Brookline’s Rent Control Bill Is the Wrong Answer to a Real Housing Problem

Brookline has a real housing affordability problem. Rents are high. Too many households feel stretched. Too many residents worry that one aggressive renewal could force them out of town. That concern is real, and anyone discussing this issue honestly should say so up front.

What should also be said, just as plainly, is that Brookline’s proposed rent control bill is the wrong answer.

The bill is appealing because it offers a simple villain and a simple cure. High rents must mean landlords have too much freedom. Cap the increases, protect tenants, and the problem gets better. That story is emotionally satisfying. It is also incomplete. In the real world, housing markets respond to incentives. When government changes the economics of owning, leasing, improving, or re-renting housing, owners change behavior. They do not stop acting like economic actors simply because a policy was framed as compassion.

Related: rent control bill advances and rent freeze fever.

That is why the real question is not whether rent control feels good. The real question is whether it makes Brookline’s housing system work better over time. The answer, based on Brookline’s own rental data and the structure of the bill itself, is no.

What the bill actually does

S.960 would allow Brookline to cap annual rent increases on covered units at CPI plus 3 percent, with a hard ceiling of 7 percent. It also layers on just-cause eviction protections and gives the town broad authority over condo conversions, demolitions, and substantial renovations. Newer housing gets a limited exemption. Some owner-occupied small properties are exempt. Transient guest facilities are exempt. And for a new tenancy, the landlord can still set the initial rent freely, with the cap applying only after that starting rent is established.

That last part matters more than many supporters seem willing to admit.

If future earnings are tied to the initial rent, then the initial rent becomes far more important. That means landlords have a stronger reason to start higher, not lower. It means they have a stronger reason to resist discounts, concessions, and “good tenant” pricing. It means the law may discourage the exact kind of quiet flexibility that often keeps Brookline tenancies stable in practice.

Brookline’s own rental data tells a very different story from the political rhetoric

The best argument against this bill is not ideological. It is local.

The Bushari Team‘s review of 10,388 Brookline MLS rental transactions from 2016 through 2025 shows that median rent rose from $2,600 in 2016 to $3,590 in 2025. That is meaningful growth, but the pattern is far from a story of nonstop runaway escalation.

Brookline median rents rose 3.8 percent in 2017, 1.9 percent in 2018, and 4.8 percent in 2019. Then the market fell. Median rents dropped 4.6 percent in 2020 and another 3.6 percent in 2021. After that came the post-COVID rebound: up 17.0 percent in 2022 and 9.7 percent in 2023. Then growth cooled sharply to 4.4 percent in 2024 and just 1.1 percent in 2025.

That is not what a permanently broken market looks like. That is what a market looks like when it absorbs a shock, corrects, rebounds, and then normalizes.

Over the full 2016 to 2025 period, the compound annual growth rate in median Brookline rent was about 3.6 percent. Studios grew at about 2.3 percent annually. One-bedrooms grew about 2.9 percent annually. These are the very unit types most associated with the renters rent-control advocates often say they want to protect. The long-term story is not pretty, but it is also not the cartoon version of landlord abuse that supporters need in order to sell a bill like this.

The most important finding: the cap may become a pricing lane, not a restraint

Here is the number that should stop on-the-fence readers in their tracks.

In seven of the last nine years, Brookline’s actual median-rent growth was at or below what S.960 would have allowed.

Read that again.

In most recent years, the proposed legal maximum would not have restrained the market. It would have sat above it.

In 2020 and 2021, when Brookline rents actually fell, the formula still would have allowed increases. In 2025, when Brookline’s median rent increased just 1.1 percent, the formula would have allowed about 5.5 percent. That is not a serious affordability solution. That is a government-approved rent increase lane.

And once that lane exists, it changes behavior.

Many landlords today do not automatically increase rent by the highest amount they can imagine. In Brookline, experienced brokers like myself see (and recommend) this constantly. Owners often make judgment calls. They keep a strong long-term tenant. They trade a lower increase for lower turnover. They avoid vacancy, repairs, repainting, broker coordination, and risk. They price relationships, not just units.

A CPI-plus formula changes that psychology. Once the law says a certain increase is normal, fair, and allowed, some owners will treat it as the default. Not because they are villains. Because the law itself has created a new anchor.

That means rent control can do something deeply ironic: it can make rent increases more routine, more formulaic, and less negotiable than they were before.

Rent control does not erase costs. It rearranges them.

Supporters often talk as if regulation simply transfers money from landlords to tenants. In reality, regulation changes how and when costs get recovered.

That is especially true now that Massachusetts changed the broker-fee rules. If a landlord hires the listing broker, the landlord pays that fee. On paper, that sounds like a win for renters. In practice, the leasing cost does not vanish. It becomes one more reason for owners to harden asking rents at lease-up.

And under S.960, lease-up pricing matters even more because future rent growth is tied to the starting number.

That combination is exactly backwards for tenants entering the market. The tenant who needs a new apartment next month may face fewer concessions, firmer asking rents, and more aggressive initial pricing because landlords are defending the number that will shape future lawful increases.

The result is a policy that may protect some incumbent tenants while making it harder for new tenants to get in at a reasonable price.

This bill may reduce flexibility, not just rents

Brookline’s rental market is not only made up of giant faceless institutions. It includes smaller owners, local landlords, and multifamily investors who often make human, case-by-case decisions.

That reality matters.

When owners know they have flexibility, they often use it. They often keep a good tenant below market. They may offer a softer renewal after a hard year. They may work with someone because the tenant has been reliable, low-friction, and worth keeping.

A regulated system weakens that culture. The more formal the regime becomes, the more the conversation shifts from judgment and relationship to baseline economics, future limitations, compliance, documentation, and board-controlled appeals.

In other words, the town may replace informal flexibility with formal rigidity.

That is a bad trade in a market where many of the best outcomes happen quietly, through negotiation and continuity, not litigation and bureaucracy.

Supply matters, even when advocates wish it didn’t

Rent control supporters often speak as if supply is a distraction. It is not. Supply is the whole game over the long run.

When a town makes long-term rental housing harder to operate profitably, some owners sell. Some convert. Some delay improvements. Some stop reinvesting. Some shift strategy toward exempt or less-regulated occupancy where available. Some simply decide that future rental housing investment in Brookline is less attractive than it was before.

That does not mean every landlord runs for the exits on day one. It means the town changes the direction of travel.

And Brookline should be doing the opposite.

A town with chronic affordability pressure should want more housing production, more reinvestment in older stock, more rental options, and more confidence that owning rental housing in Brookline is a worthwhile long-term proposition. It should not want a policy that introduces another reason to hold back.

Even Brookline’s own public materials acknowledge the classic risks: reduced investment, reduced maintenance, fewer rental units, lower property values, and a shift in tax burden. That is not anti-rent-control rhetoric from outsiders. That is the town’s own warning label.

Homeowners should not assume this is someone else’s problem

A lot of homeowners may be tempted to think this debate is only about landlords and tenants. It is not.

Brookline’s own review of the proposal raised the risk that rent stabilization could shift the tax burden away from stabilized multifamily housing and toward other property classes, including single-family homes. That means homeowners should not casually assume this policy leaves them untouched.

If Brookline limits revenue growth on a large share of covered property, while the town still needs to raise the same levy (actually, the town needs more!), the burden does not disappear. It moves.

The same is true administratively. Brookline’s earlier rent-control era was not a tiny side program. It came with staffing, cost, enforcement, appeals, and litigation. Rent control is never just a cap. It is a governing apparatus.

Yes, there are short-term benefits. No, they do not outweigh the damage.

To be fair, rent control can help some current tenants in the short run. If a household is facing a sudden spike, a cap may provide immediate relief. That is the strongest argument supporters have, and it should be acknowledged honestly.

But Brookline cannot judge this bill only by the tenant who stays.

It also has to judge it by the renter still searching, the young household trying to get into town, the owner deciding whether to improve an older building, the landlord deciding whether to offer a discount, the homeowner wondering where future tax pressure lands, and the town wondering whether it wants more housing or more friction.

On that broader test, this bill fails.

The better answer is not slogans. It is housing.

Brookline does not need a policy that feels compassionate while quietly encouraging higher starting rents, less negotiation, less investment, and tighter long-term supply.

It needs more housing.

It needs faster approvals for projects that add units.

It needs more predictable redevelopment rules.

It needs targeted support for tenants in real distress.

It needs more deed-restricted affordable housing.

It needs zoning and permitting that make it easier, not harder, to create and preserve homes.

And it needs leaders willing to say something politically unfashionable but economically true: you do not solve a housing shortage by punishing the people who provide housing.

Brookline’s affordability crisis is real. But rent control is still the wrong answer.

It is not smart policy. It is not durable policy. And if this town cares about renters, homeowners, and long-term housing access, it should reject it.

Author Note

I’m not arguing that Brookline’s affordability problem is fake. I’m arguing that rent control is the wrong tool. Our town needs more housing, more reinvestment, and more targeted help for renters in real distress – not a policy that risks harder asking rents, less flexibility, and tighter long-term supply.

FAQ

What is Brookline’s proposed rent control bill?

Brookline’s proposed rent control bill, S.960, would allow the town to cap annual rent increases on covered units at CPI plus 3 percent, up to a 7 percent maximum, while also creating just-cause eviction protections and expanded local authority over condo conversions, demolitions, and substantial renovations.

Does the bill cap the initial rent for a new tenant?

No. For a new tenancy, the landlord may establish the initial rent. The cap applies only to later increases after that base rent has been set.

What does Brookline rental data show?

A review of 10,388 Brookline MLS rental transactions from 2016 through 2025 shows that median rent rose from $2,600 to $3,590 over that period, but the path was not a straight line. Rents fell in 2020 and 2021, surged in 2022 and 2023, then cooled sharply in 2024 and 2025.

Why could rent control lead to higher asking rents?

Because if future lawful rent increases are tied to the starting rent, landlords have a stronger incentive to set that starting rent aggressively and defend it. That can reduce concessions, weaken negotiation, and make initial lease-up pricing harder for new tenants.

Could Brookline rent control affect homeowners too?

Potentially, yes. Brookline’s own public materials raised the possibility that rent stabilization could shift part of the tax burden away from stabilized multifamily housing and toward other property classes, including single-family homes.

Would Brookline rent control create more affordable housing?

No. The bill is aimed at limiting increases for some existing tenants. It does not directly create new housing units or new deed-restricted affordable housing.