Property Rights Victories: Why We Need Your Continued Support

Dear SPOA Members and Supporters:

Our battle for property rights and fair housing policy has felt like a roller coaster for the past two years! We thank you for riding with us. Your support was crucial to ensuring that small property owners were heard at the Massachusetts State House, enabling us to secure significant victories in the legislature this past session! THANK YOU AGAIN!

Before recapping our accomplishments, we must stress that the battle is by no means over against a well organized — and well financed — anti property rights movement that will return next session with a vengeance!

Already, rent control and “social justice” activists are re-organizing to recycle the same dangerous and failed policy proposals that will devastate the housing industry, our communities, and the many tenants who depend on us to provide them with safe and affordable housing. Thus, we need your continued support NOW more than ever! 

The roller coaster will continue to speed up and down, while swerving in different directions. But if we stick together as before, we can emerge victorious. Are you ready to get back on board the train with us?

Never before have small property owners faced so many threats coming out of Beacon Hill.

From defeating rent control to fighting onerous mandates that would have made it impossible to run our businesses, SPOA has been front and center through all the ups and downs this legislative session, working hard, testifying on Beacon Hill, and playing a critical role advocating for you.

Thanks to those who stepped up to support us, we are happy to report that the 193rd session of the Massachusetts Legislature was one of our most successful ever!!!!! Your phone calls, emails, and face to face meetings with your elected representatives made a BIG difference.

The dust is still settling, but here are some highlights:

1. We played a leading role raising the alarm against efforts to reimplement rent control. In 1994, SPOA successfully led the referendum fight to rid the scourge of rent control from Massachusetts, before preventing its return several more times during the following years. Defeating rent control will always be our first priority.

2. We helped defeat a mandatory “right of first refusal” law, otherwise known as TOPA (Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act), that would have interfered with your right to buy and sell rental property.

3. We put the brakes on a bill that was sailing through the House that would have made it practically illegal to use credit reports to screen prospective tenants without property owners facing 93A laws as a result.

4. We joined a coalition of real estate groups to kill “transfer taxes” on residential and commercial real estate sales — even though everyone predicted at the start of the session that a new sales tax on property was a sure thing. We proved them wrong!

5. We defeated a Senate initiative that would have forced owners to pay broker fees.

6. We went to the state house and testified in support of a new law that will create more accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which will give our members the opportunity to provide more affordable housing options to those who need it most — all without government intervention.

7. Although we are not happy about any type of record sealing, the legislature also passed a more moderate version of eviction sealing that was negotiated with the Greater Boston Real Estate Board (GBREB). Although this bill is not perfect, it is more reasonable than the initial version that would have had dire consequences for property owners and tenants, while hindering the ability to use the tools needed to screen tenants.

8. At the end of the session, we were on red alert, pushing back on Mayor Wu's proposed tax hike on commercial properties. Her circumvention of Proposition 2½ fortuitously died in the Senate. But she still persists in trying to pass it through the Senate, while disparaging the officials who have tried to keep her and her radical plans in check. 

It is important to remember our testimony at the state house on January 18, 2024, when we swam in hostile waters opposing the proposed transfer tax. But we persisted in calling for property owners to be included at the table to increase the supply and affordability of housing. This shows that determination, backed by logic, can change minds! 

While there is much to celebrate, we can't stress enough the importance of your involvement and the need to donate to SPOA. We also need all of you to help SPOA recruit more members, in order to strengthen our voice further. 

We were successful this session because we were in the thick of the fight. Our experienced lobbying team were on the ground helping us and our members attend countless meetings and hearings — talking to our legislators to advance our cause.

As always, we have continued to update you about pending legislation through our regular email updates. In addition, we bring you monthly installments of our newsletter and more episodes of our podcast, SPOA Housing Policy Series, in which we discuss important housing issues with a variety of panelists, including small property owners and their attorneys, real estate experts and advocates, government officials, people running for office, and news media reporters. We also continue to give our own interviews with the media and to have our own articles published in the mainstream press.

While this work is significant, the fact that we are volunteers highlights the need to increase the support and the donations that we receive from all of you. It's our pleasure to fight for your property rights and the housing industry in Massachusetts, but we can't do it without your help!

It is absolutely critical to continue our recent momentum in building a stronger movement!

Once again — despite our success this legislative session — we know that the other side will re-emerge to push even harder for the same anti business policy proposals that will harm the preservation of existing housing, and its stakeholders, in Massachusetts. So we need to be prepared!

Please encourage other owners, as well as like-minded people who seek a fair and level playing field in housing, to join us and to donate now! You can write your check to “SPOA, Inc.”and send it to 840 Summer Street Boston, MA 02127. Or you can donate online at www.spoa.com/join

Please consider donating one of the following amounts listed below, or whatever you can afford.

$250 $500 $1,000 $2,000

On behalf of everyone at SPOA, thank you for helping us achieve positive results during this legislative session. Now it's time to get back on board the train to continue the good fight. Please get on board with us now — and bring others with you.

Sincerely,

Allison Drescher
President, SPOA

Amir Shahsavari
Vice President, SPOA

P.S. Please remember to donate to SPOA today by contributing $250, $500, $1,000, $2,000, or whatever you can afford. If you would like to help us recruit more members or volunteer, please contact Amir Shahsavari at askspoa@gmail.com to discuss further. Thank you again!

by Allison Drescher and Amir Shahsavari

SPOA Releases Episode 10 of Housing Policy Series with "Professional Tenants Exposed"

The Small Property Owners Association (SPOA) has released Episode 10 of SPOA Housing Policy Series, which is called "Professional Tenants Exposed."

The conversation addresses the dangers posed by "professional tenants" who prey upon rental housing providers. Although they can often afford to pay rent, these types of tenants refuse to do so deliberately, in order to live rent-free at the expense of the property owner. They are also skilled in prolonging an already long eviction process, as they plan for the next place to live and the next property owner to victimize.

Investigative reporter Ryan Kath and producer Shira Stoll of NBC 10 News Boston discuss their three-part news story about Linda and Russell Callahan, a pair of professional tenants who have cheated numerous property owners in Massachusetts and elsewhere for 20 years.

Attorney Jordana Greenman provides legal analysis, while describing the tactics used by professional tenants to commit fraud. She also discusses how the system in Massachusetts overlooks -- and even encourages -- this nefarious behavior. Can the system be reformed, so that property owners won't have to suffer in the shadows any longer?

SPOA Vice President, Amir Shahsavari, moderates the discussion.

SPOA Housing Policy Series
Episode 10
Professional Tenants Exposed

by Amir Shahsavari

The Current State of Affairs in Michelle Wu’s World: A Letter from SPOA’s President

Dear SPOA Members and Supporters:

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu attended the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast on September 25, 2024. Two important issues were raised; NAIOP (Commercial Real Estate Association) formally requested that the implementation of inclusionary zoning requirements be delayed. Mayor Wu was asked about this in a sit down with Chamber President Jim Rooney. These shifts increase the affordable housing requirement for new construction from the existing 13% to 17% and add on top of that a 3% subsidy for housing vouchers — bringing the requirement to 20% on October 1, 2024.

NAIOP President, Tamara Small, wrote by formal letter, “… the regulations will do nothing but further dampen already depressed housing production in the City of Boston, undermining the City’s goals for growth and further driving up the cost of market-rate housing.”

When asked about this by Jim Rooney at the Chamber Breakfast, Mayor Wu answered with a familiar word salad about predictability of policies, saying, “The baseline is the baseline, the rules are the rules.” In other words, no, a delay is not happening.

On the tax shift issue, the mayor gave a similar answer. She bemoaned the restrictions of the state’s Proposition 2.5, confining tax increases to 2.5% plus new growth, and explained this was a problem of allocation, not revenue. $200M of budget cuts are simply not possible and her plan “maintains balance”.

Huh? How many unfunded mandates were created with Covid funds? How did the city not foresee this budget crisis? What is Plan B if this does not get through the senate? It appears this tax shift was an idea recycled by Ashley Groffenberger, Wu’s Chief Financial Officer, formerly the Budget Director for Mayor London Breed in San Francisco.

The debate over Wu’s attempted tax shift plan continued both in a meeting last week with Senate President Karen Spilka and Michelle Wu’s team, as well as Boston leadership. The issue was also addressed on the Friday, September 27, episode of Boston Public Radio with Jim Braude and co-host Andrea Cabral.

As reported in Contrarian Boston, Braude was apparently aghast that a major tax shift proposal potentially effecting Boston’s economy, and therefore the entire state, might require oversight.

“She was elected to run the damn city. Karen Spilka [Senate President], where is she from, Ashland or something? [She] was elected to run state affairs.” lamented Braude.

To make matters worse during Friday’s radio time, co-host Cabral, former state public safety chief, added, “The people who own that property don’t even live in Boston.” As if those owners are not stake-holders who make important contributions to Boston and its economy???

Thus, we thank Senate President Spilka for holding the line on sanity and reason.

Boston City Councilors Ed Flynn and Erin Murphy pushed an alternative that would funnel $45M of city funds towards homeowners. An annual investment of $15M, over three years, currently allocated to help small businesses, could directly fund residents and provide tax relief to 20-30% of Boston homeowners with assessed values under $1.5M. Although the proposal did not seem to attract a lot of attention, we thank Councilors Flynn and Murphy for providing viable alternatives.

Thanks to Jascha Franklin-Hodge, Wu’s Chief of Streets, whose bike lanes have essentially eliminated a lane of traveling traffic throughout Boston, commuters are certainly feeling unwelcome in the city. This impractical plan has doubled commuting times, forced re-routing of the Duck Tours, and abolished parking options for small and large businesses alike — especially with an unreliable public transportation system. No wonder the buses can’t get the children to school on time. Although the mayor’s sneering ideologues consider we should pick up the tab for her bloated budget, we’re getting the picture that we are, in their view, only ancillary contributors to her tax burden, clearly not valued stakeholders.

What else is going well in Boston?

The schools? Contrarian Boston reported on plunging test scores at Boston’s Exam Schools. MCAS results at Boston Latin Academy for English are 35%, down from 57% a year ago. Boston Latin’s scores are down to 67% and the O’Bryant School of Math and Science at 57% where scores once stood at 90%.

Drug use and crime are up in Boston Common, chasing Ben Franklin costumed tour guides from the premises. Zombies cluster in Boston Garden, as well as the Common, perhaps migrating from the open-air drug market at Mass & Cass.

Boston is an economic driver for the state. It also sets the tone for policy discourse throughout Massachusetts. The indignance that Wu should have to seek oversight and cooperation for a $1.5 BILLION budget shortfall seems almost comical.

Therefore, we are asking SPOA members to please contact Senate President Karen Spilka’s office, as well as your state senators, to thank them for being supportive of commercial taxpayers. Please contact her office at 617-722-1500 or Karen.Spilka@masssenate.gov .

It’s only a matter of time before progressives go after Proposition 2.5%, which is the only thing keeping the state afloat. With an unsustainable budget for “new comers,” the only way to move towards any path of sustainability will be through increased taxation. SPOA bets that the increased 4% on the millionaire’s tax, bringing state revenue over $1M to 9%, will in the long-term be looked at as the beginning of the end for doing business in Massachusetts. But increased taxation on all levels from progressive legislators means that creating housing in Boston (and MA) is now not only unprofitable, but untenable.

After our recent missive encouraging the mayor to tighten her belt instead of raising taxes, SPOA was signed up for the Missionary Sisters of the Church of Latter Day Saints. However cute, that type of response mocks policy discussions with serious implications for our members. Despite the fact Wu acolytes don’t like our messaging, we will continue to advocate for property owners throughout the state. It appears they think we should go to church when they, ironically, need divine guidance more than the rest of us.

Yours Sincerely,

Allison Drescher
President, SPOA

P.S. Please remember to contact Senate President Karen Spilka’s office, as well as your state senators, to thank them for being supportive of commercial taxpayers. You can reach Senator Spilka’s office at 617-722-1500 or Karen.Spilka@masssenate.gov

by Allison Drescher

Reforming RAFT to Work As Intended

Rental Assistance for Families in Transition (RAFT) is a longstanding Massachusetts program designed to prevent families experiencing temporary economic distress from being evicted. Awash with federal funding during the pandemic and sustained increased state-level funding, RAFT plays a much larger role today than it has in the past. 

Unfortunately, although RAFT was designed with good intentions, flaws in how it is administered harm tenants acting in good faith and enable abuse by tenants looking to take advantage of the system, harming all renters and property owners in the process.

Currently, RAFT applications submitted by tenants take roughly 35 days for review/processing by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC), the state agency responsible for overseeing the program. Why it takes this long now, whereas previously it was much faster, is unclear. Over this time period, another month of rent comes due, putting tenants further behind on payments. Once applications are approved, landlords have reported being told that RAFT checks are “in the mail”, but these checks often fail to arrive for 14+ days. These baseline delays, coupled with the time costs of participating in the application process, are a significant burden on landlords and put more stress on renters who are in need of assistance.

For tenants acting in good faith, the situation is suboptimal. For tenants looking to take advantage of the system, it creates an untenable scenario for the property owner and opens an “infinite loop” in the system that bad actors take advantage of. Here’s how it works:

• A pandemic-era protection forbade evictions while a RAFT application was pending. This temporary measure, like so many “temporary” expansions of the government’s role in private business, has become permanent.

• A RAFT application can be resubmitted an unlimited number of times.

• A non-paying tenant, who has no intention of paying, can submit a RAFT application, not complete it, pause the eviction process, and then, when the RAFT application times out (after 35+ days), just resubmit and start over again.

• This can go on an arbitrary number of times, creating an indefinite period of nonpayment.

The courts have no answer to this problem. And it is important to highlight that bad actors inflict costs on the whole ecosystem. One reason why rental housing is in short supply and costs are high is that these few bad actors inflict massive costs on operators; because many of those bad actors will never pay, that loss is amortized across everyone else in the form of higher rents.

A related problem is the legal ambiguity regarding landlords’ responsibilities in connection with RAFT. The Attorney General’s office has stated that landlords cannot discriminate against tenants because they plan to use rental assistance programs like RAFT. They have also stated landlords cannot refuse to participate in these rental assistance programs because they prefer cash, are concerned with long approval processes, or don’t want to fill out the required paperwork or otherwise abide by program requirements (see attached document).

These statements may be valid, but they should not be read to imply that landlords have an obligation to accept RAFT in all cases; they are only required not to treat RAFT payments differently from other sources of funds. For instance, if a tenant stops paying rent for multiple months, receives a notice to quit from their landlord, and then applies for RAFT, the landlord still has a contractually and legally valid reason to evict the tenant: their nonpayment of rent. They could choose to engage in RAFT or not just like they could choose to accept extremely late payments to cure the violation or not and simply proceed with the non-payment eviction. This principle is especially salient in cases in which RAFT payments would not cover the amount of rent due.

This additional layer of complexity adds significant legal risk, ambiguity, and confusion to operating properties in Massachusetts–an effect that, in turn, is one of the reasons that fewer apartments are being built and that many operators are leaving for states with saner regulatory environments.

Despite these numerous and serious problems with RAFT, most landlords would still be happy to use RAFT in the intended way–to provide speedy and temporary financial relief for struggling tenants–but the program clearly requires substantial reform to effectively serve this purpose. We suggest the following changes:

• Cut down RAFT application processing to 7 days. Property operators have an obligation to speedy responses to residents in many cases; the government should meet the same standards.

• Prohibit RAFT applicants from submitting an application more than twice to prevent abuse. We also propose speedier processing on the second submission.

These changes would protect landlords and deter malicious submissions while preserving RAFT’s ability to serve its intended purpose: supporting renters who are experiencing temporary financial challenges. In fact, they may enhance its ability to do so by making landlords less likely to seek eviction for non-paying tenants, and providing faster support to those who need it.

We hope that the EOHLC and all other involved parties will take these suggestions to heart for the good of all participants in Massachusetts’s housing system.

by Chris Lehman

The Precedent of NYC's Broker Fee Commission Structure: Lessons for Boston

In New York, the initial mandate forcing rental property owners to pay all broker fees was met with resistance and overturned in court. The following article examines the negative impacts of this mandate, had it been upheld, and why other cities, including Boston, should avoid such restrictive policies. Although this restriction was defeated at the Massachusetts State House during the recent legislative session, now is as good a time as ever to heed the warnings of experts who oppose these restrictions before they resurface as proposals once again. 

The Precedent of NYC's Broker Fee Commission Structure: Lessons for Boston

by Thomas Macdonald