Testimony: Rent Stabilization Protects Tenants, Prevents Displacement, and Promotes Equity

Thank you to the Massachusetts State Legislature for the opportunity to testify in support of S.1447, An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants. My name is Oksana Mironova, and I am a senior policy analyst at the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), a leading nonprofit organization that promotes economic opportunity.

Tenant stability and housing affordability are central to CSS’s mission. We have long studied rent regulation systems across the Northeast, including the long-established legal regimes in New York and New Jersey. Our research consistently shows that rent regulation provides critical stability for tenants and communities—without undermining housing quality or new development.

Rent regulation benefits low-income renters the most

There are approximately 1,061,000 rent regulated units in New York State. The vast majority of these (1,022,400) are in New York City, representing 44 percent of the city’s rental stock. Rent regulation is critical for low-income renters: more low-income tenants in New York City live in rent regulated apartments (365,000 units) than in subsidized and public housing (182,000 units) combined. Rent-regulated tenants are disproportionately people of color—76 percent identify as Black, Hispanic, or Asian—and nearly half are immigrants. Rent stabilized households are also more likely to be headed by women and include senior citizens than tenants in unregulated housing.

Importantly, rent regulation helps correct the inherent power imbalance in the landlord-tenant relationship. It establishes a fair process for determining rents, ensures basic habitability standards, provides tenants with security of tenure, and sets limits on security deposits and other fees.

As with any set of rights, rent regulation is not means-tested. But, similarly to anti-trust laws and consumer protections, those with least choice within the market—low-income tenants—benefit the most.

Rent regulation prevents displacement and homelessness

On the neighborhood level, rent regulation acts as a bulwark against displacement and homelessness, helping residents stay in their apartments. In a tight housing market, where the majority of low-income renters are rent burdened, limits on unscrupulous rent increases and the right to a lease renewal become incredibly important for keeping people in their homes.

The consequences of eliminating these protections are clear. When Massachusetts outlawed rent control in Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline in 1994, rents surged in both formerly regulated and never regulated units. In Cambridge, inflation-adjusted asking rents for two-bedrooms rose from $1,163 in 1996 to $1,700 in 2003. In neighboring Boston, rents increased from $882 in 1995 to $1,600 in 2003. The rise in property values also encouraged condo conversions of formerly regulated units, meaning that the removal of rent control contributed to a decrease in the overall supply of affordable rental units.

Rent regulation saves public dollars

Rent regulation also helps stretch public subsidy dollars that prevent evictions and homelessness, including one time emergency rental assistance grants and ongoing rental assistance in the form of vouchers. As sociologist Matthew Desmond pointed out, “expanding housing vouchers without stabilizing rent would be asking taxpayers to subsidize landlords’ profits.” In New York City, 61 percent of housing vouchers (covering 88,900 units) are used by regulated renters compared to 19 percent (28,000) by unregulated renters.

Rent regulation does not decrease housing quality

Rigorous research finds no evidence that rent regulation causes a decline in housing quality. For example, a 2015 study of 161 communities in New Jersey found no relationship between the presence of rent regulation and housing quality or landlord abandonment, even after controlling for apartment size, median rent, and tenant demographics.

More recently—as part of our annual survey in 2023—CSS asked New Yorkers if their rent went up in the past year, and, if so, whether the landlord had made any improvement to their apartment or building. We found that rent regulated tenants (44 percent) who experienced a rent increase were 12 percentage points more likely to see improvements in their buildings compared to unregulated tenants (32 percent). This suggests that rent stabilized landlords were actually more likely to invest in building improvements than market-rate landlords.

Nor has the long-term presence of rent regulation hindered the revenue generation potential of the stabilized portion of the rental market in NYC. According to data collected by the city’s Rent Guidelines Board, the inflation-adjusted net operating income among rent stabilized properties is up by 47 percent since 1990, despite the economic impact of the 2008 financial crash and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rent regulation does not hinder new development

Rent regulation does not obstruct new housing construction. When new rental housing gets built, owners set first rents at rates that cover long-term operating costs, including debt service, taxes, fuel, labor and ongoing maintenance. These projections factor into multifamily housing underwriting models, which traditionally assume annual increases of three percent, a rate that is on par with the typical rent escalation in U.S. rental markets with rent regulation. While financial models that rely on more aggressive rent increases exist, housing finance experts consider them high risk. Rent regulation laws work well with traditional underwriting models, while discouraging high risk lending that contributes to instability in the housing market.

New Jersey’s rent laws, which allow localities to opt-in on their own terms, demonstrate how rent regulated boros, towns, villages, and cities can maintain healthy multifamily rental markets over the long term. Cities like Jersey City and West New York have some of the nation’s strongest tenant protections and the fastest rates of housing production. Meanwhile, New Jersey suburbs (which have rent regulation) added housing at three times the rate of New York suburbs, which largely lack rent regulation. Notably, rent regulation has not triggered a shift from rentals to condominiums. The proportion of rental and homeowner housing is essentially the same today as it was in 1974, when New Jersey’s localities began implementing rent stabilization.

Rent regulation works. It protects low-income tenants, preserves community stability, supports public investment, and promotes equitable development without sacrificing quality or growth.

We strongly encourage the Massachusetts legislature to pass S.1447 and allow cities and towns to enact rent regulations. If you have any questions about this testimony or CSS’s research, please contact me at omironova@cssny.org. Thank you.

Issues Covered