Providence City Council President Rachel Miller has been touting the merits of rent control for nearly a year. She says the city has become unaffordable for working-class families, which prompted her to propose the rent control measure, which would cap annual rent increases on many properties to 4% a year.
Providence Mayor Brett Smiley has said he would veto the measure.
“The proposal that the city council has in front of them is going to lower no one’s rent,” Smiley told Ocean State Media last week. “In fact, it will perversely, I think, make the problem worse.”
Miller spoke with Ocean State Media morning host Luis Hernandez about the necessity of rent control, its potential ramifications, and Smiley’s public opposition to the ordinance.
Interview highlights
On why rent control is necessary
City Council President Rachel Miller: Rent has been out of control in the city of Providence for years. Over the last five years, rent prices have increased 40% in Providence. I know my wages have not increased by 40%... I know for our listeners that hasn’t been true. We keep making the top lists in the worst ways, right? “Most unaffordable for renters; fastest-rising rent.” Increasingly, people cannot afford to stay in their homes. And so when a rent renewal notice comes with a rent increase that is equal to an eviction notice, then it’s time for some thoughtful intervention. And that’s what this policy does.
On exemptions to the proposed rent control ordinance
Miller: A lot of things make this ordinance unique to Providence. One of them is, alongside the increase in rent, we’ve seen a massive corporatization of the rental market; big takeovers by large landlords. And so the ordinance is really looking to target those actors. Those are also the ones who raise rent faster and quicker. So we’re exempting the properties where, by and large, people are already doing no more than 4%. They have a vested interest in keeping stable tenants because it’s where they live. It’s owner-occupied properties. It’s a second property you might own largely because people inherit properties and they stay in the neighborhoods they grew up in, in Providence.
Again, we are targeting the place where it hurts the most. I am a renter. I’ve been lucky enough to have a landlord – a very stable landlord – in an owner-occupied property. I know that he and other landlords in similar positions are not increasing above maintenance costs or not increasing above 4% year over year. And so going to where the pain point is, going to where a large landlord is flipping because they know there’s competition from Boston and New York. They know that they can get more money from somebody else. They don’t care about who that person is. They just care about the property value.
On the potential consequences of rent control
Miller: There’s a lot of claims about how the ordinance will impact the city. Two things: one, none of those claims take into account how the city puts its hand on the lever when it comes to revenue. Just last year, we went to Smith Hill, we went to the State House, and got permission to reformulate our tax policy, [creating] a lot more tax levels. So there’s a lot more ability to work with rates and change rates, number one. Number two, a lot of [the opposition] is being driven from people who philosophically disagree that regulating this industry is the appropriate intervention. And I have to say, that doesn’t mean that those regulations aren’t critical and important for the people of Providence.
On the prospect of rent control being approved in Providence
Miller: Well, first, I want to say tonight we’re going to make history in the city of Providence. We are going to pass rent regulation. We’re going to take action for the working people of Providence. Two, I close no doors until they are closed. I’m saying the mayor still has the opportunity to do the right thing by letting this become law without his signature, by signing it into law when it gets to his desk.
I think this is a week of celebration for the City of Providence. I really think it is. Of course, there’s apprehension from smaller landlords who are just anxious about the idea of regulation. The ordinance was developed such that by and large, their practices won’t change, right? They won’t really interact with the [rent control] board because by and large, they are already not increasing over that 4%. There’s built-in where you don’t have to come to the board if your taxes increase over 5%; you can recoup those costs. If you’re doing a major project at your house, if your insurance goes up in a way you didn’t expect it to, you’ll be able to go to the board in a smooth way.
I understand the apprehension because new things create that. The ordinance itself and the policies in the ordinance do not merit it. And so a lot of it is being promoted by the corporations who absolutely do have something to lose, right? Large corporations who have been raising rent as high as it possibly can go for their shareholders absolutely do have something to lose here.
