Most Cambridge City Council candidates support rent stabilization as a tool for protecting the city’s tenants, voters learned at a Tuesday political forum.
A Better Cambridge, a volunteer group focused mostly on housing policy in the city, hosted the forum. It gave each of 16 candidates time to address “exclusionary zoning” that makes it harder to build anything but single-family homes; affordable housing; and tenant protections, with moderator Bill Boehm asking follow-ups as time permitted.
Rent stabilization arose as Boehm addressed the third candidate to speak, councillor E. Denise Simmons.
“Do you think it’s time to bring back some form of rent stabilization in Cambridge?” Boehm asked. In 1994, when Cambridge, Boston and Brookline had limits on how much landlords could raise tenants’ rents, a ballot initiative banned rent control statewide.
Simmons responded: “We should do all that we can, including that, to keep our city as affordable as possible.” With this answer, Simmons set the pace for later candidates, many of whom addressed rent stabilization in one way or another.
A few minutes later, in response to a question from Boehm, challenger Vernon Walker said he would “absolutely” support such a plan for Cambridge. “We need rent stabilization to not only help the marginalized, but to help middle-class income earners,” Walker said.
Peter Hsu, a landlord, said he prides himself on having not raised his tenants’ rent in three years and would also support rent stabilization in Cambridge.
“I get it. There are different interests for different individuals. I totally understand that,” Hsu said. “It’s important to consider what is the overall good thing for our city.”
A bigger debate
Cambridge’s discussion is again part of a larger, regional debate. In March, the Boston City Council, via a home rule petition, sent Mayor Michelle Wu’s rent stabilization program to the Massachusetts General Court for approval. The Somerville City Council voted March 9 to begin drafting its own petition.
Last week, state rep. Mike Connolly announced that his proposed ballot initiative to allow communities to bring back rent controls was certified by attorney general Andrea Campbell.
Cambridge has yet to initiate a home rule petition, but the City Council voted 8–1 on March 6, with Paul Toner as the only opposing vote, in support of the Tenant Protection Act, the Connolly bill that would remove the statewide prohibition on rent stabilization.
Based on the forum and their responses to a questionnaire from ABC, 17 of the field’s 24 candidates have said they would consider a form of rent stabilization in Cambridge.
Candidate and councilor concerns
A few candidates have concerns.
Though he did not participate in the forum, Toner wrote in his questionnaire that his issues from the March 6 council vote remains, and he would “generally not” support rent stabilization.
“I support most of the tenant protections outlined in the legislation, but I do not support the rent stabilization proposal,” Toner said of Connolly’s ballot initiative. “I think it will have the unintended effect of causing rents to go up rapidly prior to its implementation – I think that is already happening based on the mere suggestion that rent control may return – and I believe it will reduce the production of more housing stock.”
Challenger Robert Winters provided a similar response in his questionnaire, saying he would “generally not” support rent stabilization. “If a rent stabilization program to cap exorbitant increases was proposed with no other provisions, I might support that,” Winters said. “Unfortunately, no such proposal has yet been floated.”
John Hanratty, who filled out ABC’s questionnaire but did not participate in the forum, said, “Rent control has proven time and again not to work.”
Examples to follow
Responding to a question from Boehm, councillor Patricia Nolan said, “I’m not sure how to enact rent stabilization, but Mayor Wu’s proposal is a really good one to consider.”
At Connolly’s press conference, council candidate Dan Totten said Cambridge could learn from the rent stabilization plans of nearby communities. “We need to build on the work in Boston and Somerville to figure out what makes sense in Cambridge,” Totten said.
The next forum for council candidates is scheduled for 6 p.m. Oct. 12 at YWCA Cambridge, 7 Temple St., Central Square, Cambridge. The organizers are the Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee and Cambridge YWCA.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Don’t cha love how rent control got rebranded “rent stabilization”
And 100% if it moves forward my long-term tenant-at-will who currently pays about $1,000 under market value is going to get themselves a nice surprise.
If I have the flexibility, I am flexible.
If there’s no flexibility, may as well maximize cash flow to protect against future unknowns.
The moderator, Bill Boehm, who did a nice job- has been a proponent of housing for a long time and supporter of ABC, an outspoken housing lobby.
What I am surprised about is Mr Boehm is now working for the city as a newly minted member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, an important committee that is the last stop vetting for challenging building plans, designs and locations of buildings including housing. I’m surprised he accepted this gig. ABC has slowly infiltrated some of the most important departments- yet they continue to promote their positions. I do not find this equitable, ethical or fair. There is a look of impropriety. For key cases, here may be a rubber stamp in favor of this group’s agenda. And they slowly keep doing it. But that’s what happens when the manager gets guidance from a 6-3 stacked city council.
Rent control will be a disincentive to providing housing. Why would we want to penalize those who provide the housing we need? If we want more low-income housing, we should find other ways to make housing affordable. I would consider some sort of means-tested subsidy program. Perhaps it could be funded with a small tax on real-estate transactions.
Sam, seems like the kind of landlord who would arbitrarily raise rent to prove a political point at the expense of the tenant is probably not a great landlord in the first place.
I am in favor of building more housing, but I am absolutely baffled that some of the same people that support removing absurd zoning requirements to encourage more building think this is a good idea.