Rent control is a bad idea. Hell, even the NYT thinks so. But a ridiculously strict rent-control referendum is poised to pass this fall in Massachusetts – and large landlords are right to negotiate a compromise proposal that would avert a referendum disaster in November, as the Globe and Banker & Tradesman have reported. But the plan needs a few tweaks, such as exempting new construction for up to 20 years (or longer), not 15 years as mentioned in the compromise deal, and eliminating the “owner-occupied” clause for duplexes, triple-deckers and small four-unit apartment buildings. … It’s not a great compromise. Far from it. Some industry officials are right to loathe the mere idea of legalized rent control, as Scott Van Voorhis reports. But take the deal (after a few tweaks). It’s far better than the alternative. 

Btw — Definitely check out the Times editorial. Besides opposing the rent-control referendum in Massachusetts (scroll down), it surprisingly backs the separate Legalize Starter Homes ballot initiative that would “prevent many towns from setting needlessly large minimums for lot sizes and effectively blocking the construction of middle-class homes.” … Passage of Legalize Starter Homes would take some of the sting out of new rent controls, that’s for sure.