Rent control in Cambridge, Massachusetts was a system of municipal regulations that limited rents and restricted evictions from covered housing. Cambridge adopted rent control in 1970 under authority granted by the Massachusetts legislature and the system remained in effect until a statewide ballot initiative abolished rent control effective January 1, 1995. The Cambridge Rent Control Board set maximum rents and regulated rent increases, evictions, and the removal of units from the rental market.
The system kept many controlled rents substantially below market rates and limited the conversion of rental housing to owner-occupied condominiums. Supporters maintained that these restrictions preserved rental housing and protected tenants from displacement. Opponents argued that they restricted owners’ use of their property and made it difficult to recover operating, repair, and improvement costs. Rent control was not means-tested, and studies found that many controlled apartments were occupied by students and high-income tenants.
Rent control became a central issue in Cambridge politics, producing tenant organizing, property-owner protests, litigation, and repeated efforts to modify the system. After failing to obtain substantial changes locally or through the courts and legislature, members of the Cambridge-based Small Property Owners Association led an initiative to restrict rent control throughout Massachusetts. Voters narrowly approved Question 9 in November 1994, although Cambridge voters rejected it by 58% to 42%.
Researchers have treated the end of Cambridge rent control as a natural experiment. Following repeal, rents and tenant turnover increased, while permitted residential investment more than doubled. Cambridge property values increased by approximately $7.8 billion during the following decade, with research attributing roughly $2 billion of that increase to decontrol. Much of the estimated gain occurred in nearby properties that had never been rent-controlled, indicating that the effects of the former system extended beyond the units directly subject to it.
Background Campaign for rent control
In the late 1960s, rent control was debated in Cambridge. In 1968, the Cambridge Housing Convention was formed to start lobbying for affordable housing and, concurrently, the Peace and Freedom Party launched a campaign to place a rent control referendum on the local ballot.
In 1969, a group of students at Harvard University, who belonged to Students for a Democratic Society, complained that courses were taught with a 'liberal-establishment' bias and demanded courses with a more 'radical' approach. The university responded by creating a new course that included field work gathering signatures petitioning for rent control.
The referendum campaign concluded on September 11, 1969, after the election commission refused to place a measure on the ballot, ruling that state law did not allow municipalities to adopt rent control without approval from the Commonwealth. The decision sparked a protest at the commission's Green Street headquarters, resulting in 11 arrests for trespassing and 31 arrests for disturbing the peace.
Legislative adoption On August 30, 1970, Governor Francis W. Sargent signed into law a bill that authorized rent control in municipalities with more than 50,000 residents, potentially affecting more than 40 communities. Municipalities that opted in were required to establish and administer local rent‑control programs consistent with the statute's standards. The statute froze maximum rents at the amounts charged six months before local adoption, creating an immediate rollback for units whose rents had risen during that period.
The Act applied broadly to existing rental housing but expressly exempted transient accommodations, dwellings built or converted after January 1, 1969, units already regulated under another governmental program, owner‑occupied two‑ and three‑family houses, cooperative or educational housing, and locally defined “luxury” apartments, provided no more than twenty‑five per cent of the locality's rental stock was excluded.
Adoption, repeal, and reenactment On September 17, 1970, the Cambridge City Council adopted rent control by a 7–2 vote. Rents were rolled back to March 1970 levels and could be increased only with the approval of a locally appointed administrator.
The policy faced an immediate challenge on December 29, 1971, when a lame-duck city council voted to repeal rent control during a special meeting, amidst tenant protests at the Rindge Auditorium. This repeal was short-lived; on January 10, 1972, the newly inaugurated city council reinstated rent control by a 5–4 vote during its first meeting, establishing the framework for the system that ruled the city for the next several decades. The continuity of this system was secured on March 31, 1976, when the Massachusetts State Legislature passed a Cambridge petition to extend rent control just hours before the state enabling law was set to expire.
Rent Control Board The Cambridge Rent Control Board was composed of two landlords, two tenants who were usually recommended by the Tenants Union, and a chairman who was supposed to be impartial. They were appointed by the city manager.
Powers Like other local rent-control boards, the Cambridge board approved or denied rent increases for individual units. Rent control boards were "akin to a quasi court" and had executive, legislative, and judicial powers. They passed new laws, enforced new laws, and judged whether or not their laws had been violated. The boards were empowered to set maximum rents, promulgate regulations, hold hearings, adjudicate petitions, and employ staff.
Before evicting a tenant from a rent-controlled unit, a landlord first had to secure a certificate of eviction from the board by establishing one of the statute's narrowly defined just causes: non‑payment of rent; the tenant's material violation of lease obligations or creation of a nuisance; owner‑occupancy or occupancy by an immediate family member of the owner; board‑approved plans for substantial rehabilitation or demolition; or the landlord's permanent withdrawal of the dwelling from the rental market.
Board decisions were subject to de novo review in the district court. Violations, including willful overcharges, unlawful evictions, living in a condo you owned, or not renting a controlled unit were punishable as criminal offenses. Between 1986 and 1990, the Rent Control Board pressed criminal charges against six landlords.
Fair net operating income Landlords could petition for rent increases only when necessary to obtain a “fair net operating income,” a benchmark that directed boards to consider six specified factors: changes in property‑tax assessments, unavoidable increases in operating costs, capital improvements, alterations in services, physical deterioration, and the cost of normal repairs. In one case, the Rent Control Board considered a loss of $23,000 over three years to be "a fair net profit" for a property owner.
Mortgage expenses were not allowed to be considered when calculating an approved rent. Legal and management fees were also not allowed to be passed on to tenants, and neither was lost rent due to non-payment. The chairman of the Small Property Owners Association complained this was unfair given "all the record keeping, minutia, logs, filings and considerable headaches associated with ownership of a rent-controlled building" and that "all owners know that to go to the rent board without legal representation is to leave without your kneecaps."
The rents the Rent Control Board allowed private housing providers to collect was half the rents tenants of government-subsidized housing developments paid.
Administrative Rents were based on 1967 levels. By 1990, 42% of rent-controlled apartments had never received an adjustment to cover increased operating expenses. That year, 9.9% of housing providers did not receive a general rent adjustment because they did not file the required paperwork with the Board. In fiscal year 1990, there were 1,238 cases brought before the Board. Of those, 33 were tenant complaints.
The Rent Control Board heard roughly 1,200 cases initiated by housing providers in 1993, up from 800 in 1992. That year, they took about two months to issue a ruling on average, with rent adjustment cases taking 85 days and evictions taking 33 days. In 1983, it took 75 days to process an eviction case and 195 days, or 6.5 months, to process a rent adjustment. Cases sometimes dragged on for two years.
Adversarial relationships Hearings were recorded and extensive documentation was required contributing to a judicial atmosphere and exacerbating tensions between tenants, housing providers, the rent control boards and their examiners. Housing providers bore the burden of proof during the evidentiary hearings. While housing providers were faced the burden of proof when requesting increases in rent to pay for repairs and upkeep of their properties, tenants were able to withhold rent in response to alleged faults with their units without providing any evidence.
Small property owners who moved out of state needed to return to Massachusetts every time they wished to raise rents or make other changes so that they could appear in person before the rent control boards.
After a rent increase request took 13 months to process, one housing provider stopped requesting them, even though she continued to spend money to make improvements to the property. Both tenants and housing providers agreed that the process took too long, required too much paperwork, and contributed to an adversarial relationship.
Staff and budget The Cambridge City Council appropriated $297,000 to the Rent Control Board in 1982, but authorized them to spend up to $610,000. The Rent Control Board then added a 1% surcharge to rents in the city to bring in more money to hire additional staff. By 1985, the annual budget was $700,000, or $40 for every rent-controlled unit.
The board's administration had a budget of $1.5 million in 1993. When rent control was repealed in 1994, the Cambridge Rent Control Board had an annual budget of $1.3 million and a staff of 25 full-time and 8 part-time employees.
707 program changes A state law change in 1992 changed a housing subsidy program known as Section 707. Under the old system, tenants paid 30% of their income in rent and the state paid for the rest. Under the new program, tenants received a voucher worth a lump sum amount, and the tenant was responsible for anything above that amount.
Under the new system, tenants with Section 707 vouchers came under rent control, while previously they did not. As a result, the rents housing providers received were slashed from market levels to rent-controlled levels, affecting the owners of 350 apartments around Cambridge. "If the units go back under rent control," one housing provider said, "I know we'll lose the building because there's no way we can pay the mortgage and maintain it."
Allen Charles Allen, a carpenter, and his wife, Joan, purchased a dilapidated rooming house that was on the verge of being condemned. With nine employees and a mortgage of $400,000, they renovated the 12-unit building for 30 months. When complete, they moved into one unit and rented the others to 11 low income roommates.
The Allens were strong supporters of rent control but said the law change made it impossible to make the building work financially if their rents were reduced to the levels allowed by the Rent Control Board. "All our blood, sweat, and tears is going to be gone as well as our home," Joan said. "I feel really swindled because we took a building in deplorable condition that would have eventually been condemned and gave 11 low-income people a roof over their heads. I might become homeless myself if this happens."
Yogel