root issue of the housing crisis. It also hurts the larger economy. Large multifamily real estate developments are an institutional capital vehicle and major economic driver for Massachusetts. One source finds that every 1000 units built creates approximately 1250 jobs and generates $55.9 million in tax revenue. That’s not even considering what more housing and more residents do for the local economy. A joint Tufts and Greater Boston Real Estate Board study projected statewide rent control here could erase $300 billion in property value, with the lost municipal tax base landing back on homeowners through higher property taxes.

Rent control doesn’t consider this side of the economic equation. Instead, it hurts developers’ ability to underwrite returns, leaving them treading water and unable to attract capital. When investors can’t find risk-adjusted returns, capital goes elsewhere. This isn’t up for debate; at H+O, we’ve already watched it leave.

National Real Estate Advisors, which put billions into Massachusetts over two decades, announced earlier this year it was pausing development in the area over the prospect of rent control, sending funding for thousands of units to other states. One national financing firm called the Massachusetts transaction market essentially frozen – again, this is all before the measure was even on the ballot.

The places that actually tried rent control tell the same story. After St. Paul capped rents at 3% in 2021, new multifamily development fell 73%. So – no one should mistake me for soft on this. Rent control is the wrong tool to fix a very real problem.

The court’s ruling didn’t speak to any of these complexities. Instead, they ruled only on a procedural issue. The initiative included a carve-out for religious institutions, and the state constitution bars ballot questions touching religion. The SJC struck it on those grounds. This means proponents can return with a cleaner version – something like the current initiative may well land on the 2028 ballot.

This ambiguity will keep some developers afraid, and they will continue to delay or pull back their investment in Massachusetts multifamily development. I think this is a mistake. And here’s where I plant a flag for a different path.

Two years is a long time in politics. No one knows if rent control will ever make it to the ballot, or what it looks like if it does. Yes, there’s risk. But moving money to another market is not a sure bet. Take the Austin boom: cheap land and light barriers became an oversupply; vacancy hit a twenty-year high, and rents fell roughly 17% from their peak. Risk doesn’t disappear by moving markets. It just changes.

To me the bigger question is: what is the opportunity cost of not developing in Massachusetts? What is the price of inaction? Massachusetts is a Tier 1 market and one of the most stable real estate environments in the world. The supply shortage here is deep, structural, and going nowhere. Demand is the one thing this market will never lack. A developer who keeps moving through the noise is buying durable fundamentals while everyone else hesitates, and every firm that walks away leaves white space behind it – more demand and less competition for whoever stays.

Warren Buffett said it better than I can. “Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.”

Yes, there is risk. There always is. But where you roll your dice matters.

My bet’s on Mass.