Rent Control Isn’t the Fix for Housing Prices
Worcester, MA, USA,Sun May 17 2026
A group of city leaders in Massachusetts has spoken out against a plan that would force every town to follow the same rent‑control rules.
The proposal, set for a 2026 vote, would apply one rule to all 351 municipalities. It ignores the unique needs of each community.
Worcester, the state’s second‑largest city, worries that such a blanket law would hurt its budget and slow new building.
The state faces a housing shortage. Worcester’s plan for 2026‑2030 calls for about 12, 000 new rental homes and 850 owner‑occupied units by 2034.
With a vacancy rate under 5 %, competition keeps rents climbing. There simply aren’t enough homes for all income levels, and rising utilities add to the cost.
Studies show that rent control can backfire. In St. Paul, Minnesota, new apartment permits fell 79 % after a rent‑control law in 2022.
In Maryland, permits dropped from over two thousand to just 54 after a similar policy in 2024‑25.
In Cambridge, Massachusetts, construction halted under the 1970 rent‑control rule; after its repeal in 1994, new building surged by 20 %.
Adding new homes is the most reliable way to lower rents. New Rochelle, New York, saw its median rent fall 2 % from 2020 to 2023 while adding 4, 500 units over a decade.
Worcester’s buildings are old—almost 60 % age more than 50 years—and need updates. Encouraging investment in these homes while building new ones can keep rents stable.
A permanent rent cap would devalue properties. By 2036, Worcester could lose more than 18 % of its property value. To keep taxes steady, the city would need a 23 % rise in residential rates—a blow to its finances.
The policy may sound like quick relief, but it would create long‑term problems for the state.
Worcester’s leaders want to help residents who struggle with housing costs, but they see rent control as the wrong tool. They argue that working together—public and private—offers better solutions.
