The SJC struck the rent control question off the November 2026 ballot
The SJC struck the rent control question off the November 2026 ballot
2026-09-10 · Massachusetts · Courts · Did not pass
What happened. A statewide rent control measure that had certified onto the November 2026 ballot was struck by the Supreme Judicial Court on 23 June 2026, on constitutional grounds that had nothing to do with rent control.
The Homes for All Massachusetts coalition had gathered over 124,000 raw signatures against a requirement of 74,574, and the question had been certified for the 3 November 2026 ballot.1
The ground
The Court held that the question's exemption for facilities “operated solely for educational, religious, or non-profit purposes” made religion a factor in the petition's application, violating Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. Justice Frank Gaziano wrote the opinion.
Article 48 excludes certain subjects from the initiative process, and matters relating to religion are among them. A petition that turns in part on the religious character of an entity falls outside what voters may enact by initiative.
The Court did not rule on whether rent control itself is constitutional. That distinction matters for how the campaign returns.
What the measure would have done
- Cap annual rent increases at 5 percent or CPI, whichever is lower
- Apply regardless of a change in tenancy — that is, no vacancy decontrol
Reported exemption terms circulating from secondary summaries — for owner-occupied buildings of four or fewer units, and for new buildings for their first ten years — come from summaries rather than the certified petition text and are unverified.
Why a rent control question is condominium news
Because Massachusetts has an unusually large stock of investor-owned condominium units offered as rentals, and a statewide cap that applies regardless of a change in tenancy would reach them.
The pattern is common in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and Quincy: triple-deckers converted to condominiums in the 1980s and since, with individual units bought by investors and rented. Those units sit inside associations governed by c. 183A, alongside owner-occupants, and a rent cap would change the economics for one group of owners and not the other — while both pay the same assessments.
That divergence is worth a board's attention independent of the politics. An association whose investor-owners face a capped income stream and uncapped assessments will find special assessment votes harder, and delinquency management more delicate.
Where it goes now
Supporters say the ruling does not end the campaign and that they will redraft without the religious-exemption language and return, most likely in the 2028 cycle. That is reported intent, not a filed petition.
The legislative vehicle is H.1477, An Act enabling local options for tenant protections (Reps. Mike Connolly and Lindsay Sabadosa), which would repeal the statewide ban and let municipalities adopt local rules. It never left the Joint Committee on Housing.2 A late-session compromise formula — inflation plus 5 percent, capped at 10 percent — was circulated on Beacon Hill and went nowhere.
Statewide rent control has been barred in Massachusetts since the 1994 repeal, which is why the initiative and the local-option bill both exist.
The positions, stated fairly
Opposition came from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, the Massachusetts Association of REALTORS and NAIOP. MassLandlords filed amicus briefs, funded the legal challenge, and claims the outcome as a win; it also sent the full Legislature a 36-page white paper in January 2026 urging a funded “rent stabilization” alternative instead.
Boston's City Council adopted a resolution supporting the question by 9 to 3, and Mayor Michelle Wu said in February 2026 that she would vote yes: “It's not perfect, and it's not what the City of Boston put forward…but I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Boston's own 2023 rent stabilization home rule petition, approved by the Council on 8 March 2023, died without legislative action.
What is actually on the November ballot
Nine questions — the most since 1994 — and none of them touch condominiums, transfer fees, rent control or insurance. The only housing question is Question 7, which would permit single-family homes on any residentially zoned lot of at least 5,000 square feet with at least 50 feet of public street frontage and public sewer and water connections.
The absence of the rent control question from that list is the story for anyone tracking Massachusetts housing policy this autumn.
What this means for a board
Nothing operational, and that is worth saying plainly rather than manufacturing an action item. No rent regulation applies to any Massachusetts condominium unit today, and none will before 2028 at the earliest.
What a board with investor-owners might reasonably do is stop treating the question as settled. A measure that gathered 124,000 signatures and was removed on a drafting defect rather than on the merits is a measure with a constituency, and the redraft is the thing to watch.
What to watch next
Whether a redrafted petition is filed for the 2028 cycle, and whether H.1477 or a successor local-option bill is refiled in the 195th General Court, convening January 2027. The local-option route is the one that would reach individual Massachusetts municipalities first, and it requires no ballot campaign at all.
Related Massachusetts HOA Topics
Stay on top of Massachusetts HOA law
Every week: new Massachusetts legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.