Overview:
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey has expressed her opposition to a potential 2026 ballot question that would impose a hard cap on annual rent increases, citing concerns that it would halt housing production. The ballot initiative proposes a limit on annual rent increases for most units to either the annual Consumer Price Index increase or 5%, whichever is lower.
She’s taking a victory lap for helping get rid of renter-paid broker’s fees, but Gov. Maura Healey is against a potential 2026 ballot question that would put a hard cap on annual rent increases.
Asked Tuesday by “Boston Public Radio” host Jim Braude about whether she’d support the measure, Healey said, “Look, I understand the need, the interest in rent control, right? I mean, it’s why I’ve worked really, really hard, Jim, to build as many houses as I can.”
Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office announced on Thursday that it certified 88,132 signatures for the petition, which supporters say will help keep the affordability crisis for tenants from getting even worse. The ballot initiative proposes a limit on annual rent increases for most units to either the annual Consumer Price Index increase or 5%, whichever is lower. The measure would use the rent in place for any one unit as of Jan. 31, 2026 as the baseline for future changes.
Housing affordability has been a flashpoint in Massachusetts for years. In a campaign email Tuesday, Healey listed a ban on renter-paid broker’s fees as an accomplishment “to save renters thousands” and said her team had released 450 acres of surplus state land “to be developed into thousands of new homes.”
Healey on the radio pointed to a 220,000-unit housing shortage Massachusetts faced at the start of her time in the corner office, and said that the state has so far “started or built 100,000 homes.”
“We’ve got more work to do, but I’m trying to do everything I can to drive down housing costs, which drives down housing prices, but also rent. My concern, you know, rent control is not going to be the solution to how we get through this crisis. We need to build more homes,” Healey said.
“I’m a no, because if you look at the studies — if you look at the studies, you effectively halt production. I will tell you that investors in housing have already pulled out of Massachusetts because they’re concerned about rent control,” Healey added.
A 1994 voter law banned rent control in Massachusetts and the concept has stalled on Beacon Hill for years, facing skepticism from top Democrats and real estate interests. The 74,574-signature requirement for all ballot measures derailed an effort two years ago to place a local option rent control question on the 2024 ballot. A committee called “Housing for Massachusetts” filed this month to lead the opposition to the ballot question.
“I don’t want to see housing production stopped. We need to have housing production move forward,” Healey said. “I also understand what’s driving rent control. I want to work together to do something that’s sensible, that creates more homes, builds more homes and lowers costs for people.”
But rent control supporters point to the policy as a way to help improve housing stability, as well as protect small landlords.
“We do understand that housing costs and building housing is expensive, but that does not mean that we take away the accountability that developers and large corporate landlords have around where they are building housing,” New England Community Project Executive Director Noemi Ramos said at a November rally. “We care about development coming into the neighborhood. We’re not anti-development, but we want to see stronger development without displacement strategies in place across the Commonwealth as new housing is being built.”
Rent control is one of five ballot measures that have been certified so far this cycle. Additional certifications are anticipated soon. Eligible petitions will be filed as bills by the first legislative day of the new year (Jan. 7). Lawmakers get a chance to address the petitions themselves, or let questions go before voters in November.
Healey also said Tuesday that she would support a potential 2026 ballot question backed by state Auditor Diana DiZoglio that would subject most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office to the Massachusetts public records law.
“Yeah, I’ll vote yes,” Healey said. “Provided there are certain exceptions that we’ve talked about in the past.”
Exemptions to existing public records law include information related to ongoing investigations or prosecutions, medical, health and hospital records, autopsy reports, personal identifying information and more.
The DiZoglio-backed question has not yet been certified by the secretary of state’s office, but DiZoglio reported that the campaign submitted more than 100,000 signatures.
Healey said earlier this year that she supported DiZoglio’s 2024 ballot question to audit the Legislature, which passed easily. The effort has fallen flat as top legislative Democrats have resisted an audit, citing separation of powers and constitutional considerations. If the new transparency measure were to pass in 2026, “all the things that I’ve been requesting for the audit that they refuse to participate in would actually just be made available directly to you, the voters of Massachusetts,” DiZoglio said on the radio on Dec. 17.
“Something that you might be interested in that’s going on in the State House, that you pay for, in these governing bodies that you fund with your taxpayer dollars — you’d be able to get access to those documents,” DiZoglio said.
“We cannot give up,” she added, when asked about the opposition to her transparency efforts at the State House. “We cannot just roll over and say ‘It’s too hard. Let the people who are undermining democracy run the state of Massachusetts. Let the authoritarian regime of the state Legislature win because it’s too hard and they’re going to fight back.’ No. We need to get stronger.”