Mayor Michelle Wu is one step closer to making good on her campaign promise to make Boston rents more affordable.
The Boston City Council approved Mayor Michelle Wu’s rent control proposal Wednesday, bringing rent control one step closer to returning to the city.
Last March Wu took the first steps in making rents more affordable by establishing a committee tasked with making recommendations to stabilize city rents and protect tenants from being displaced.
The proposal, which would institute a cap on rent increases in the city, was approved by an 11-2 vote by the council. It comes nearly 30 years after Massachusetts voters voted to ban rent control across the state in 1994.
Getting the measure enacted, however, may not be swift or guaranteed. Once Wu signs the measure, it goes to the legislature for review. As there’s been much debate and opposition to the proposal, those on Beacon Hill will have a lot to sift through.
In February, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board issued a statement following Wu’s introduction of her plan saying, “rent control, also known as rent stabilization, is a proven failure. It increases housing costs, discourages upkeep and maintenance and disincentivizes construction. We strongly oppose Mayor Wu’s plan to bring government price controls on housing to Boston because it would make the region’s housing crisis even worse. Instead, the city – and all of Massachusetts – should focus on passing pro-housing policies that reduce red tape, encourage construction and lower overall costs.”
GBREB also launched a six-figure campaign opposing rent control in the city of Boston, an effort directed to voters and one the organization plans to expand as the bill heads to the legislature.
Following Wednesday’s City Council vote, GBREB CEO Greg Vasil issued the following statement:
“We are disappointed but not totally surprised by the Boston City Council’s vote in support of rent control,” he said. “That is why our campaign was always focused on the long game. And make no mistake, the fight is just beginning. As the bill makes its way to Beacon Hill, we are prepared to expand the Rent Control Hurts Housing campaign to educate voters and legislators on the serious harm rent control will have on the residents of the Commonwealth. We look forward to promoting pro-housing policies focused on decreasing red tape, additional costs and regulatory burdens while increasing production as the path to overcoming the state’s affordability crisis.”
What’s better than rent control? A tax on vacant lots and unoccupied buildings. Rent control makes it less attractive to supply accommodation. A vacant-property tax makes it less attractive NOT to! The “vacancy tax”, as it is sometimes called, is not limited to what real-estate agents call vacancies, i.e. properties available for rent; it also applies to vacant lots and empty properties that are not on the rental market, and prompts the owners to get them occupied in order to avoid the tax.
Needless to say, this arrangement would be GOOD FOR REAL-ESTATE AGENTS because it would push more properties onto the rental market and generate more rental-management fees.
Yes, a vacant-property tax is meant to be AVOIDED. It’s not meant to be paid. Better still, avoidance of it would involve economic activity, expanding the bases of other taxes and allowing their rates to be reduced, so that everyone else—including tenants, home owners, and landlords with tenants—would pay LESS tax!