To the editor:
I am writing in response to The Daily Item’s rent control editorial in the June 3 issue. Economic arguments about rent control aside, I found the Editorial Board’s argument about local control to be misplaced. In my opinion, the ballot initiative’s statewide application rather than local is one of the more attractive features of the initiative.
A reason for the various examples of failures in Massachusetts’ history regarding local rent control is that municipal boundaries are not drawn with housing in mind. Such fragmented regulation leads to different responses in local marketplaces in a market where it is easy for a property owner to choose another property within a five-minute drive. This has the effect of pitting municipalities against one another. Having 351 different policies governing landlord-tenant relationships creates confusion and also contributes to many of the negative consequences that are mentioned in the editorial, but only in the ones that opted in. There is wisdom in the longstanding limit on municipal interference with contractual relationships that lives in the Home Rule Amendment.
Case in point is the recent policy developments that the State House has undertaken in other housing initiatives. The State seeks to prioritize housing production through two bills that have different approaches. On one hand, G.L. 40A. Section 3A puts it up to municipalities to comply, but they choose how. While many communities comply in good faith, you see the tactics that were recently brought to light in a popular viral video from a local Town Meeting, which the Item covered recently. That is not an isolated example, and when all is said and done, I do not believe this law will have much of a net positive effect on housing.
On the other hand, the Accessory Dwelling Unit law, which was passed recently, applies evenly to all 351 municipalities. Any person who is able to comply with certain building regulations can now build an ADU by right. This is something I have heard people have little issue with, and furthermore, appears at least anecdotally more successful at meeting the state’s goal of increasing housing units.
While I understand how it is more politically palatable to push decisions onto local officials, recent experience has shown that even-handed policies that are applicable across the board are preferable to the opt-in models, which create inconsistencies. In the housing crisis that we are currently experiencing, the consistency across the board in affordability regulations may be essential to achieving meaningful results.
