Housing is a Human Right — A Policy Vision for Massachusetts

Introduction

Massachusetts is in the midst of the worst affordable housing crisis in recent memory. Numerous studies have shown that Boston is one of the most expensive cities for renters in the country. This crisis has hit Allston-Brighton particularly hard, a neighborhood predominantly made up of middle and low income residents, young professionals, students, and immigrants.

80% of Allston-Brighton residents are renters, making our neighborhood especially vulnerable to the current housing crisis. We’ve seen the impacts all around us: poor and working people displaced from their homes; working class artists driven out by the cost of rent; lifelong residents hoping to downsize forced to move elsewhere; young renters taken advantage of by predatory or absentee landlords.

Now is not the time to think small or settle for less. For too long, the direction of Allston-Brighton has been dictated by greedy developers, while absentee landlords and predatory management companies prey on young renters. A crisis of this magnitude requires and demands that we think big, fight for bold, new ideas, and demand legislation that affirms housing as a human right. That’s why I’m announcing a policy platform that calls for stabilizing rents, create a tenants’ bill of rights, build social housing, end exclusionary zoning, and end homelessness in Massachusetts.

Statewide Rent Control

Rents in Allston-Brighton have skyrocketed over the last few years. Recent data has revealed that the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Allston-Brighton increased by 26%, from $1,427 to $1,801, between 2016 and 2018. During that same period, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment has increased by 20%, from $1,807 to $2,167; average rent for a three-bedroom has increased by 30%, from $2,131 to $2,767; and average rent for a four-bedroom has increased by 50%, from $2,323 to $3,496.

The affordable housing crisis in Massachusetts didn’t happen by accident. In 1994, a statewide referendum outlawed rent control in Massachusetts, allowing landlords to impose drastic rent hikes and evict tenants who were unwilling or unable to pay them. Displacement skyrocketed as a result, especially among low-income families and elderly residents. Following the repeal of rent control, 5,000 of the roughly 60,000 rent-controlled households in Boston were evicted. As for the cost of rent, a 1998 survey of Cambridge showed that “the repeal of rent control drove leasing costs up for both formerly controlled apartments and un-controlled ones as well — 40 percent higher in the case of the former and 13 percent in the latter.”

Rent control is about neighborhood stability, stopping displacement, and affirming that housing is a human right. To meaningfully address the affordable housing crisis, Massachusetts should enact a statewide cap on rent increases. Statewide rent control is not without precedent. Recently, Oregon instituted a maximum cap on rent increases of 7% plus inflation. Similarly, California enacted a cap of 5% plus inflation.

Tenants’ Bill of Rights

Rent control alone will not be enough to solve the housing crisis in Massachusetts. It must be paired with a robust set of tenant protections. Massachusetts should enact a comprehensive Tenants’ Bill of Rights, including:

Right to Quality and Accessible Housing

Tenants have the right to live in safe, dignified housing that meets their basic needs. Mold, lead, asbestos, and other environmental toxins plague rental housing, forcing individuals and families to live in unsafe conditions and suffer long-term and permanent health consequences. The State Legislature should help make resources available to cities and towns to enforce building codes and compel landlords to meet them. The cost of these necessary repairs must not be passed on to tenants, and such an act should be considered retaliation. Further, a tenant’s accessibility needs may change at any given time, and should a tenant require additional accessibility features, landlords must comply with these needs without passing the cost on to the tenant.

Just Cause Eviction

In 2016, there were 37,131 eviction filings in Massachusetts, resulting in 15,708 evictions. 42.92 evictions per day. Currently, under Massachusetts law, tenants can face eviction proceedings even when they’ve done nothing wrong through “no fault” evictions.

A Just Cause Eviction Law would put an end to “no fault” evictions, allowing a landlord to evict a tenant only under specific circumstances that violate the terms of the lease. California included just cause eviction protections in its recent legislation to cap rent increases.

Right to Counsel

There is a tremendous power imbalance between landlords and tenants when it comes to evictions. Nationwide, approximately 90% of landlords have legal representation in eviction lawsuits, while only about 10% of tenants do. Without legal representation, the majority of tenants in eviction lawsuits lose their cases and are ultimately evicted. Evictions disproportionately impact certain communities, perpetuating economic inequality and cycles of poverty. Recent data has shown that low-income Black women face the highest risk of eviction, with “1 in 5 Black women report[ing] having been evicted as adults, compared to 1 in 12 Hispanic women and 1 in 15 white women.”

Two eviction-prevention pilot programs in Boston measured the impact of legal representation for low-income tenants facing evictions using a randomized study between 2009 and 2011. In one program, “two-thirds of tenants with full representation retained their homes, compared with just one-third of similar unrepresented tenants.” A report about these pilot projects indicated that if the state provided legal representation for a targeted group of renters facing eviction, the state would achieve a net savings of more than $3 million in emergency shelter costs alone.

New York City and San Francisco, the two most expensive rental markets in the country, recently established a right to counsel for low-income tenants facing evictions. In New York between July 2017 and July 2018, “84 percent of those assigned attorneys to represent them were able to stay in their homes.” It’s time for Massachusetts to pass a right to counsel law and protect at-risk tenants.

Eviction Sealing

Having an eviction on their record can create a significant barrier for tenants looking for housing. In Massachusetts, a tenant has an eviction record as soon as an eviction case is filed against them, regardless of whether they did anything wrong or were actually evicted.

In Massachusetts, 38% of households are renters. In Allston-Brighton, however, that number is much higher, at around 80%. People of color are especially vulnerable to eviction. In Massachusetts, African-American and Hispanic households are twice as likely to be renters as White households, putting them at higher risk of evictions. Recent studies have shown that women face higher rates of evictions than men. Women with children, particularly women of color, may also be disproportionately harmed by the availability of eviction records. Further studies have shown that having children increases the chances that a landlord will file an eviction case against a women.

Eviction records are publicly available forever online through MassCourts, the Electronic Case Access system created by the Massachusetts Trial Court in 2013. New research from the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute has shown repeated patterns of harm resulting from this unrestricted access to eviction case records. Some of the most common instances of harm include:

• Tenants being rejected from housing simply because an eviction case had been filed against them, regardless of the outcome or whether the tenant was at fault.
• Landlords and property managers wrongfully assuming that tenants with eviction records had done something wrong, even though they had not
• Landlords used the threat of online eviction records to pressure tenants to either move out or dissuade them from going to court and defending their cases
• Children were named on their parents’ eviction cases
• Tenant screening companies automatically recommended that landlords reject potential tenants with eviction cases and records, regardless of the outcome or whether the tenant was at fault
• Case dismissals and judgments on the merits against tenants were regarded equally by landlords and property managers

Massachusetts must develop stronger policies to limit access to certain eviction records and cases. The legislature should immediately pass the HOMES Act (S. 824 / H. 3566), which would:

• Seal all eviction cases while they are pending and until an allegation is proven
• Seal no-fault evictions, eviction cases where a judgment or agreement is satisfied, and eviction cases in which the tenant files to enforce their rights (such as trying to get repairs made)
• Make non-payment and fault evictions publicly available if (1) a judgment is entered against the tenant on the merits, or (2) the tenant violates an agreement for judgment and is evicted by a constable or sheriff
• Seal all eviction records after 3 years and provide a process to seal eviction records for good cause before the 3-year period
• Protect tenants from misuse of court records by landlords and tenant screening companies
• Ensure that tenants can seal their records once they satisfy a judgment or agreement for judgment
• Make it illegal to name minors or others not in a contractual relationship with the landlord in an eviction case

Freedom from Unjust Fees

For many renters, the cost of moving into new housing can be astronomical. Renters often find themselves having to pay first month’s rent, last month’s rent, and a security deposit to their landlord on top of a separate fee to a real estate broker, which is often the cost of one month’s rent. Renters should not have to shell out the cost of 4 months rent simply to move into a new apartment.

Lawmakers in New York have introduced legislation to limit the amount a renter can be charged for a security deposit and a broker’s fee. Massachusetts should go one step further and cap security deposits and broker’s fees at less than one month’s rent.

Right to Reasonable Renewal

A common issue renters face is their landlord asking them to renew their lease very early into their current lease. Many tenants in Allston-Brighton have been asked by their landlord to renew as early as two months into their lease. These practices can either lock renters into substandard housing for much longer than they hope to stay or force them to start looking for new housing many months before they are ready to. If a tenant is abiding by the terms of the lease, a landlord should not be permitted to demand a renewal more than four months before the end of the lease.

Right to Organize

Organizing is one of the strongest protections ordinary people have against wealthy, powerful interests. This is particularly true when it comes to renters and tenant organizing. As the affordable housing crisis in Massachusetts deepens, and the real estate industry continues to flex its influence among lawmakers, the need for robust tenant organizing has never been stronger. In addition to providing protection for renters, tenant organizing also builds community bonds among renters and provides crucial social support.

Your right to organize is protected by law, and landlords cannot forbid tenants from forming or joining a tenants’ union. However, many renters do not know the full breadth of their rights under law as tenants. As such, every lease should include language that explicitly details a right to organize.

Right to Information

Know Your Landlord

With such a high percentage of renters, Allston-Brighton has many landlords and property managers that range from crummy, to absent, and to outright abusive. In many instances, it is easier to get information about an Uber driver or an AirBnB host than it is about a landlord. Considering the already-glaring power imbalance between landlords and tenants, Massachusetts should make it easier for tenants to find relevant information about their landlords, including properties they own, lawsuits by and against them, and complaints to inspectional services from their tenants.

Know Your Rights

A common concern among renters is that they do not know the full scope of their rights as tenants. This causes many renters to be hesitant to speak up when they feel their landlord is not honoring the terms of the lease, with many fearing retaliation should they raise a complaint. Every lease in Massachusetts should include information about a tenant’s rights under state law, what a tenant must do to enforce those rights if and when necessary, and a list of available resources.

Right to Purchase

Tenants in Washington, DC have a collective right to purchase their buildings if the owner decides to sell the property under the DC First Right Purchase Program, also commonly referred to as “tenant right to purchase.” Under this program, tenants are able to form tenant associations and, with technical and financial help from the city’s Department of Housing and Community Development, match a third party offer on the building. Tenants may also assign part of all of their rights to a nonprofit to purchase the building and maintain it as affordable rental units.

Tenant right to purchase is an effective way to stabilize communities, prevent displacement, and offer many low- and moderate-income residents an opportunity of homeownership. Recently, the city of Somerville advanced a home rule petition to the legislature to allow them to enact a tenant right to purchase ordinance. The state legislature should go further and pass enabling legislation to allow any municipalities in the Commonwealth to enact tenant right to purchase ordinances.

Right to Enforcement

Robust tenant rights mean little without the means to enforce them. While many legal aid organizations already exist across Massachusetts to assist low-income tenants, much help is still needed. Recently, the city of Newark, NJ established an Office of Tenant Legal Services to implement its right to counsel ordinance and provide tenants with legal assistance who cannot afford an attorney. Massachusetts should establish a new state office to provide legal assistance to low-income tenants statewide to ensure that their rights are being protected.

Social Housing for Massachusetts

If we want to end our affordable housing crisis and ensure that housing is truly regarded as a human right, we cannot continue to leave housing almost entirely to the private, for-profit market. It’s time for Massachusetts to get serious about investing in mixed-income social housing and provide a viable public option in the housing market.

Past impressions and criticisms have painted public housing as dilapidated and dangerous, and have often functioned as coded racism. These criticisms have benefited those “who would rather there be no public housing at all. Private real-estate developers, landlords, banks, and assorted wealthy people who don’t like paying taxes benefit enormously from our pessimism and lack of imagination.”

The best model for mixed-income social housing can be found in Vienna. For over 100 years, Vienna has made large investments in owned and financed by the government, and rented out by municipalities or nonprofits. Unlike public housing in the United States, social housing in Vienna serves both the middle class and the poor, leading to a mixed-income system generally “held to be at the forefront not only of progressive planning policy but also of sustainable design.” Vienna’s social housing program, which includes robust tenant protections, has proven to be so popular that about 60% of Vienna’s 1.8 million people live in social housing, spending on average only 25% of their income on rent.

Mixed-income social housing provides significant socioeconomic integration among residents. This “increases quality of life for low-income families, boosts lifelong individual earnings for future generations, and reduces overall crime rates at the community level.” Further, social housing creates a public option in the housing market for middle class individuals and families who “would prefer to live outside the private market.”

End Exclusionary Zoning

In The Color of Law, historian Richard Rothstein details how federal, state, and local governments in the United States intentionally imposed racial segregation in metropolitan areas across the country with racist zoning laws. These racist housing policies explicitly barred African-Americans “from access to federally guaranteed mortgages or homes in government-subsidized suburban developments,” helping to create the stark racial wealth gap that persists to this day. In Massachusetts, a recent Boston Globe investigation found that “the net worth of black families is just $8, compared with $247,500 for whites,” a massive gap that is attributed in large part to a lack of housing equity among communities of color.

Massachusetts’ zoning laws have not been overhauled in decades, and in the time since, restrictive zoning practices in wealthier, whiter suburbs have blocked the construction of mixed-income housing developments, family housing, and even modest developments like accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These restrictive practices have fueled the affordable housing and displacement crises, driving up the price of rent (especially Allston-Brighton), and putting the onus almost entirely on Boston to build new housing. A statewide housing crisis requires a statewide response, and overhauling our zoning rules must be prioritized. Massachusetts needs new zoning rules to permit the construction of multifamily housing and encourage the construction of new housing in areas close to public transit. New zoning rules must also outlaw any racist, exclusionary land use practices.

Ending Homelessness

Housing First

In a moral and just society, everyone should have safe, dignified, and affordable housing. Massachusetts has fallen woefully short of delivering on this promise, especially as the affordable housing crisis has worsened. A particularly troubling aspect of the housing crisis has been the increase in homelessness. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 20,068 people experienced homelessness in Massachusetts in 2018. This represents a 14.2% increase from 2017 — the largest increase nationwide — totaling over 2,500 people.

Massachusetts should enact a Housing First model and provide permanent supportive housing and support services for people experiencing homelessness. Housing First is “guided by the belief that people need basic necessities like food and a place to live before attending to anything less critical, such as getting a job, budgeting properly, or attending to substance use issues.” Housing First has proven to be both a moral and cost-efficient means of addressing homelessness, and residents in Housing First models have accessed housing faster and are more likely to remain stably housed.

While Housing First is a model Massachusetts should move toward, there are many initiatives the State Legislature should adopt immediately to help prevent homelessness and protect people experiencing homelessness.

Reestablish the Rent Arrearage Assistance Program

Massachusetts should reestablish the rent arrearage assistance program (RAAP) as a means of keeping individuals and families from becoming homeless. RAAP would “provide cash assistance for up to four months of back rent or mortgage payments for families, individuals, and unaccompanied youth with incomes up to 50% of Area Median Income (AMI).”

Expand Access to Emergency Assistance Shelter

Families should not have to sleep in places not meant for human habitation in order to access Emergency Assistance shelter. According to the state’s own data, “645 families with children had to sleep in cars, bus stations, emergency rooms and other unsafe places in FY’18 (July 2017 through June 2018) before they were found eligible for emergency shelter through the state’s Emergency Assistance (EA) program.” Massachusetts should ensure that otherwise eligible families are able to access Emergency Assistance shelter and services in a timely manner.

Protect the Rights of People Experiencing Homelessness

Several pieces of pending legislation would improve the lives of people experiencing homelessness by upholding and affirming their civil rights. A Bill of Rights for People Experiencing Homelessness would establish a definition of homelessness and protect the rights of people experiencing homelessness. The Act of Living would extend anti-discrimination protections to people experiencing homelessness. The State Legislature should pass both bills immediately.

Conclusion

We have a long way to go to achieve full housing justice in Allston-Brighton and across Massachusetts. Greedy real estate developers, landlords, and big management companies have an outsized influence in our policymaking, and continue to fill the campaign coffers of our politicians.

But what goes unfought for goes unachieved. We’ve seen what is possible when leaders and activists propose big ideas, organize, and fight for them. What seems daunting at first becomes plausible and achievable with effort, energy, and persistence.

If you believe like I do that housing is a human right, then now is the time to fight like hell to make it happen.

A better world is possible.