FY 2027 Budget Testimony

March 31, 2026

Chair Michlewitz, Chair Rodrigues, and Members of the Joint Committee on Ways & Means: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic commonwealth.

As we contemplate the daunting, anxiety-inducing, catastrophic possibility of steep cuts to the federal budget as Republicans in DC attempt to take an axe to health care, education, infrastructure, and so much more, we need to be prepared in MA to protect our essential services. We need to continue to do what we are doing—and we also need to be doing more. 

To make that possible, we urge you to embrace progressive sources of revenue as well as tap into the rainy day fund in order to avoid any cuts. 

In the FY 2027 budget, we urge you to focus on increasing critical investments that underlie the quality of life in the Commonwealth and make this high quality of life accessible to all: 

  • Delivering on Our Promises to Our K-12 Students: The Student Opportunity Act from 2019 was a major win for students across the Commonwealth. However, the combination of high rates of inflation in FY23 and FY24 and a tight inflation cap under the SOA has led to a $465 million gap in district budgets.  As a result, districts across the state are being forced to cut their budgets, lay off educators and staff, and cancel long-needed investments. We must keep our promises to students.

The impact of inflation is being compounded by the impacts of ICE terrorism. Many of our cities have experienced declining attendance in their public schools due to fear of ICE activity. The districts should not be punished for that. 

We further urge you to fix charter school tuition reimbursements so that our public schools are not losing critical funding. Tuition dollars follow students, but if a class size falls from 25 to 23, a school cannot hire 23/25 of a teacher. So many of the costs of education are fixed costs, and siphoning off resources harms the 90% of students who attend local district public schools. 

Our students deserve not only well-funded schools, but also green and healthy schools that focus on the whole student. We urge you to increase funding for capital improvements for school buildings so that students can have the safe and healthy environment conducive to learning, and to provide funding for community schools so that districts can embrace this proven model that empowers students, parents, and educators to collaborate and provide vital wraparound services. 

  • Building on Recent Child Care & Early Ed Investments: Last session, you made historic investments in early education and child care, moving us closer toward a vision of quality and stability for providers, good pay for educators, and affordability and access for families. We join the Common Start Coalition in calling for continued investments:
    • Increasing the number of families receiving child care financial assistance (this was included in the supplemental budget!),
    • Increasing funding for the C3 operational grant program to support child care providers,
    • Moving Massachusetts further toward child care reimbursement rates that cover the true cost of delivering high-quality care, and
    • Delivering much-needed funding for Head Start providers
  • Increasing Funding for Access to Counsel: We join fellow organizations in the Right to Counsel Coalition in urging for an increase to the Access to Counsel pilot (Line Item 0321-1800) from $2.5 million to $4 million. In the first 12-months of funding, legal services opened 1,192 cases. In 87% of the cases closed, tenants have stayed housed or received the time to find new housing
  • Protecting Our Immigrant Communities: Last year’s creation of the Massachusetts Access to Counsel Initiative (MACI), which provides legal aid for individuals in Massachusetts facing Immigration Court proceedings, was a big win, and it has been doing excellent, necessary work already. To meet need, we urge you to fund the program at $15 minimum.

We also urge you to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to immigrant workers who file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).

Thank you for your work on the budget and on this marathon of a hearing. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

MA Needs Same Day Registration

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

Chair Friedman, Chair Peisch, and Members of the Special Joint Committee on Ballot Initiative Petitions:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth. We have been advocating for Same Day Registration since the early years of our organization, and we hope that you take the opportunity to pass this important reform this session (NO. 25-08 An Act relative to election day registration/H.5001).

Tenants moving to a new apartment after getting priced out or evicted by an unscrupulous landlord. Senior citizens looking to downsize and move into a retirement community. Under MA’s current law, if these moves happen too close to an election date, these people—and countless others like them—could lose their right to vote.

That’s because we have an arbitrary and unjust 10-day voter registration cutoff. And shockingly, we’re an outlier in New England for having a cutoff at all. In Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut, eligible voters can register to vote or update their registration at the polls. It’s a simple reform (indeed, NH and ME have done it for decades), and it can boost engagement and improve the efficiency of election administration.

People are more likely to become lifelong voters when they have positive experiences voting. Being turned away because of a clerical error or having to cast a provisional ballot that you are unsure will be counted leaves a voter—who took the time out of their day to go to their polling location and educate themselves about what is on the ballot—feeling demoralized. Same Day Registration ensures that such voters can seamlessly update their registration and have a voting experience they can be confident in.

When democracy is under attack, MA should be taking every step we can to strengthen our democracy. Let’s show our commitment to democracy and improve the voting experience for everyone.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Let’s Protect Our Commonwealth

March 30, 2026

Chair Friedman, Chair Peisch, and members of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions;

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic commonwealth.

We are submitting testimony in opposition to Petition No. 25-17 / H.5006: An Act relative to limiting state tax collection growth and returning surpluses to taxpayers, as well as IN OPPOSITION to Petition No. 25-18 / H.5007: An Act relative to reducing the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4%. 

In 2022, because of your help, Massachusetts did something transformative: we—you, the legislators who placed it in on the ballot; us, the organizations and activists who campaigned for it; and the voters across the Commonwealth—passed the Fair Share Amendment, securing a more progressive tax code and new investments in public education and transportation. 

That new revenue has helped our Commonwealth do great things. It has provided stable funding for universal school meals, ensuring that no children are going hungry during the school day. It has provided funding for free community college, creating new pathways for economic mobility. It has provided more money for child care, to boost stability for child care providers, better pay for educators, and greater affordability for families. It has expanded scholarship programs, increased investments in school facilities, provided new investment in the MBTA and our roads and bridges, and guaranteed better hours and free fares on regional transit authorities. It has made our state more affordable, more accessible, and more welcoming. 

These ballot initiatives want to wipe that—and more—away in order to give more money to the richest residents of the Commonwealth. Only for those richest residents of the Commonwealth will the tax cuts from this question outweigh the likely financial burden of lost public services. 

The idea of a commonwealth is based on the idea that when we pool our resources and all chip in (and those who have more chip in more), we can do much more than we could do just by ourselves. The gain from a small tax cut quickly disappears for regular people if public school quality goes down, public transit becomes unreliable, health care becomes more expensive, and child care options disappear. 

It is clear why this question exists: the corporate titans of the state are unhappy that, for once, the people won, and they want to wrest power back. Having already received massive tax cuts from the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress last year, they want even more. 

The loss of more than $5 billion to the state budget would be damaging in any year. It is catastrophic when we are facing severe funding cuts from the federal government, as well as a federal government that wants to sabotage the foundations of economic prosperity. 

We make our state more affordable through the investments we make and the services we provide to ensure a stable foundation on which all can thrive. We need to do even more than we already are. These questions would undo recent progress and make those goals even further out of reach. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

Testimony in Support of Rent Control Ballot Question

Saturday, March 21, 2026

Chair Friedman, Chair Peisch, and Members of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge a favorable report for H.5008: An Act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases. 

Massachusetts has a lot to offer, but that does little if people can’t afford to live here. The US News & World Report’s annual state rankings put Massachusetts at #47 in affordability. A worker earning minimum wage in Massachusetts would have to work 101 hours a week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at market rate. [2] 

Clearly, Massachusetts has an affordable housing crisis. This is unsustainable. It has led to expanding economic inequality, increased homelessness, and damage to our economy, as talented workers often leave the state for less expensive regions. Too many of us know stories of friends, family members, or neighbors being priced out of neighborhood then city then state. 

The crisis in outmigration we face is not billionaires moving to Florida. It is of working people not able to afford the cost of living here. 

Solving this affordable housing crisis will require us to use every tool in the toolbox. That requires zoning reform that encourages the creation of walkable, sustainable, and inclusive communities. It requires public investment. And it requires strengthening tenant protections that ensure that communities can remain affordable, inclusive, and stable.

AWe cannot build our way out of the crisis alone because the people at the highest risk for displacement will already be pushed out before they can benefit from any medium to long-term reduction in rents. Rent control offers the essential stability needed while other strategies can work to bring down rents overall, through building and financing schemes. 

At its core, rent control is about offering price stability to renters. We know what price stability looks like. It’s what homeowners with mortgages are given. Why should renters not have the same predictability? 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: “The Best Time to Ban Collaboration with ICE is Yesterday. The Second Best Time is Now.”

Thursday, March 4, 2026

Chair Cahill and Members of the House Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

Thank you so much for holding today’s public forum. I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

Since taking office, Donald Trump has made it his mission to terrorize immigrant communities across the country, including here in the Commonwealth. The violent, reckless, and blatantly racist nature of ICE activities have been making communities less safe. They are not enforcing laws; they are violating them with abandon and impunity, a secret police that is occupying cities, engaging in large-scale racial profiling, and committing murder.

We appreciate the work that the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus has put into the creation of the PROTECT Act (H.5158). Good policy comes from consulting both people on the ground and policy experts, and they have done this to put together a multi-part bill addressing problems that have gotten worse and problems that have newly arisen.

The most important action that Massachusetts can take right now is to establish clearly in our laws that our state and local law enforcement will not be collaborating formally or informally with ICE.

First, Massachusetts must ensure that our state and local law enforcement are never deputized as ICE agents. Despite the massive infusions of money into ICE, Trump knows that he cannot achieve his full detention and deportation agenda on the basis of existing staffing: he needs state and local law enforcement to do the work for him to extend reach. Since Trump took office, we have seen a rapid rise in the number of 287(g) agreements across the country. We must be proactive in ensuring that these agreements do not spread across Massachusetts.

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington have all taken action. We should too, and we should follow their lead in passing a ban without any loopholes.

Second, we need to ensure that our local law enforcement are not assisting ICE. When the line between local public safety officials and federal immigration enforcement get blurred, communities become less safe.

The PROTECT Act’s ban on police asking about immigration status is critical in this regard. When people fear that reporting a crime could lead to the deportation of themselves or a loved one, then they will be less likely to do so, and that will tip the scales in abusive power dynamics–whether abusive spouses, exploitative bosses, predatory landlords, or more.

Similarly, we support the bill’s prohibition on police and court staff sharing non-public information with ICE and the prohibition on the use of state and local resources for the primary purpose of facilitating civil immigration enforcement–although removing the word “primary” will close what could become a dangerous and exploitable loophole.

The PROTECT Act’s protections are critical, and they must extend to all levels of law enforcement, including state agencies, municipalities, and county sheriffs. The majority of 287(g) agreements around the country are signed by sheriffs. We used to have such county-level agreements, and we need to make sure none of them come back.

Let’s be clear: the best time to ban collaboration with ICE is yesterday. The second best time is today.

Finally, if we want to have a justice system in this country, then people need to feel safe going to courthouses, whether as a plaintiff, as a defendant, or as a witness. We support the protections of courthouses because they make sure that due process, a bedrock right, still exists.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: MA Needs to Opt Out of Trump’s Regressive Tax Cuts

Thursday, February 12, 2026 

Chair Madaro, Chair Eldridge, and Members of the Joint Committee on Revenue: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic commonwealth.

Since taking office just over a year ago, the Trump administration, along with the Republican Congress, have been hard at work to redistribute wealth in this country upwards and to take an axe to government services. They have been clear that their agenda is to make government work worse for everyday people: less responsive, less knowledgeable, less efficient. 

The regressive corporate tax cuts in the “Big Ugly Bill” were central to that agenda: they exist to increase the economic and political power of the rich and to force cuts to essential services that we all rely on. 

Last summer, our Congressional delegation was united in voting NO on that bill. We should send a clear NO to allowing the tax changes from it to be automatically written into our tax code. 

The Governor’s proposal to protect Massachusetts from the massive budget impact of the Trump corporate tax cuts this fiscal year is important, but it’s not enough: we shouldn’t adopt these Trump’s regressive corporate tax breaks at all.

Permanently preventing state-level adoption of the Trump corporate tax cuts would preserve  $463 million in state revenue in this year’s budget alone and an additional $990 million over the next five years. That is money that can be invested in health care, in education, in food assistance, in transportation, and in so much more, at a time when the federal government is no longer a partner but often an active saboteur. 

We don’t need to bribe corporations by throwing money at them for research investments they made years ago in other states. Our investments in our Commonwealth are what make it a good place to do business. The idea that we would spend vital resources on such corporate handouts when our state remains one of the most unequal is galling. 

When we fight to do big things in the Commonwealth, we so often hear that “we don’t have the money.” That same line is rarely invoked when it comes to corporate handouts. But let me be clear: we don’t have the money to do this right now given looming federal cuts. 

Other states across the country have already taken action. Let’s not wait too long to join them. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

Testimony: Zero Carbon Renovation Funding in the Mass Ready Act

Progressive Mass joined a coalition testimony in support of including the Zero Carbon Renovation Fund in the environmental bond bill.

January 13, 2026

Senator Paul W. Mark, Acting Chair

Representative Michael J. Finn, Chair

Representative John H. Rogers, Vice Chair

Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets

Attn: Gabrielle Hanson, 24 Beacon St Room 504

Boston, MA 02133

Re: Zero Carbon Renovation Funding in the Mass Ready Act

Dear Acting Chair Mark, Chair Finn, Vice Chair Rogers, and Members of the Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony concerning S.2542, An Act to build resilience for Massachusetts communities (the Mass Ready Act). Our Zero Carbon Renovation Fund Coalition is supportive of this bill and believes it can be strengthened by including additional decarbonization funding for frontline communities. Luckily, H.3577/S.2286, An Act establishing a Zero Carbon Renovation Fund, sponsored by Senator Gomez and Representatives Vargas and Cruz, would do just that.

The Zero Carbon Renovation Fund Coalition has over 200 member organizations representing 80,000 units of affordable housing, and working at the intersection of housing, health, community, and climate. We are united in the idea that equitable building decarbonization is critical for the health, wealth, and safety of our communities long-term.

Decarbonization involves improving a building’s envelope, transitioning it to clean energy sources, adding on-site power generation, and using less energy-intensive building materials. These practices make buildings more resilient in the face of floods, heat waves, and other extreme weather events,while mitigating climate change.

The state has started to invest in decarbonization for affordable housing and other priority sectors through programs at DOER, HLC, and Mass Save. Current and expected decarbonization sources for Massachusetts’ affordable housing sector total approximately $500M. But this is not enough.

The cost to decarbonize affordable housing units is currently tracking between $50K-$150K more per unit than a business-as-usual retrofit. Scaled up to over 200,000 units of multifamily affordable housing in MA translates to at least $10B-$30B of investment that will be needed for the affordable housing sector alone to meet our state’s climate goals by 2050.

The inclusion of H.3577/S.2286 will provide funding to catalyze an equitable transition to a clean

energy future that simultaneously advances climate resiliency and improves physical and financial security for frontline communities. It will prioritize Environmental Justice communities, Gateway Cities, low-and moderate-income housing, municipal buildings, and minority-and women-owned businesses. As existing buildings in Massachusetts contribute nearly one third of all carbon emissions, a focus on making this clean energy transition is essential if we are to create a sustainable and resilient future for our children. While H.3577/S.2286 allocates $300 million in funding for these retrofits, we believe that $50 million would be an adequate investment to start this crucial work.

We encourage you to include this language in the version of the Environmental Bond Bill that this Committee reports, so we can move a step closer to the clean and resilient energy future our communities and neighbors deserve. If you have questions, feel free to reach out to ZCRF Committee Chair Emily Jones at ejones@lisc.org. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Testimony: MA Must Stand Up for Our Immigrant Communities

Tuesday, November 25, 2025 

Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary: 

Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. We urge you to give a favorable report to S.1122/H.1588: An Act relative to immigration detention and collaboration agreements and S.1127/H.1954: An Act ensuring access to equitable representation in immigration proceedings. 

This Thanksgiving, families will be gathering across Massachusetts. But at many tables, there will be missing chairs due to the kidnapping of our immigrant friends and neighbors by ICE agents. 

Since Trump took office in January, ICE has escalated its activities in Massachusetts, terrorizing immigrant communities. ICE arrests have gone up by more than 250% since last year, driven by their targeting of individuals without criminal records. ICE has brutalized children, torn families apart, and engaged in rampant racial profiling. With Congress approving $170 billion to expand deportations, this will only get worse. 

Our immigrant communities are helping to keep our communities healthy, they are innovating and educating, and they are helping us build a better future for all of us. We need to do right by them. 

Immigrants’ rights advocates from across the Commonwealth our aligned on what steps that you can take as a Legislature to protect communities: 

  1. Prohibit new 287(g) agreements

Massachusetts should follow the steps of seven other states and prohibit any new 287(g) agreements. These agreements, in which state and local police are deputized as federal immigration agents, threaten public safety by diminishing trust, overburdening public financial and managerial capacity, distracting from real threats to public safety, and breaking apart communities. 

  1. Prevent partnerships between local law enforcement and ICE

It’s simple: local law enforcement should be focused on keeping communities safe and preventing and investigating crime. Getting involved with immigration raids and arrests diverts time, money, and resources from this goal and undermines the trust on which public safety depends. 

  1. Prohibit local law enforcement from asking about immigration status 

If people fear that interacting with law enforcement could lead to the deportation of them or their loved ones, they will not feel comfortable doing so. This means that incidents of domestic violence, wage theft, and other abuses will go unreported, and communities will be less safe. 

  1. Create a legal aid fund for immigrants at imminent risk of deportation 

Access to counsel matters: detained immigrants with a lawyer are 10 times more likely to win their case than those without. Shockingly, a majority of immigrants with pending cases in MA are navigating their cases without a lawyer.

This bill would remedy that and build into statute an important step that your chambers took in the FY 2026 budget. Similar programs already exist in California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. 

The Trump administration is creating never-ending, everyday crises for so many of our residents. Communities across the Commonwealth need you to lead. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts 

Testimony: Welcoming Communities Are Safe Communities

Tuesday, November 25, 2025 

Chair Cronin, Chair Cahill, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety: 

Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. We urge you to give a favorable report to H.2580 / S.1681, An Act To Protect The Civil Rights And Safety Of All Massachusetts Residents.

This Thanksgiving, families will be gathering across Massachusetts. But at many tables, there will be missing chairs due to the kidnapping of our immigrant friends and neighbors by ICE agents. 

Since Trump took office in January, ICE has escalated its activities in Massachusetts, terrorizing immigrant communities. ICE arrests have gone up by more than 250% since last year, driven by their targeting of individuals without criminal records. ICE has brutalized children, torn families apart, and engaged in rampant racial profiling. With Congress approving $170 billion to expand deportations, this will only get worse. 

Our immigrant communities are helping to keep our communities healthy, they are innovating and educating, and they are helping us build a better future for all of us. We need to do right by them. 

Immigrants’ rights advocates from across the Commonwealth our aligned on what steps that you can take as a Legislature to protect communities: 

  1. Prohibit new 287(g) agreements

Massachusetts should follow the steps of seven other states and prohibit any new 287(g) agreements. These agreements, in which state and local police are deputized as federal immigration agents, threaten public safety by diminishing trust, overburdening public financial and managerial capacity, distracting from real threats to public safety, and breaking apart communities. 

  1. Prevent partnerships between local law enforcement and ICE

It’s simple: local law enforcement should be focused on keeping communities safe and preventing and investigating crime. Getting involved with immigration raids and arrests diverts time, money, and resources from this goal and undermines the trust on which public safety depends. 

  1. Prohibit local law enforcement from asking about immigration status 

If people fear that interacting with law enforcement could lead to the deportation of them or their loved ones, they will not feel comfortable doing so. This means that incidents of domestic violence, wage theft, and other abuses will go unreported, and communities will be less safe. 

The Trump administration is creating never-ending, everyday crises for so many of our residents. Communities across the Commonwealth need you to lead. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

Testimony: MA Needs Action on Our Housing Crisis

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

Chair Cyr, Chair Haggerty, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing. 

I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We see it all the time in polls, we hear it on the doors, and we see it in the data: Massachusetts has a housing crisis. More and more residents are unable to afford to live in our commonwealth anymore, priced out from one community to another and then out entirely, or face severe housing instability. 

We need a comprehensive approach to the housing crisis, and strong protections for tenants must be a part of it. We urge you to give a favorable report to H.2328: An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants, H.1544 / S.998: An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal, and S.968: An Act promoting access to counsel and housing stability in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a lot to offer, but that does little if people can’t afford to live here. The US News & World Report’s annual state rankings put Massachusetts at #47 in housing affordability. [1] A worker earning minimum wage in Massachusetts would have to work 91 hours a week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at market rate. [2] 

Clearly, Massachusetts has an affordable housing crisis. This is unsustainable. It has led to expanding economic inequality, increased homelessness, and damage to our economy, as talented workers often leave the state for less expensive regions.

Solving this affordable housing crisis will require us to use every tool in the toolbox. That requires zoning reform that encourages the creation of walkable, sustainable, and inclusive communities. It requires public investment. And it requires strengthening tenant protections that ensure that communities can remain affordable, inclusive, and stable.

However, municipalities across Massachusetts are blocked from taking the necessary steps to address the housing crisis. The misguided statewide ban on rent stabilization policies and a stringent home rule system that prevents municipalities from passing their own laws to govern the basic aspects of civil affairs hamstring municipalities.

By enabling our cities and towns to pass rent control ordinances tailored to their local needs, we can stem the displacement that is hitting so many communities.

We cannot build our way out of the crisis alone because the people at the highest risk for displacement will already be pushed out before they can benefit from any medium to long-term reduction in rents.

There is a lot of fear-mongering around rent control, but I want to make a simple point. If you don’t think a landlord should be able to double or triple someone’s rent in a year after doing no work on the property, you believe in rent control, and the question is just a matter of percentages and exemptions.

On too many issues, Massachusetts is haunted by the ghosts of ill-advised ballot initiatives past. It’s 2023, and we need to act like it.

Empowering cities and towns to respond to our housing crisis also requires passing the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA). The TOPA bill, which is similarly an enabling bill, recognizes that we need to preserve our affordable housing stock. Too often, when large landlords sell a building, a mass eviction or rent hike follows for the tenants. TOPA shows that there is another way: as has been a proven success in DC for decades, we could enable tenants to come together to purchase the building—and be granted the right of first refusal in doing so. It’s a common-sense policy for community stability and affordable housing at no cost to the state.

Finally, the Legislature has made a commitment to access to counsel in the most recent budget cycle. However, we need to make this permanent in statute. S.968 bill would provide legal representation for low-income tenants and low-income owner-occupants in eviction proceedings. The eviction moratorium that the Legislature passed earlier in the pandemic was a vital lifeline for so many, but eviction filings have now been climbing past what they were in 2019, pre-pandemic. Tenants enter such eviction proceedings at a major disadvantage: according to FY2024 Trial Court data, while 90% of landlords are represented, less than 5% of tenants are represented. Tenants facing eviction are disproportionately poor, female, and BIPOC, and evictions can have lasting negative impacts on physical and mental health.

Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Washington have already passed Right to Counsel policies, and Massachusetts should join them. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts