|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Advocates for small rental property owners describe the rent control proposal likely headed for next fall’s ballot as the most “restrictive and aggressive” the state has seen to date and say it would be detrimental to small landlords.
Small property owners operate on tight margins, so many are typically only a few missed bank checks away from bankruptcy or losing their business, said Amir Shahsavari, president of the Small Property Owners Association.
He said if these “mom and pop” businesses no longer exist, tenants will be in a “tough predicament” if properties are taken over by larger corporations because they will no longer have a person to connect with immediately if there are issues in their building, a benefit usually provided by smaller landlords.
In addition, operating costs, like utilities, insurance and property taxes have risen in recent years, which factors into rent pricing. However, if caps are put in place, advocates are concerned property owners will not be able to adapt to these rising costs.
(New Bedford’s residential tax rate has been dropping from year to year, but the average tax bill has gone up because property values have increased.)
“On one hand, we appreciate the pressures that renters have when they say that rent is increasing,” Shahsavari said. “But what people miss in this story is that operating costs are also going up exorbitantly for the property owner, too.”
“If [small property owners] can’t increase rent rates, what’s going to happen is they have to exit the market,” said Tony Lopes, a SPOA vice president. “We can’t afford to supply this housing at a loss every month.”
The initiative seeks to limit annual rent increases for most residential units in Massachusetts by either the Consumer Price Index increase or 5% — whichever value is lower — during a 12-month period. It would set base rents as of Jan. 31, 2026, but state residents would not vote on the measure, which would apply to every municipality, until next November.
To reach the ballot, it must still go through a process that includes certification of more than 124,000 signatures, legislative review and likely another round of signature gathering if lawmakers do not approve the proposal.
Effect on small property owners
The rent control proposal would exempt owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer units from the measure. Noemi Ramos, executive director of the New England Community Project, said because of this, the notion that the measure will impact small landlords is “out the window.”
But Shahsavari of SPOA said this provision is “misleading” because property owners with four or fewer units are a minority among small property owners. Because of the tight limit, those who exceed this number — which he said is the “vast majority” of small property owners — would be categorized with companies that operate on a much larger and commercialized scale.
The SPOA says small property owners provide 65% of the rental housing in Massachusetts. Shahsavari said he doesn’t define a small property owner based on the number of apartment units an owner manages, but on the business’s structure, size, scope and reach.
“What one small owner can handle might be different from the capacity that another owner would have,” he said. “But it does ultimately come down to the degree to which the owner can manage his or her business in a hands-on way without expanding too far out to the point where they really become a conglomerate.”
Ramos said Homes For All Massachusetts, the statewide coalition behind the ballot initiative, decided to use four units as the cut-off in the provision after speaking with small property owners and deciding “what are our values when we think about how we define small landlords.”
“I remember asking one of the developers in the [city of Boston’s Rent Stabilization Advisory Committee], ‘how do you define a small landlord?’ and they said ‘50 units or less,’” Ramos said. “When you think about 50 units, that’s a business. That’s no longer a small landlord.”
Another provision in the initiative addresses development — another industry opposed to the bill — by exempting new apartment units for 10 years. (The provision would apply to apartment buildings that open after the measure’s approval and also those that have been built within the last 10 years.)
Tamara Small, CEO of the NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association of Massachusetts, said the “threat of the [rent control] question” is already having a chilling effect on investment and development. If implemented, she said the measure would also lead to decreased quality of housing and repairs, which would result in either sub-par conditions or units being taken off the market.
Antonio Ennis, a community organizer for Boston’s Dorchester neighborhood at City Life / Vida Urbana, disagreed with quality concerns and said landlords should always factor in money for property repairs and keeping buildings up to code. Ennis, a small property owner who occupies one unit and rents out two other units in a triple decker in Dorchester, would not be affected by the ballot measure.
Developers and property owner advocates said the primary solution to solving the state’s housing crisis is increased development, which they said a rent control measure would hinder.
“If rent control is in place in the market, investors do not go to that market. They go elsewhere,” Small said. “Without those investment dollars, projects are not built.”
Small pointed toward cities like Austin and Phoenix as models for Boston to solve its housing crisis. In both cities, an increased housing supply resulted in lower rent growth and prices.
“No financial decisions and investments are made on a 10-year time horizon,” said Conor Yunits, committee chair for an opposition group for the measure called “Housing for Massachusetts.”
The National Low Income Housing Coalition stated that Massachusetts needs to create 183,000 homes for low-income households statewide, according to its 2025 Massachusetts Housing Profile.
Mark Martinez, staff housing attorney for the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, pointed out that despite not having rent control for over 30 years, Massachusetts is still behind in terms of housing production.
“This isn’t a development policy. This is a stabilization policy,” he said. “Judging a stabilization policy based off of whether or not it’s going to spur development doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
He said the measure is a “common sense” policy, but not the only measure that needs to be taken to solve the housing crisis.
“It’s going to take a decade, if not longer, to build all the housing that we need,” Martinez said. “But in the meantime, families need to be able to stay around.”
New Bedford’s City Council voted in 2023 to introduce a non-binding ballot question that would’ve asked voters if they supported “an ordinance stabilizing rent,” but Mayor Jon Mitchell vetoed it. Councilor Shane Burgo, who spearheaded the measure, said this fall that he still supports the idea.
Rents in Massachusetts
Massachusetts historically has some of the nation’s highest rent prices, and recent reports have ranked it as the state with the second highest cost of living. In May, the Journal of Consumer Research ranked Massachusetts as the fifth worst state for renters due to a lack of affordability and availability.
“This is a statewide issue, and we’re continuing to see the crisis intensify across the state,” said Carolyn Chou, executive director of Homes For All Massachusetts. “We can’t wait while corporate landlords come into our cities and towns and hike up the rent and displace our communities.”
More than 50% of New Bedford residents who rent are “cost-burdened,” as of 2024, meaning they pay above 30% of their income on housing, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Residents paying more than 50% of their income on housing are classified as “severely cost burdened,” according to the Healey administration’s “A Home for Everyone” initiative. About 25% of renters in New Bedford fall into this category.
When families have to spend an excess amount of their income on housing, they have less money for needs such as food, transportation and child care. They are also unable to “save money for opportunities that could provide a pathway to higher income as well as wealth-building,” which includes education, job training or homeownership, according to the initiative.
“Rent often is the first place people put their money towards,” said Chelsea Sedani, director of advocacy at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. “If you don’t have that, it makes a lot of other things very challenging.”
Decreased rents could have an effect on the larger economy as well because they could potentially increase purchasing power.
“If we alleviate the pressure that people are feeling around housing costs, we’re going to make it easier for them to spend in other areas of their lives,” Sedani said.
The current proposal would require rent control for all of the state’s 351 municipalities, including New Bedford.
Massachusetts voters banned rent control in 1994 through a ballot proposal launched by SPOA. Many opponents cite this vote as another reason the new proposal should not be implemented.
Sen. Patricia Jehlen, D-Somerville, pointed out that Boston, Brookline and Cambridge — the only communities in Massachusetts with rent control in 1994 — voted against outlawing it then. She said Massachusetts needs to not just create more housing but to preserve “naturally occurring affordable housing.”
“People are not going to stay in Massachusetts if we just count on building new housing,” she said. “It’s not fast enough and not cheap enough.”
High rent prices make it difficult for residents to plan and save money long term, so rent increase caps would provide predictability that would keep people in their homes for longer, Martinez said.
Martinez grew up in rural western Massachusetts, which he said used to be the “affordable part of the state. Now, “there’s not an affordable part of Massachusetts anymore,” he said.
Although both supporters and opponents presented different ways on how to approach the housing affordability crisis, they agreed on one solution: increasing the supply of housing.
“Supply, supply, supply,” Yunits said. “That’s really all there is. We’ve got to build.”
Crystal Yormick is a Boston University journalism student and a frequent contributor to The New Bedford Light. Email her at cyormick@newbedfordlight.org.
I’m only for it if there’s a simultaneous push to build a lot more housing, everywhere. Rent control could be a good short term band aid until the housing is built, after which it all goes back to market value when there’s more supply to meet the demand. Lord knows that’s not gonna happen though lol.
Problem is that rent control is a disincentive for investors to build more housing. If returns are restricted via law, than investors are less likely to make risky bets on new projects.
The fundamental problem is that there is more demand for housing than there is supply of housing. Rent control in practice restricts supply while doing nothing to help demand. It creates winners (who get rent controlled housing) and losers who end up having to pay more.
Landlords always complain about everything. Under president Franklin Roosevelt, nationwide rent control was implemented, and the American people benefited from this. Real estate lobbyists control and buy influence with our elected officials, and they need to be stopped. Rent control is long overdue.
David, it didn’t work and actually caused many of the housing problems that persist today.
The long-term consequences of World War II rent controls included a permanent shift in the U.S. housing market toward homeownership, a reduction in the supply and quality of rental housing, and the fragmentation of rent
control policy into local and state-level issues.
Permanent Shift in the Housing Market
Increased Homeownership: Wartime rent control is credited with significantly contributing to a rapid, 10-percentage-point jump in U.S. homeownership rates between 1940 and 1945. Landlords, facing capped rental income but unrestricted sales prices, often converted their properties from rental units to owner-occupied housing by selling them on the open market, sometimes “forcing” tenants to purchase their homes or move.
Reduced Rental Supply: The conversion of rental units to owner-occupied homes permanently reduced the available rental stock. One study found that the supply response effectively undermined the original goal of protecting renters from fast-growing wartime housing costs in the long run.
Housing Quality and Shortages
Deterioration of Rental Stock: In areas where controls persisted, such as New York City, landlords had reduced financial incentive to invest in property maintenance and repairs. This led to deferred maintenance, urban decay, and a general decline in the quality of rent-controlled units, which often harmed the low-income residents the policy was designed to protect.
Persistent Shortages: By artificially suppressing rents below market equilibrium, the controls created persistent housing shortages in affected cities, characterized by low vacancy rates that continued for years after the war.
Policy Legacy
Transition to Local Control: The federal government gradually phased out its nationwide control program after the war, largely completing the process by the early 1950s. This left states and individual cities to implement their own regulations, leading to a patchwork of varying rent control laws across the country that persisted for decades in some urban centers like New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
Inhibited New Construction: The perception of reduced profitability due to potential future rent regulations discouraged investment in new rental housing construction in some areas where stringent rent control continued.
The WWII era is often cited in modern economic analyses as a key historical example of how rent control policies can have significant, and often unintended, long-term consequences on housing markets and urban development.
So, no, it didn’t work. And just like back then, many owners will sell to either out of state investors or go condo, etc. Developers will build elsewhere, and the number of units will go down, thus putting pressure on elected officials to find yet another solution, and there is zero money in the state or federal government to build more government housing, so what then? As it is, the MA Housing Authorities have a 10 year waiting list and a billion dollars of deferred maintenance.
I like how rent control is a “disincentive for investors” but you all want us to believe with your supply and demand economics that costs go down when you build more. Which is it? If the idea is investors are “spooked” by caps in rent increases how exactly does building more, which to my understanding is supposed to mean lower rents, a worthy investment. Good Lord.
It honestly works.
When free market forces apply, and when you increase the supply of housing, the costs naturally go down for both the tenants and the investors who will then be motivated to build more housing.
Simply put, the less it costs to build (or acquire) and the less it costs to operate (less taxes, less bureaucratic fees, less evictions, etc.) then the less rent hikes have to be other than normal costs.
Austin TX proved if you remove barriers to building, taxes, zoning, NIMBYisms, etc, more housing is built and rents go down.
Supply and demand.
It does work.
Rent is a mager problem for low income individuals control should be a major influence in rent control for all individuals landlords are taking advantage of the people with less money
Small landlords are not taking advantage. That is were most of low income are looking for housing. I am a small landlords with an old building that need up keep to keep it running. Insurance has gone way up gas has gone way up. I pay for gas for the residents. Electricity is gone way up, not to mention taxes, along with a loan for the building. If there’s rent control, then I won’t be able to keep the building running. I don’t go up on my tenants. More than five percent every two years, so those of the people we’re going to get hit and have to sell to these larger companies who will turn those into condominiums and then they won’t be there for any residence.
This rent control is only for smaller apartments. Doesn’t affect lodge buildings that a run by multiple landlords. Read the article when it says about small landlords. And what happens, band up selling. How does that help tenants that need apartments at a reasonable cost?
Is capping rent rise at twice the inflation rate reasonable?
20% of the rent??
Condominiums are controlled by the unit owners.
Here in New Bedford the city council passed a rent control initiative and our Mayor vetoed it. Rents in New Bedford have gotten out of. The struggling people of our city needed help and this Mayor said tough luck. I’ve seen rents go from 800$ a month to 1800$ in one fell swoop. Greedy multi millionaire landlords from out of town are the problem along with out of control property taxes caused by a mayor who has grown the city’s operating budget by over a quarter of a billion dollars with revenue losses and won’t accept responsibility.
The council didn’t pass an initiative. They wanted to put a question on the ballot that asked votes “Do you support rent control? Yes or No”
What should be cut?
Police?
Fire?
Public infrastructure?
Building inspections?
Schools?
Omg, same response, over and over…broken record!
I think in order for landlords to stop raising rents so high in in 4years my rent went from 800 to starting January 117o you need to lower property taxes water it deems like once the trains was really being built and up and running taxes went up and unfortunately it made rent s skyrocket for a train the city of New Bedford did not need this their way of making us the landlords and tenants pay for the trai
First. Are we talking real mom and pop landlords or fronts for LLC s from out of town who kick people out of affordable housing so they can raise rents and make huge profits? Common problem is this practice that results in doubling rents. There are no limits to how much rent can be increased even if there are no upgrades. I lived in a building with 10 units.. New owner doubled rents upon purchase while reducing amenities such as they were. Ascertain from the anti rent control people, like the ones quoted here, if the really are mom and pop or fronts for LLCs. City hall is allowing speculators to buy New Bedford for parts
Us — “We can’t afford to buy a home or pay rent because you continue to raise prices arbitrarily (for greed) and it’s preventing us from participating in the broader economy.”
Developers/Landlords — “Right well you should’ve thought of that before trying to deny me my right to make you pay more. And, anyways, we’ll just build more homes even though we haven’t been doing that at all.”
Non-Profits — “Oh gosh this is just so bad. We will release an infographic and quote about it!”
There. It’s actually that simple. And it’s insane. Demand better.
So true greed permeates
To the us – pool your resources. Take your money in retirements and savings and put it in one big pot. Next approach government to give you land for free and promise that when there’s housing, you will pay property taxes. Next nights and weekends use your own labor to create housing units. Governments are broke and cannot afford to build units at $1 million each.
Affordable housing is needed. People living on fixed income can’t afford to pay 2 thousand a month in rent. If they only get 2 thousand a month check. They pay rent have no money for food. They have to eat too. How do they do this
It’s clear property taxes go up due to value increasing. Therefore if your taxes have gone down your property value has also gone down. The amount a landlord can increase should be reasonable to the cost of water, real estate tax and repairs. There are many out there that just go up because everyone else does. There should be a form the landlords submit AI(God forbid a person), that can state how much the landlord is allowed to raise a rent. They prove how much increased divided by the amount of tenants, then they can increase.
It would make the rents more affordable and be fair to the residents. At the same time, tenants should be held responsible for certain wear and tear items. That way. More would take care of the apartment instead of beating on it. (Use within reason)
Property taxes go up when spending goes up.
Wrong. Property taxes after the rate is agreed on is on the value of the home! Get your facts straight.
Use the California state rent control model: No annual rent increase over 5%. Remember that many of these “small property owners” purchased their properties when prices were very low, and now they are asking reach prices based on hopes that the train means they are getting the higher-income market—but that is not likely to be the case. Property owners have higher-than-ever expectations for returns on their investments. The problem with a city-scale call for rent control is that property owners will pay big money and organize to fight it, while renters are not organized and do not have that money.
You said “Many of these “small property owners” purchased their properties when prices were very low…” But what if they did not? Maybe they bought it this year, even though prices are high and rates are high as an investment for the future? Maybe they bought one per year and now own 5 or 6 3-family homes, with 18-20 units total.
They still likely have a full time job, a working spouse, two children in local schools, and they face the same pressures at the grocery store as you do, their taxes keep going up, water bills, insurance etc. and then all the added expenses of the rentals, which is also how they pay for their aging mother to live in a memory care unit.
It’s so easy to think that most landlords are ‘rich’ when most were just getting by. One big expense, a leaky roof, a blown furnace, and the ‘profit’ is gone for the year.
Most landlords I know and I know more than a few are just barely eeking by, and worried about their job being taken by AI too, and hoping that a few small investments will get them by.
No one does this for ‘free’, not even the government, and there is not enough money in state or federal government to provide housing for all.
What we need is drastically less regulation, fix zoning issues, allow rooming houses, ADUs, and enough of the NIMBY rules to encourage people to develop more housing and watch how the free market works.
Rent control does not work. There is insufficient funds to properly maintain a property.
Not one comment above about freezing operating costs in water, sewer, property taxes, utilities, insurance, repairs. ALL of them are well above 5 percent per year. Operating costs are passed along in food, gasoline, clothing, and housing. Some of you call it inflation (which is caused by the inflating of the money supply *due to decades of living beyond our means*).
We need more housing. Housing that is constructed for far lower cost. And everyone needs to pitch in to accomplish that.
Do the math. We are told we need 200,000 more housing units statewide. At a cost of 900k each. That is 180 billion. The state will spend around 61 billion this year. To fund those units would require state tax hike of around five times. No politician will tell the public that. The solution is EVERY single person has to pitch in if we want to solve this problem.
You can’t freeze rents at 5% and not freeze ALL operating costs at 5%. This is simple math.
– If you can’t cover costs you go out of business.
– If you can cover costs but can’t make a profit then you find another business venture because no one works for free.
Rent control is a lazy, unimaginative, failed way to manage a housing affordability crisis.
Affordable housing is a social need, however instead of infringing on constitutional rights of private individual owners to own and operate their properties, it would be more productive to set up a state wide fund ( may be with additional property taxes or similar) to pay for the increased rent to eligible families. It is better to let the free market factors play their part and encourage investment thus solving supply problem in the long run too in addition to immediate payment problem at hand.
No to rent control, anything this state government touches gets scewed it up, prime example ” thanks to Maura Healey the only ones that aren’t affected by high costs of rents are illegals, they get a monthly stipend of up to $2,500.00 ” VOTE Mauara Healy out of the Governor’s office.
thanks to Maura Healey the only ones that aren’t affected by high costs of rents are illegals, they get a monthly stipend of up to $2,500.00 ”
Source?
Don’t be so lazy, do a simple search, than you won’t have to wonder why no one responds to you.
Illegals do not get anything monetary wise. They are illegal. However, their children do get a spot in a school. Which is using our resources, our hard earned dollars. They do not get health care either. If they are illegal.
FACT, Illegals do not get $2500.00 a month stipend.
Rent control didn’t work in 1994. Why is it gonna work now? It was a disaster. properties were falling apart landlords didn’t do anything cause they had no money. I lived it driving down the streets in Cambridge places were fallen apart terrible that’s why they got rid of it in the first place.
Landlords including small landlord have raised rent that doesn’t reflect the transparent costs to maintain their properties and are getting away with violating tenant rights everywhere in Massachusetts. Capping rent increases is urgently needed and claims rent control will have a negative impact clearly hasn’t been a renter in the last five to seven years.. anyone who can own more than 4 rental units is holding roughly 2 million dollars in assets many renters don’t ever have or could obtain. Even the little landlord in the system have raised rents 100-130% from previous years claiming value increase out of nowhere.
Well said.
While the frustration renters feel is real, broad rent control misdiagnoses the problem and risks making it worse. Most rent increases over the last five to seven years are not arbitrary, they track sharp increases in property taxes, insurance premiums, utilities, maintenance labor, materials, and compliance costs, many of which have risen 40–100% in Massachusetts. Small landlords are not immune to these pressures, and owning multiple units does not mean having liquid wealth; many are highly leveraged and operating on thin margins.
Capping rents without addressing underlying cost drivers discourages maintenance, reinvestment, and new housing supply; leading to deferred repairs, fewer rentals, and higher prices over time.
The cities with the most severe affordability crises are those that failed to build enough housing while piling costs onto existing stock. Real tenant protection comes from enforcing existing laws, increasing transparency, reducing taxes and fees, and dramatically expanding housing supply and not policies that freeze symptoms while deepening the structural shortage.
People demonize landlords, but the truth is not all tenants take care of the property they live in. The cost to turn over a unit is huge if you can’t do the work yourself. Utility bills are off the charts, insurance is crazy and in Springfield they raised taxes on a four family 37 percent and I was told most had gotten 40 percent. I have a long tenant that I have helped get wayfinders for the past two years, she stopped paying rent in August for a large one bedroom apartment with private entries, parking and a wrap around porch. She paid 1,000 a month. MA is horrible for LL’s, she refused to apply for help and has disappeared. I had a feeling so I started the eviction process in August, she blew off court and now I’m forced to higher a sheriff and bonded mover. They charge, 125 to move a couch, 125 to move a mattress and I have to pay six months storage for her. I filed everything on time and the date I was given for her move out is January 20th. I will never see that money, which will be an easy if not more than 8,000. Talk about a kick to the gut and she never showed up to court or contested it. It should NOT take this long and you wonder why LL’s raise rents
Jewel, Springfield………take your complaints to Springfield, not New Bedford. I agree tenants need to take care of their apartment. If the damage something, floors, walls or appliances, they should have to fix. But regular upkeep needs to be done by the landlord! That’s part of being a landlord. Did you get first and last month deposit? Not sure if this is legal, how about having a clause with 500.00 deposit for condition of unit upon departure, if the tenant leaves the apartment in good shape they get their deposit back.
A $500 security deposit is minuscule when there is a damaged department.
In addition when an apartment is severely damaged, it’s off-line for months or longer. That means less rental housing for people. When the unit comes back online, the owner needs to recoup their costs and takes the unit to the market rent.
Over the past five years, the cost side of housing has changed dramatically. In Massachusetts, property taxes in many cities have risen 20–40%, insurance premiums are up 30–100% (and in some cases insurers have exited the market entirely), utilities have increased 25–50%, and construction and repair costs are up roughly 35–60% due to labor shortages and material inflation. Interest rates more than doubled between 2021 and 2024, meaning many small landlords renewing loans saw debt service jump tens of thousands of dollars per year. A landlord owning 4–6 units may control assets valued on paper at $2M, but that does not equal cash flow; those properties are often leveraged 60–80%, with margins that can disappear quickly. When rents rise, it is overwhelmingly a response to these hard costs and a severe housing shortage, not unchecked profiteering. Policies that cap revenue without addressing taxes, insurance, energy costs, and housing supply will reduce maintenance, push small owners out, and ultimately leave renters with fewer options and worse conditions.
I’ve lived through rent control
in three different states. NY, MA, and NJ. It doesn’t work.
For one there is no means testing so anyone no matter how wealthy can live in a rent controlled apartment. There was a Harvard professor who had two: one to live in and one for her books.
Here are all the reasons rent control is bad:
1. Reduces turnover so people become overhoused. Still have friends in NY living in the same apt since they were born. Single person in an apt that should go to a family.
2. Does not take into account increased costs of insurance, taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenance, or unpaid rent. Costs for landlords are rising more than a paltry 5%.
3. Properties go into disrepair. That’s why Somerville used to be called Slumerville.
4. Homes in MA are often old and require more maintenance and upkeep.
5. Small landlords are affected. The minute an owner occupant moves out of their 4 unit or less multi family it goes under rent control.
6. No means testing
Solution:
The government has to stop placing the burden and blame for the lack of affordable housing on LL’s when the government is to blame for not addressing this problem decades ago. The only solution is to build more housing and to give more rent subsidy vouchers to those who are properly vetted.
I forgot one last reason why rent control is bad.
7. Investors and developers stop wanting to build in an area.
Venu is right on the money with their thinking . The government subsidizes the cost of milk with all our tax dollars because they have determined that it is a basic societal need . Note the word …All ….of our tax dollars … So should the cost of housing be supported by using all of our tax dollars to create a fund or voucher system to help out lower income folks to pay for an apartment . The owners of the real estate should not be the only ones to
pay for this . The entire society – through everyone’s tax dollars -should contribute to helping stabilize the cost of what has been determined – like milk – to be a commodity that it is in everyone’s interest to provide . Rent control is a lazy persons answer to this problem that discriminates against
a minority group by restricting only property owners income .
Why should it be put onto the landlords?
next it will be put onto the smaller or even the large grocery stores for charging too much for milk, eggs etc.
How about gas stations? Lets restrict them from charging too much for gas.
Lets talk about, stop raising electric, natural gas, taxes, insurance, and the cost of maintenance.
Lets come up with something that doesn’t alway hurt the landlord he is not the enemy.