Let’s start from the top.

Rent control is a measure to limit the amount a landlord can increase rent in a given year. It sets a cap at 5% or the consumer price index (CPI), whichever is lower. So if you pay $2,000 per month for rent, it can only be increased by, at most, $100 per month in a given year.

Advocates from around the state are trying to get rent control on the ballot this year in an
attempt to solve the problem that has plagued municipalities around the country: corporate landlords are jacking up rent to get a better return on their investment, people are being pushed out of their homes, and an already dire housing and humanitarian crisis gets more dire.

It’s happening in every state, including Massachusetts, where rent control has been banned
since 1994. Here, the triple threat of low inventory, high prices, and a lack of affordable housing has made Massachusetts one of the most expensive states in the country. Thousands of people are living on the streets because of it.

Rent control alone won’t fix this crisis, but advocates and economists agree, it’s a necessary
start.

Here’s what rent control is not here to do: punish small-scale landlords. Owner-occupied buildings with less than four units are exempt from this measure. So if you live downstairs and your tenant lives upstairs, this doesn’t apply to you.

Rent control does not pose a legitimate threat to the construction of new homes. The measure won’t affect “dwelling units with a date of first occupancy that is less than 10 years old.” For an entire decade, developers can run wild with annual rent increases. And if that’s somehow not enough, maybe we should start talking about the incentive structure for those in the business of building homes.

Rent control does not lead to units that aren’t maintained or the conversion of more condos. That’s just good old fashioned corporate greed. Well-paid real estate executives will do whatever they can to convince you that the leak can’t be fixed because of rent control rather than the reality: they can’t make as much money if they fix it.

Rent control is also not going to drive up your taxes. But the long-term effects of housing
instability sure will.

Anyone who tells you the math of rent control doesn’t work is ignoring the countless studies and examples that show stabilizing housing and keeping people in their homes saves taxpayers money. And that’s not even talking about the actual lives that are saved.

A lack of rent control will (because it already has for 30 years) push people out of their homes and their communities. Folks trying to survive on the street will inevitably face longer, more frequent trips to the ER. They will need emergency shelters open for longer hours especially during increasingly cold winters and hot summers. All of those expenses will be on you.

Usually when people start throwing numbers around or talk about economic feasibility, they’ve lost sight of or just don’t care about the humanity of the issue. It doesn’t help that we casually use the same word (rent) to mean both “the price of a home to live in” and “a 48-hour streaming window for Wicked 2.” Some may call it semantics, I’d call it a subconscious way to lose track of what’s really at stake here.

So let’s remind ourselves. Rent is housing. It’s an essential human need. And the goal of rent control is to take power away from corporate real estate executives and make housing more affordable for everyone. It’s not a silver bullet. It absolutely cannot be the only thing we do to solve the housing crisis. But it has to be one of them.

Mike Lovett is a resident of Greenfield.