ARCHIVES OF LEAD STORIES

 

 

December 2, 2004

Community Stabilization Act supporters take case to council

Yawu Miller

Dozens of supporters of the Community Stabilization Act jammed the City Council chamber and two overflow rooms last week for a hearing on the measure which would bring back a limited form of rent control.

In contrast, opponents of the measure, who carried “no” signs printed by the Small Property Owners Association, made a poor showing, occupying a handful of seats in each of the council chamber’s three seating sections — a stark contrast to the last rent control hearing two years ago where the opponents and supporters were evenly matched.

Perhaps more notably, the equation on the council has changed as well, with five councilors — Felix Arroyo, Maura Hennigan, Michael Ross, Chuck Turner and Charles Yancey — firmly backing the measure and three councilors — Stephen Murphy, Paul Scapicchio and Rob Consalvo — undecided. Seven votes are needed for the measure to pass.

At last week’s hearing the five opponents on the council questioned whether the re-introduction of a form of rent control would raise taxes and discourage new residential development. Supporters said the measure would enable working families to remain in those neighborhoods in Boston where gentrification is most prevalent.

“If Boston wants to be a world-class city, Boston has to be welcoming to families from all economic levels,” said Rich Rogers, secretary of the Greater Boston Labor Council.

The inclusion of labor unions, community-based organizations, elder groups and social service providers in the coalition demonstrates that the Community Stabilization Act has a broader base of support than the 2002 iteration of rent control.

Supporters of the CSA also obtained support from organizations that work with small property owners — ACORN, ESAC and the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, a nonprofit which has helped hundreds of state residents buy homes through its mortgage program.

CSA supporters met with each of the councilors to discuss their misgivings about the 2002 bill. Their input helped the organizers craft the new bill.

The new bill exempts more small property owners from the rent and eviction regulations. Residents who own six or fewer units are exempt. The regulation kicks in when landlords raise rents 10 percent or more. At that point, tenants have the right to grieve the increase in housing court. Low-income and elderly tenants can grieve increases of 5 percent or more.

Also included in the measure is a call for “just cause” evictions, giving tenants the right to grieve evictions in court. Under the measure, judges are given the discretion to determine whether evictions are just.

New construction and developments that are already affordable are exempt from the protections.
At the same time the CSA contains measures that would protect small property owners. One provision mandates that banks give homeowners advance notice of any foreclosure actions and the right to pay off a default.

Property owners would also be given the option to seek mediation prior to foreclosure or rent withholding.

The councilors opposed to the measure voiced deep misgivings about the potential impact of rent regulation on the city. Council President Michael Flaherty asserted that rent control could lower property values on rental properties and shift the tax burden onto single-family homes and condominiums.

“I am of the opinion that with rent control being implemented... it could possibly be devastating to property owners in the city,” he said.

City Councilor Jerry McDermott echoed those concerns.

“What do you say to the idea that we won’t be able to increase our tax base because we’re sending a message to national investors that we’re willing to regulate rents,” he asked.

Roxan McKinnon, an organizer with the Boston Tenant Coalition, pointed out that CSA exempts new construction and underscored the need for affordable housing in Boston.

“Right now, the question is what are we doing for the working people of Boston,” she said.

Maureen Feeney, who acknowledged that her 26-year-old son is living with her because he can’t afford to pay rent, questioned whether banks would view the city unfavorably if the measure passes.

“Are they going to say ‘we’re going to continue to invest in a city that has these controls?’” she questioned.

Stella said the real estate market will continue to drive investment.

“Development is going to continue in this city,” he said. “The question is, is there going to be anything developed in this city other than million dollar condos. This isn’t an either/or thing.”

 

Back to Lead Story Archives

Home Page