Boston’s housing crisis is undeniable: with the average rent hovering around $3,340 per month and real-time vacancy rates around 1.6% in the Greater Boston area, affordability is out of reach for many residents. This has fueled population outflows as families and young professionals seek cheaper options elsewhere. The debate boils down to two approaches: rent control, which caps price increases for immediate tenant relief, versus ramping up housing supply to address the root cause of scarcity through market-driven solutions. Proper mathematical development strategy and real-world business acumen acutely matter. Letting go of political housing gimmicks would probably go much further in providing housing relief for the people of MA. Could a nonpolitical and math-based approach to development lead to more affordable housing? What if government and feel-good misinformation got out of the way of housing production? What if a keen and honest approach to housing production was streamlined and emerged victorious? If we could achieve 20,000 units per year—would rents fall?
While rent control might seem like a quick fix to shield tenants from skyrocketing costs, the evidence overwhelmingly shows it backfires by stifling new development, degrading property quality, and ultimately worsening the crisis for everyone except a lucky few incumbents. Rent control also has a very serious side effect of creating unsafe housing the longer it stays in place. You may not see the safety impacts in year one—but you are just kicking the can down the road, making it impossible for a landlord to do the necessary health and safety repairs, which could severely harm tenants. Rent control also makes housing worse over time, and anyone with internet access can just look at other states’ rental product and decide to move to nicer housing with greater supply and options. In other words, if you are trying to keep your future young, vibrant workforce here, rent control will cause them…