Press Release: 8/19/2025

Stopping the government-imposed rent control ballot question

The Fiscal Alliance Foundation announced last Friday that it will again oppose a proposed ballot question that seeks to reintroduce a government-imposed rent control scheme in Massachusetts, reversing the public’s decision in 1994 to outlaw the measure statewide.

Massachusetts’ ballot certification process under Article 48 of the Constitution includes a critical protection known as the “excluded matters” clause, which prevents initiatives that constitute an uncompensated taking of private property. This is not a theoretical safeguard and has been successfully applied before by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).

To read a copy of our letter to the Attorney General Office (AGO), please click here. A decision by the AGO is due by the first Wednesday of September (September 3, 2025).

In Dimino v. Secretary of the Commonwealth (1998), the SJC invalidated a proposed initiative that would have eliminated toll collections on the Massachusetts Turnpike. The Court held that the measure violated the excluded matters clause because it stripped bondholders of a contractual revenue stream, an undisputed private property right, without compensation.

The Foundation’s comments to the Attorney General draw a direct parallel to Dimino. Today’s rental housing market is heavily financed through mortgage agreements and securitized loans, where the expectation of market-rate rental income is an integral part of the property’s value and the lender’s security. By capping rental income through CPI-based limits, the proposed rent control law would directly and predictably reduce the value of these security interests, transferring that value to tenants without compensation to property owners or their lenders. Additionally, the current loans were made under Chapter 40P, which states that rent control is illegal. That is precisely the kind of property taking that Article 48 forbids.

The state supreme court has ruled on a similar potential ballot question, and the Attorney General would be wise to follow the state’s top court in their rejection of this proposed government-imposed rent control ballot question. It isn’t just bad policy, it’s a direct violation of constitutional protections for property rights. Just as the SJC stopped the state from taking bondholders’ interest in toll revenues without compensation, so too must the AGO reject this measure that seeks to take landlords’ income without paying for it and undoing bank’s agreements with landlords at the same time.

The banks that gave mortgage loans to landlords will be forced to reevaluate if the contracts are still valid if this potential ballot question became law. How many rental units are potentially going into foreclosure due to this potential ballot question law, and how is that good for renters? It’s not. It’s bad for renters, landlords, and the banks. It will do tremendous harm to the same people it’s allegedly trying to help, the renters. The housing market is already too expensive, and it could be upended if this potential ballot question becomes law.

Government imposed rent control will make matters worse for everyone. Economists across the political spectrum have long warned that government-imposed rent control distorts housing markets, discourages investment in new construction, and accelerates the deterioration of existing housing stock. By capping returns, this question would drive property owners to convert rental units to other uses, reduces mobility for tenants, and ultimately shrink the available housing supply. The result is higher prices and fewer choices for those who need housing the most. Ironically, hurting the very people rent control purports to help. This measure would accelerate our already existing housing crisis into overdrive.

There is a strong legal argument to be made for why this potential ballot question should not go forward and the Attorney General should come to the same conclusion.

As always, we will keep you updated as things progress.