Rent control doesn’t work. Its failure as a policy might seem obvious given the overwhelming data showing it leads to a decrease in rental supply while simultaneously increasing rents. Yet, the idea seems irresistible to lawmakers in New York, Washington, D.C., and now Boston.

A statewide ballot initiative led by Homes for All Massachusetts would cap annual rent increases at a rate tied to the Consumer Price Index, or no more than 5% per year, whichever is lower. Owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer units would be exempt, as well as newly constructed buildings during their first ten years.

Boston City Council and Mayor Michelle Wu have already signaled support for the proposal. Still, they face stiff opposition from Massachusetts Democratic Governor Maura Healey and the state’s residents, who rejected rent control in a 1994 statewide ballot question. 

When asked about the initiative, Gov. Healey told Boston Public Radio that while she understands the “need” and “interest” in rent control, it was “not going to be the solution to how we get through this crisis,” adding the state needs to “build more homes.” She’s right. 

Studies on new housing supply have consistently shown that it moderates rent prices in the short and long term. 

In Washington, D.C., where a ballot initiative instituting a rent freeze is gaining steam, the city’s Office of Revenue Analysis found that increasing the supply of available rental units was correlated with rental prices 5% lower than they would otherwise have been. 

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani can scapegoat landlords and developers, but NYU’s Furman Center has already proven that increases in housing supply lead to “modest decreases in city-wide rents.” The Furman Center study, for example, found that new housing “moderates rents or slows rent growth in the surrounding area.” 

Similarly, in a study published in the University of Chicago’s Journal of Political Economy, Macroeconomics, economists found that a 1% increase in housing supply lowers average rents by 0.19%, while effectively reducing the cost of “lower-quality units,” and increasing the availability of “second-hand” rental units.

Unlike rent control, policies to remove restrictions to housing development — such as zoning, land-use laws, and environmental laws — are rarely championed by lawmakers. 

In Boston, where median rent is up 3% over last year, a study on the city’s housing supply found a combination of “low vacancy rates, older housing stock, and uneven development patterns that leave a small set of communities pulling most of the weight around new housing production.” The city’s rental vacancy rate of 3.2% was the lowest of the country’s 50 largest metros in 2025.

Greg Vasil, the CEO of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, told Boston.com the city’s high rental prices were “simple economic supply and demand.” 

“Look at other parts of the country, and they can build things much faster because they don’t have as much red tape as we do,” he added. 

Rent control won’t increase housing supply. Developers don’t want to build new apartments only to be told they must rent at below-market rates. 

Tenants in rent-controlled apartments will choose to stay rather than move into more expensive dwellings. The condition of those rent-controlled units will deteriorate since landlords will be loath to invest when they cannot recoup their costs. Worse still, high-income households benefit the most from rent control laws, locking the poorest renters out of the market.

Ultimately, Boston residents will have fewer, yet more expensive choices when looking to rent.

Tosin Akintola is a Young Voices contributor based in Washington, D.C. His writing has been featured at The American Spectator, Reason Magazine, RealClearPolitics, Short Circuit and more. He’s a graduate of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.