Massachusetts Rent Control Initiative (2026)

Massachusetts Rent Control Initiative
Election date November 3, 2026
Topic Rent control and regulations
Status Certified to the legislature
Type Indirect initiated state statute	Origin Citizens

The Massachusetts Rent Control Initiative may be on the ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute on November 3, 2026.

Overview

What would this ballot measure do?

See also: Text of measure

The ballot initiative would establish rent control in Massachusetts, limiting annual rent increases for residential units to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 5%, whichever is lower. The annual rent increase limit would be in place whether or not there was a change in tenancy in the rental unit.

The initiative states that the rent amount in place on January 31, 2026, would be the base rent on which annual increases are calculated; if the unit was vacant on that date, the most previously used rental price would serve as the base rent.

The following units would be exempt from the rent increase limit:

• owner-occupied buildings with fewer than 5 units;
• facilities where rent is subject to regulation by other public authorities (though not including those occupied by a tenant with a mobile housing voucher);
• dwelling units rented primarily to transient guests for less than 14 consecutive days;
• facilities operated only for educational, religious, or nonprofit purposes; and
• dwelling units with a date of first occupancy that is less than 10 years old.

Text of measure

Full text

The full text of the ballot measure is available here.

Support

Homes for All Massachusetts and Keep Massachusetts Home are leading the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Unions

• 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East
• Asian American Resource Workshop
• Boston Teachers Union
• Massachusetts Teachers Association
• SEIU Massachusetts State Council

Organizations

• Chinese Progressive Association
• Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
• Merrimack Valley Project

Arguments

• Noemi Ramos, executive director of New England Community Project: "We know that corporate real estate lobbyists will say anything to protect their ability to double rents overnight, and we’ve already had tens of thousands of conversations with voters across the state to get ahead of their misinformation, and talk about how rent stabilization will stabilize our communities, protect our essential workers, and keep rent costs reasonable and predictable so that renters can save and have a fair shot at the dream of owning a home."
• Homes for All Massachusetts: "Designed with input from residents and experts across Massachusetts, this modern rent stabilization policy will protect tenants from big corporate investors who unreasonably increase rents, while allowing local landlords to earn a reasonable profit and enabling new construction to address housing shortages."
• Rose Webster-Smith, director of Springfield No One Leaves: "Working class and middle class people who do the jobs that keep our state going should be able to afford a roof over our heads. But right now, out-of-control housing costs are making it impossible for hundreds of thousands of families in Massachusetts to make ends meet. We need rent stabilization to keep rent costs reasonable and predictable, so that renters can save and have a fair shot at the dream of owning a home."
• David Foley, president of SEIU Local 509: "We represent a lot of workers who make $20 or $21 an hour, and everyone feels the same crunch if they rent right now. Whatever wages the union is able to win at the bargaining table, those raises are almost always eaten up by huge rent increases."
• Mark Martinez, staff housing attorney for the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute: "This isn’t a development policy. This is a stabilization policy. Judging a stabilization policy based off of whether or not it’s going to spur development doesn’t make a whole lot of sense."

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

• Gov. Maura Healey (D)

Organizations

• Greater Boston Real Estate Board
• Massachusetts Association of REALTORS
• Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
• NAIOP Massachusetts

Arguments

• Governor Maura Healey (D): "Investors in housing have already pulled out of Massachusetts because they’re concerned about rent control. I don’t want to see housing production stopped."
• Tony Lopes with the Small Property Owners Association: "[The initiative] penalizes the small property owners who make up 60% or more of [the] commonwealth's rental market, including the immigrant and minority property owners who are seeking just to get ahead. We need to consider real solutions, zoning reform, more state-level housing production, and accountability for the rising cost of insurance."
• Greg Vasil, CEO of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, Theresa Hatton, CEO of the Massachusetts Association of Realtors, and Tamara Small, CEO of NAIOP Massachusetts: "The risks of this ballot question for our economy cannot be overstated. It is not an opt-in: this question creates the most restrictive rent control program in the entire United States and forces it on every city and town across the Commonwealth. It will unquestionably make our housing crisis worse and significantly reduce the supply of quality homes on the rental market."
• Paul Diego Craney, executive director for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance: "Whenever government imposes price controls, the costs always get shifted elsewhere, in this case, onto homeowners, it’s a tax hike disguised as housing relief that will ultimately lead to increased costs for everyone."
• Tamara Small, CEO of the NAIOP of Massachusetts: "If rent control is in place in the market, investors do not go to that market. They go elsewhere. Without those investment dollars, projects are not built."

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2026 ballot measure polls

Massachusetts Rent Control Initiative (2026)

Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided
Suffolk University Political Research Center/The Boston Globe Question "A proposed ballot question would cap annual rent increases in most rental units to no more than 5 percent statewide. Do you support or oppose such a proposal?"	Nov. 19, 2025–Nov. 23, 2025	500 RV	± 4.40%	62.6%	30.6%	6.8%
Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

Question 9 (1994)

In 1994, Massachusetts voters decided Question 9, which repealed existing rent control laws and prohibited any future rent control laws. Voters approved the measure, with 51.3% voting yes.

The measure allowed cities and towns to adopt a restricted form of rent control for a period of six months or less, after which compliance with the rent control policy would be optional. Question 9 did not affect the rent control policies for publicly owned or subsidized housing, federally assisted housing, or mobile homes.

Local Governance of Rental Properties Initiative (2024)

In 2023, state Rep. Mike Connolly (D-26th Middlesex) filed a ballot initiative with the state of Massachusetts that would have permitted cities and towns to set their own rent control and residential eviction laws. About the initiative, Connolly said, "Many people assume there are some rules. Many people assume that, well, a landlord couldn't just say 'I'm going to double your rent' or 'I'm not going to extend your lease' for no reason. People need to understand [there] are truly no rules when it comes to rent or evictions, in many respects."

The initiative did not have the support of most labor unions or housing coalitions in Massachusetts. Homes for All Massachusetts made a statement on Connolly's initiative. They said, "We have serious concerns about Representative Connolly’s unilateral decision to move forward on a 2024 ballot question against the wishes of movement leaders, and without collaborating with the statewide anti-eviction and anti-foreclosure coalition." They asked Connolly to stop the campaign for the initiative, saying "“We ask Representative Connolly to drop his effort to pursue a rent control ballot question campaign, which will detract from the effort to win the policies our communities need and is not supported by the vast majority of rent control advocates."

The initiative was approved to begin gathering signatures, but in November 2025, a few weeks before the signature submission deadline, the campaign announced it was suspending its signature gathering efforts. The initiative was not placed on the ballot.

Carolyn Chou, the director of Homes for All Massachusetts, made a statement after it was announced the initiative would not be on the 2024 ballot. She said, “We are committed to winning rent control in the next few years. To us, that means continuing to put the legislative strategy through this session, and if needed, next session — and if we can’t win at the Legislature this time, to have the ballot initiative as part of that strategy.”

Rent control in the state legislature, 2023-2025

In 2023, state Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D-2nd Middlesex) introduced Senate Bill 1299, which would have enabled cities and towns to pass rent control laws in Massachusetts. The bill was considered and read in the state legislature multiple times over the two-year legislative session, but it was never passed by either chamber.

In 2025, legislators in the state House and Senate introduced Senate Bill 1447 and House Bill 2328. Both bills would have enabled cities and towns to pass rent control laws. Neither bill was approved by either chamber of the state legislature.

Rent control ballot measures in other states

See also: Rent control and regulations ballot measures

Aside from Massachusetts, California is the only other state that has decided the issue of rent control by ballot measure. Between 1996 and 2024, California voters decided five statewide ballot measures on rent control and regulations.

• Proposition 199 (1996): Would have prohibited rent control on mobile homes and required mobile home park owners to offer subsidies for low-income owners.
• Proposition 98 (2008): Would have prohibited future rent control measures and phased out prior rent control measures.
• Proposition 10 (2018): Would have allowed local governments to adopt rent control policies and repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
• Proposition 21 (2020): Would have allowed rent control policies for housing that was first occupied before 2005, with some exceptions.
• Proposition 33 (2024): Would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and allowed local governments to implement rent control policies.

All five of the measures were defeated by voters. Proposition 10, in 2018, was approved by the largest percentage of voters; 40.6% of voters approved the measure.

Path to the ballot

Process in Massachusetts

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

An indirect initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. There are nine (9) states that allow citizens to initiate indirect state statutes.

While a direct initiative is placed on the ballot once supporters file the required number of valid signatures, an indirect initiative is first presented to the state legislature. Legislators have a certain number of days, depending on the state, to adopt the initiative into law. Should legislators take no action or reject the initiative, the initiative is put on the ballot for voters to decide.

In Massachusetts, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Massachusetts also has a distribution requirement that requires no more than 25% of the certified signatures on any petition can come from a single county.

The state Legislature has until the first Wednesday of May in the election year to pass the statute. If the legislature does not pass the proposed statute, proponents must collect a second round of signatures equal to 0.5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. The Legislature also has the power to place an alternative measure alongside the proposed statute via a simple majority vote of the state legislature.

A simple majority vote is required for voter approval. However, the number of affirmative votes cast for the measure must be greater than 30% of the votes cast in the election.

The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2026 ballot:

• Signatures (first round): 74,574
• Signatures (second round): 12,429
• Deadline (first round): The deadline to submit the first round of signatures to the secretary of state was December 3, 2025.
• Deadline (second round): The deadline to submit the second round of signatures is July 8, 2026.

Stages of the ballot initiative

The following is the timeline of the initiative:

• August 7, 2025: The Massachusetts Attorney General announced that the initiative had been filed.
• September 3, 2025: The Massachusetts Attorney General announced that the initiative had been cleared and that supporters could begin gathering signatures for the initiative.
• November 19, 2025: Home for All Massachusetts announced the collected and submitted more than 124,000 signatures in support of the initiative.
• December 18, 2025: The state Elections Division announced that it had certified 88,132 valid signatures in support of the initiative. As such, it was certified to go before the state legislature in the 2026 legislative session.

External links

• Massachusetts Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Election and 2028 Election

See also

2026 ballot measures

View other measures certified for the 2026 ballot across the U.S. and in Massachusetts.

• 2026 ballot measures
• Massachusetts 2026 ballot measures
• Massachusetts elections, 2026

Massachusetts ballot measures

Explore Massachusetts's ballot measure history, including citizen-initiated ballot measures.

• List of Massachusetts ballot measures
• Massachusetts Historical Ballot Measures Factbook
• Rent control and regulations ballot measures
• Massachusetts State Legislature

Initiative process

Understand how measures are placed on the ballot and the rules that apply.

• Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts
• Initiated state statute
• Massachusetts Constitution

Footnotes

2026 ballot measures

State ballot measures

States:  • Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Indiana • Kansas • Louisiana • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Carolina • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Tennessee • Utah • Vermont • Wyoming

Topics: Abortion policy •  Age limits for officials •  Agriculture policy •  Bail policy •  Ballot measure process •  Ballot measure supermajority requirements •  Bond issues •  Budget stabilization funds •  Business taxes •  Campaign finance •  Citizenship voting requirements •  Civil service •  Collective bargaining •  Constitutional rights •  Crime victims' rights •  Criminal sentencing •  Criminal trials •  Drug crime policy •  Election administration and governance •  English language policy •  Firearms policy •  Flood infrastructure and management •  Food and beverage taxes •  Forestry and timber •  Fuel taxes •  Healthcare governance •  Homestead tax exemptions •  Immigration policy •  Initiative and referendum process •  LGBTQ issues •  Local government finance and taxes •  Local government officials and elections •  Local government organization •  Marijuana laws •  Minimum wage laws •  Parks, land, and natural area conservation •  Pollution, waste, and recycling policy •  Primary election systems •  Property tax exemptions •  Property taxes •  Psychedelic substances laws •  Public assistance programs •  Public economic investment policy •  Public education governance •  Public employee retirement funds •  Public health insurance •  Public school teachers and staff •  Ranked-choice voting •  Recall process •  Restricted-use funds •  Salaries of government officials •  Sales taxes •  Sewage and stormwater •  Sex and gender issues •  State constitutional conventions •  State executive branch structure •  State executive powers and duties •  State judicial selection •  State judiciary oversight •  State legislative authority •  State legislative processes and sessions •  State legislative term limits •  Storm infrastructure •  Transportation taxes and fees •  Vehicle and driver regulations •  Voter ID policy •  Water irrigation policy

Local ballot measures

 • Alabama • California • Ohio • Oregon

Overviews

 • Scorecard •Tuesday Count •Deadlines •Filed ballot initiatives •Potential ballot measures •Polls •Campaign finance •Signature costs •Readability