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

Testimony: MA Needs Right to Counsel

Wednesday, October 22, 2025 

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

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.1952: An Act promoting access to counsel and housing stability in Massachusetts.

These bills 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 

Testimony: The Solution to Homelessness is Homes, Not Criminalization

Wednesday, October 22, 2025 

Chair Livingstone, Chair Kennedy, and Members of the Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities: 

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 urge you to give a favorable report to H.274: An Act establishing a bill of rights for individuals experiencing homelessness.

The solution to homelessness is clear: giving people homes. But too often, municipalities see the solution as criminalization and punishment instead, worsening the underlying problems and forcing individuals into vicious cycles of incarceration and housing instability.

As rents and housing prices skyrocket in Massachusetts, an increasing number of families face housing instability, experiencing short-term or long-term homelessness. We desperately need comprehensive action to address our housing crisis and to secure housing for those currently without it. However, we also need to ensure that misguided and archaic laws do not make it more difficult for individuals to obtain housing.

These bills would rectify this status quo by extending anti-discrimination protections to persons experiencing homelessness, including protections when seeking employment, housing, voter registration, and access to public spaces and places of public accommodation. They would also ensure that individuals experiencing homelessness are not being criminalized for existing in public space, protecting their right to rest, seek shelter from the elements, occupy a legally parked car, pray, eat, and avoid needless harassment in public spaces.

H.274 is essential to ensuring Massachusetts is a state that treats all residents with dignity and respect, and we urge you to give it your support.

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

Real Estate Transfer Fees Are a Critical Tool for Addressing Our Housing Crisis

Tuesday, September 9, 2025

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

I am writing on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.1937/H.3056: An Act granting a local option for a real estate transfer fee to fund affordable housing, filed by Sen. Jo Comerford and Reps. Mike Connolly and Carmine Gentile.

Massachusetts has a housing crisis. We see it in every survey of top issues among residents. We see it in the rising home prices and the number of communities where the median home sale has passed $1 million. We see it in the way that growth in rents has outpaced growth in wages. And we see it in the number of young families or long-term residents who decide to move out of state because they simply can’t afford the high cost of housing in Massachusetts.

Our cities and towns need every tool in the toolbox to address our state’s housing crisis, and a real estate transfer fee would provide a crucial one. By imposing a small fee on high-end real estate transactions, communities will be able to provide much-needed funding to affordable housing trusts so that we can preserve and expand affordable housing stock. These bills recognize that each community’s housing situation is different and thus enable cities and towns to craft the proposal that best fits their community’s needs.

Cities and towns from across the Commonwealth have already filed home rule petitions to do this. When our cities and towns want to become places where people can afford to live at every stage of life, the State Legislature should support them, not get in the way.

Thank you for your work on the hearing, and again we urge a favorable report on S.1937 and H.3056.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

“Why should renters not have the same predictability? “

Chair Lewis, Chair Rausch, and Members of the Joint Committee: 

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 S.1447: An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants.

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.

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.

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

Let Your Legislators Know: MA Wants Rent Control

Massachusetts has a housing crisis, and we need every tool in the toolbox.

Too many working-class individuals and families are being priced out of their communities and the Commonwealth entirely due to ever-growing rents. But Beacon Hill can take action.

Join Homes for All Massachusetts tomorrow for a rally in the State House (Grand Staircase) the State House at 11:30 am before the 1 pm hearing on rent control at 1 pm in Gardner Auditorium.

Here’s what you need to prepare:

  1. RSVP for rally here
  2. Find the testimony guide here
  3. Email written testimony here: jointcommittee.municipalities&regionalgovernment@malegislature.gov
  4. Email your state rep and state senator in support.

Healey Wants to Spend $360 Million on a New Prison. Tell Her No Way. For years, our friends at Families for Justice as Healing have been organizing against a proposed $50 million new women’s prison to replace MCI-Framingham. How has Governor Maura Healey responded? By proposing a $360 million new women’s prison. Incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women and girls have been clear: what we need is not a new prison, but greater programming for those currently incarcerated, better reentry programs for people when they return to community, and greater community investments in housing, health care, education, and economic security and opportunity. Think of how much that $360 million could do if it went instead to keeping communities safe and ending cycles of incarceration and harm. Join FJaH in telling Governor Healey to stop the $360 million new women’s prison with the action toolkit at bit.ly/FreeHerMA.

Call daily between 9am and 5pm only – (617) 725-4005 Email any time using this form: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/email-the-governors-office Sample Email/Script: “Hello, my name is _________________ and I am your constituent. I oppose your plan to build a $360 million women’s prison. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on prison construction is not investing in people’s wellbeing and will not make our communities safer. Our communities need this money for housing, healing, healthcare, treatment and more. We could actually make Massachusetts a model for the rest of the country by releasing many more women and implementing alternatives to incarceration rather than building yet another prison.” Share Your Fair Share Story On November 8, 2022, Massachusetts voters passed Question 1: the Fair Share Amendment. We chose a fairer tax system, guaranteeing that the richest one percent will pay more to fund our public schools, colleges, roads, bridges, and public transit. Now, Fair Share is at work, already funding more than $6 billion in transportation and public education investments—with more to come. See a list of Fair Share investments to date at fairsharema.com. How is the Fair Share Amendment positively impacting your life, family or work? Are your children receiving free school meals, or learning in a newly-renovated school building? Are you riding a regional transit authority bus for free, or paying a reduced fare on the MBTA? Are you attending tuition-community college, or receiving state financial aid to make public college more affordable? Are you driving on newly paved roads, or riding on subway trains that are faster? Are you receiving child care financial assistance, or sending your child to a child care program that’s benefitted from new grants to child care providers? Is your city or town receiving more money for local roads and schools? (hint: if you live in Massachusetts, the answer is YES!) Raise Up Massachusetts is collecting stories about the many ways the Fair Share Amendment is making a difference in the lives of Massachusetts residents. If you have a story about how Fair Share is positively impacting your life, family or work, please share it with us here.
SHARE YOUR STORY
Progressive Mass’s New “Power Lunch” Series What comes after calling your state rep and state senator? Getting others to do so as well. Join Progressive Mass for our “Power Lunch” phone bank series (Thursdays at noon), where we will be building our collective power in service of a better Commonwealth for all.

In solidarity,
Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts

MA Passed a Budget on Time. What’s in It?

Let’s start out with the ugly, and then the good and the bad.

The UGLY: Yesterday, the US Senate passed a horror show of a budget to take away health care access and food assistance in order to fund tax cuts for the mega-rich and large corporations, and to create a police state in the US by increasing ICE’s budget several times over. If passed, it will be a disaster for the country and for Massachusetts. If you have friends in other states who have Republican Senators or Representatives, ask them to make a phone call in opposition to the Big Ugly Bill.

THE GOOD: On Monday, the Massachusetts State House did something it hasn’t done since 2016: it passed a budget before the end of the fiscal year.

There are some major victories in this budget to celebrate:

  • Banning tenant-paid broker’s fees
  • $2.5 million in continued funding for an access to counsel program, which provides legal representation to low-income tenants facing eviction
  • $5 million for an immigrant legal defense fund
  • Permanently fare-free regional transit authorities
  • Increased funding for our public schools

THE BAD: But there were also disappointments in the budget:

  • Only $1 million in dedicated funding for No Cost Calls implementation
  • Less funding for local aid
  • Insufficient funding for housing safety net programs
  • Insufficient funds for SNAP case workers

Read more about the state budget here, here, and here.

Write to your legislator to express your support for the budget wins and your disappointment with what was left out.

Email Your Legislators


Healey Wants to Spend $360 Million on a New Prison. Tell Her No Way.

For years, our friends at Families for Justice as Healing have been organizing against a proposed $50 million new women’s prison to replace MCI-Framingham.

How has Governor Maura Healey responded? By proposing a $360 million new women’s prison.

Incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women and girls have been clear: what we need is not a new prison, but greater programming for those currently incarcerated, better reentry programs for people when they return to community, and greater community investments in housing, health care, education, and economic security and opportunity.

Think of how much that $360 million could do if it went instead to keeping communities safe and ending cycles of incarceration and harm.

Join FJaH in telling Governor Healey to stop the $360 million new women’s prison with the action toolkit at bit.ly/FreeHerMA.

Call daily between 9am and 5pm only – (617) 725-4005

Email any time using this form: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/email-the-governors-office Sample Email/Script:

“Hello, my name is _________________ and I am your constituent. I oppose your plan to build a $360 million women’s prison. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on prison construction is not investing in people’s wellbeing and will not make our communities safer. Our communities need this money for housing, healing, healthcare, treatment and more. We could actually make Massachusetts a model for the rest of the country by releasing many more women and implementing alternatives to incarceration rather than building yet another prison.”


Another Budget Takeaway: Fair Share Delivers

One major budget takeaway: The Fair Share Amendment has been delivering even more than expected, and it has proven essential. The Fair Share Amendment has been producing even more revenue than projected, and it has made possible critical new investments in education and transportation. Learn more about its $6 billion in positive impact so far at https://www.fairsharema.com/.


New Tools in the Toolbox Required for the Housing Crisis

Wednesday, June 24, 2025

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

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

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.971: An Act reforming the housing development incentive program and H.1478: An Act advancing the Massachusetts social housing program. Both of these bills would help spur the development of the mixed-income housing that our Commonwealth desperately needs.

Last session, your chambers voted to increase funding for the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP), which provides subsidies for new development in gateway cities. Although our gateway cities can benefit from housing production, this program too often ends ups subsidizing units with shockingly high rents in hot markets in little need of the “carrot” of tax incentives.

Zoning reforms are necessary to encourage transit-oriented development in all communities and to encourage the construction of more multifamily housing and fewer McMansion single-family homes. However, housing advocates are routinely told that there is not enough money for subsidies for low-income housing, affordable housing, and public housing while the state provides greater subsidies to high-end units.

This weekend, the Boston Globe reported on the freeze on housing vouchers in the Commonwealth due to increasing rents and funding uncertainties. Why are subsidies for high-end housing flowing when vouchers are being frozen?

The HDIP program would benefit from reforms to ensure that it does produce affordable units. S.971 would do just that, turning HDIP into a program to support mixed-income development and recognizing that we need more housing at all income levels.

Social housing has been a proven model for building mixed-income housing, combining the benefits of traditional public housing with the cash flow of market-rate development. This recognizes the public interest in building housing for a wide range of incomes, and buildings can often be designed to be 1/3 low-income, 1/3 middle-income, and 1/3 higher-income.

When thinking of the type of housing H.1478 would create, I think of my neighbors in Tent City, a mixed-income building in the South End that was the result of years of activism by Mel King and housing justice activists. It remains a thriving community, and our Commonwealth would benefit from more like it.

Dedicated funding for social housing would help our Commonwealth reach our overall housing production goals as well meet the increase in affordable housing needed to meet demand. The issue has been gaining momentum in recent years, and your chambers included some money for a pilot program in the Affordable Homes Act. But we must do more. Our housing crisis demands an “every tool in the toolbox” approach, and this is an essential tool.

We also urge you to reject legislation that would weaken new tools embraced by the Commonwealth. To give one example, the Accessory Dwelling Unit language in the Affordable Homes Act was an important win, and S.1002 (An Act relative to accessory dwelling units on smaller lots) would undermine that. We urge you to give it an adverse report.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

“DC Attacks, MA Fights Back: The White House vs. Housing for All” Links & Follow-ups

Thank you so much for joining this evening for our forum “DC Attacks, MA Fights Back: The White House vs. Housing for All”! And thank you again to our amazing speakers! 

If you missed it or wanted to rewatch any of it, the video is available here: https://youtu.be/zGz5C9IUUyY.

Our speakers referenced a few bills at the MA State House: 

Real Estate Transfer Fee (H.3056 / S.1937): An Act granting a local option for a real estate transfer fee to fund affordable housing
Rent Stabilization (H.2328 / S.1447): An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants 
Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (H.1544 / S.998):  An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal

Find out if your legislators are already co-sponsoring these bills by looking at our Scorecard website. If they already are, thank them, and if not, urge them to do so. You can find sample email text (as well as more info) for each bill in the links above. 

We also spoke about housing issues in the FY 2026 budget being negotiated right now. Write to your state legislators in support of key budget priorities here.

MA Senate Votes to Restrict Access to Emergency Shelter…Again

While Republicans in DC are creating havoc and letting white supremacist Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk dismantle the federal government, what are Democrats in Massachusetts doing? Are they taking steps to protect MA from the barrage of cruelty coming from DC? Are they charting a vision for what progressive governance looks like?

No, the first bill passed by the MA Senate this new session was to kick unhoused families out on the streets. 

As explained by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, for over 40 years, the Emergency Assistance (EA) shelter program has provided shelter and services to eligible Massachusetts children and families experiencing homelessness. This program represents a commitment to protect children and families in the greatest need.

However, for over a year, Governor Healey and the MA Legislature have been chipping away at the right to shelter in our Commonwealth. The shameful restrictions passed yesterday chip away even more by reducing the length of stay even further, excluding many immigrant families, and increasing the administrative burden to gain access to emergency shelter.

The Legislature could have listened to experts and providers about how to meet needs while addressing the growing costs of the shelter system. Instead, they chose to restrict access, a strategy that will displace costs rather than reduce them. Shelter restrictions are both harmful and ineffective. It is also clear that the system has a management problem, and that solving that is the only way to responsibly and humanely control costs. Remember: no one wants to end up in emergency shelter, contrary to what some right-wingers say; you only end up in emergency shelter when you have nowhere else.

Following the House’s vote last week, the Senate voted 33 to 6 to pass the bill. As in the House, the only Democrat to vote NO was a conservative Democrat (here, John Velis of Westfield) joining Republicans in opposition to spending, no in opposition to access.

68 amendments were filed:

  • 1 was laid aside
  • 7 received recorded votes (2 adopted, 5 rejected)
  • 11 were withdrawn without vote or debate
  • 11 were adopted without a vote (mostly on data collection and reporting)
  • 38 were rejected without a vote or debate (including numerous amendments to restore access)

The two adopted with recorded votes, both by Sen. Michael Moore (D-Auburn), were both unanimously approved:

  • 38 to 0 to require the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) to study the feasibility of conducting a National Crime Information Center background check for each adult applicant or beneficiary placed in the emergency housing assistance program, including logistics and cost.
  • 38 to 0 to require EOHLC to develop a statewide safety plan for the emergency shelter system

Four out of the five rejected amendments were from Republicans:

  • 8 to 30 to limit emergency shelter access to individuals whose cause of homelessness occurred in Massachusetts, thereby excluding new arrivals and creating additional administrative burden for residents. Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth), and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joined the 5 Republicans.

  • 12 to 26 to increase the cost of the system and administrative burden for those seeking emergency shelter, further restricting access, through requiring universal background checks when the bill already contains language to look into what that would entail. The purpose of the amendment was not safety, but demonizing immigrants and the unhoused to advance a right-wing agenda. 7 Democrats joined the 5 Republicans: Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield).

  • 6 to 32 to limit emergency shelter access to individuals who have lived in Massachusetts for at least a year, excluding new arrivals and creating additional administrative burden for residents. Nick Collins (D-South Boston) joined the 5 Republicans.

  • 6 to 32 to require an investigation into security lapses in the emergency shelter system, something that would just become an opportunity for fear-mongering and not actual solutions. Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joined the 5 Republicans.

The Senate also voted down (10 to 28) an amendment from Sen. Becca Rausch (D-Needham) to require the inspector to conduct a review and analysis of all contracts, expenditures, and other materials or accountings pertaining to goods or services that have been or should have been provided pursuant to or in connection with the emergency.

The vote was a cross-partisan coalition of the five Republicans, 2 progressive Democrats–Rausch as well as Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough), and 3 moderate Democrats–John Keenan (D-Quincy), Edward Kennedy (D-Lowell), and Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford).