Area tenants who have spent months advocating to get rent control on the November ballot say they are “angry” and “disappointed” by a Supreme Judicial Court ruling that the initiative petition is unconstitutional due to clauses referencing religion.
“Our members are very angry. We feel blindsided,” Ilene Roizman of the Easthampton Tenants Union said in an interview on Wednesday. “After all the work that people have been doing to collect signatures and mobilize support, it’s a blow. It hurts.”
“The Greenfield Tenants Union strongly condemns the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to prevent the rent stabilization ballot initiative from appearing on the November ballot,” Kat Miller of the Greenfield Tenants Union said in a statement. “Instead of allowing the people to decide this issue at the ballot box, the court has chosen to invalidate the entire measure over a narrow technical issue involving an exemption for certain religious and nonprofit housing. This ruling is a serious blow, but it has also made something unmistakably clear: tenants across the commonwealth are ready to fight for the right to remain in their homes.”
SJC rules petition is unconstitutional
Earlier this week, the state’s highest court ruled that the rent control proposal “is not in compliance” with constitutional requirements barring religious matters from being presented to voters through the initiative petition process. One of the exemptions to the proposal — which would limit rent increases to “not exceed the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the applicable area or 5%, whichever is lower” — included units that are operated solely for religious purposes.
According to the Keep Massachusetts Home campaign, the petition to place rent control on the November ballot had received more than 124,000 signatures from voters who wished to repeal the 1994 ban on rent control. The petition was certified by Attorney General Angela Campbell’s office, however, that certification was challenged by a group of residents and landlords, including Arcangelo Cella, Teresa Del Signore, Katherine Horey and Bernardston resident Susan Renfrew.
In their complaint, they wrote that the petition violated sections of Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, arguing that “the petition does not comply with this requirement because it explicitly addresses the treatment of dwelling units operated by religious institutions, by excepting from rent control ‘[d]welling units in facilities operated solely for educational, religious or non-profit purposes,’ which impermissibly benefits and supports religious institutions and organizations to the detriment of dwelling units operated for secular purposes, and requires an inquiry into the purpose and scope of the potential ‘religious’ use.”
“The petition … concerns a generally secular subject matter — rent control. But, by including an express exemption for facilities operated solely for religious purposes, the petition impermissibly makes religion ‘a factor in [the petition’s] application.’ And in order to enforce the proposed law, the exemption would require the government to determine if a facility is ‘operated solely for … religious … purposes,’ and then make an enforcement decision based on the facility’s religious purpose (or lack thereof),” Justice Frank Gaziano wrote in a ruling for the court. “Further, the petition would confer preferential treatment on religious institutions by allowing them to increase rent prices, while limiting rent increases for secular facilities.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Scott Kafker said that had the petition not included the language referencing religion, discussions on its viability for the November ballot would have been different. The language of the petition would require the government to rule on what purposes are considered religious in order for properties to be granted a rent control exemption, which he said is an unconstitutional “intrusive inquiry.”
“This express purpose is clearly secular, not religious. The initiative would limit the annual rent increases for residential dwelling units in the commonwealth by the lower of the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index or 5%,” Kafker wrote. “It would apply to ‘all dwelling units leased for residential, but not commercial use,’ except that, as relevant here, it would not apply to ‘[d]welling units in facilities operated solely for educational, religious or non-profit purposes.’ Apart from this one exemption, this initiative does not in any way ‘relate to religion, religious practices or religious institutions.’
“Had the initiative simply stated that it limits rent increases in dwelling units operated by for-profit institutions, but not in dwelling units operated by non-profit institutions, a very different question would have been presented,” Kafker continued.
Easthampton Tenants Union member Ben Taylor feels the disqualification was a “nakedly political act,” made to reject the ballot measure on a “slim and flimsy technicality.” He added that reports about a “compromise” piece of legislation proposed as an alternative to “An Act Enabling Cities and Towns to Stabilize Rents and Protect Tenants” (S.1447) has its own issues.
“It would have been very easy to strike the word ‘religious’ from the ballot initiative and still keep the main purpose of the measure intact,” Taylor said.
Landlords ‘pleased’ with decision
Easthampton landlord Jo Landers, who owns five housing units in Holyoke, is pleased that the ballot measure was disqualified. She said she is not opposed to rent control, but called the ballot measure “poorly written,” feeling that it would price out local landlords.
“It can be proposed next year with better wording. The version that was proposed was going to kill small landlords across the state,” Landers said. “The deep-pocket investors would be buying the properties right and left.”
Landers said a problematic component of the now-disqualified ballot measure is that it would limit “vacancy decontrol” for landlords, meaning that when a vacancy occurs, landlords must keep rent the same as it was before the vacancy.
Additionally, Landers said the measure would have used rents as of Jan. 31, 2026, as a baseline, which made her feel pressured to raise her tenants’ rents — which she said were 20% below market rate — before that date.
Greenfield landlord Mark Zaccheo called the proposal “a slippery slope,” and said that while he understands housing costs are an issue that needs to be further discussed, he does not believe rent control is the answer, and it could lead to further regulation of costs for other basic human necessities.
“As a city, state or nation, are we really considering controlling the prices of all the basic human needs? Are we willing to only pay $1 for a gallon of gasoline, regardless of the price that it cost to attain that gallon of fuel? Are we willing to fix the price of a dozen eggs even if that price falls below what a farmer can produce them for? Wouldn’t it be great if our electric bill was capped at $50 per household?” Zaccheo said. “Regarding housing, the real issue is not controlling rent, but rather helping to create housing. Right now, our stringent building codes, high interest rates, and high cost of labor and materials make the development of housing very expensive and often not worth the significant effort, which contributes to a lack of supply. City, state and federal governments should be incentivizing developers and builders to produce the housing that’s needed for our residents, not legislating what a private owner should be able to charge for their property.”
Zaccheo added that he hopes the decision from the court will slow down efforts to reduce housing costs, and allow for more thorough discussion on impacts and what measures would be effective.
Tenants moving forward
Sasha Morsmith, a Northampton renter and co-chair of the River Valley Democratic Socialists of America, said that prior to hearing about the court’s determination, the group had planned canvassing sessions to advocate for the ballot measure.
“It’s incredibly disappointing when voters are not given the chance to vote on their future,” Morsmith said. “Tenants are really struggling with affordability. … I think the ballot measure would’ve succeeded.”
A poll conducted by Emerson College last month found that 60.1% of 601 survey respondents would have voted “yes” on the petition. Of the respondents, 25.5% would have voted “no” and 14.4% were undecided.
A prior poll conducted by The University of New Hampshire Survey Center in February found 56% of respondents either somewhat or strongly support rent control, 26% were either somewhat or strongly against it, and 17% were not sure.
Morsmith said that while the ballot initiative has been killed, she is hopeful its widespread support will push state legislators to move forward with S.1477 and its companion bill in the House, H.2328. She added that she believes tenants will continue pushing for measures to improve affordability and may return with a similar initiative in the future.
“Massachusetts does not make it easy to get petitions on the ballot. An incredible amount of work went into getting this on the ballot,” Morsmith said. “I certainly hope there will be a chance to bring this forth again in the future.”
Taylor and Roizman said the Easthampton group has been collaborating with a similar tenants union from Greenfield and Northampton, saying they are all on the “same side.” With Gov. Maura Healey already having stated opposition to rent control, Roizman said local action is key.
“Our governor is not in favor of rent control. That makes for a difficult fight, but again, we’re going to focus on what we can do locally in Easthampton to strengthen our own position and find ways to protect tenants,” Roizman said.
Pamela Schwartz, director of the Western Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness, said the court’s disqualification of the ballot initiative is “shocking,” but she will continue to urge legislators to pass S.1447.
“This decision is shocking and extremely disappointing,” Schwartz said. “It does nothing to change the reality that rent increases are out of control and denying so many of our residents safe and affordable housing.”
Easthampton City Councilor and tenants’ advocate Kiam Jamrog-McQuaid said the disqualification is disappointing, as it would have helped “protect people who are currently struggling in the broken housing market right now.”
Jamrog-McQuaid said, besides S.1447, the Easthampton Rent Study Committee will continue its efforts to create a home-rule petition to send to Beacon Hill, which, if accepted, would establish a form of rent control created by the city.
“This is emblematic of broader problems in the state, of some really undemocratic tendencies to stifle some of the very clear resounding policy priorities that the public has made clear through ballot referendums and the signature gathering process,” Jamrog-McQuaid said.
In Greenfield, Miller echoed these sentiments and said that while the measure is off the November ballot, tenants are not done fighting yet. Greenfield’s City Council in May had unanimously approved a resolution in support of rent control measures, including the proposed state legislation and the ballot initiative.
“With the ballot initiative removed, legislators have both the opportunity and the obligation to act. We urge the Legislature to pass S.1447 in a form that provides strong, meaningful tenant protections, and establish a pathway for communities to adopt rent stabilization measures,” Miller said. “The court may have blocked one path forward, but it has not ended this fight. Across Massachusetts, tenants are organizing, and we are not going away.”
